HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Croak Jordan Med Density~\ r
~I~V
\~~/
CITY CLERK
File # ^~ /^^-00
~i2o-3o
L1r
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 7, 2008
SUBJECT: Public Hearing - PA 07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density:
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and Planned
Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan to change
the existing Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties to
Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density land use designations with
minimum rear yard setback requirements.
Report prepared by Jeff Baker, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution amending the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan to change the existing Medium Density land
use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties to Medium-Low
and Medium-Mid Density designations.
2) Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with
amended Stage 1 Development Plan for the Medium-Low and
Medium-Mid Density designations on the Croak and Jordan
properties.
3) City Council/Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report dated
August 19, 2008 with attachments.
4) City Council/Planning Commission Study Session Meeting Minutes
dated August 19, 2008.
5) Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 9, 2008 without
attachments.
6) Planning Commission draft Meeting Minutes dated September 9,
2008.
7) Planning Commission Resolution recommending that the City
Council adopt a Resolution amending the City of Dublin General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the existing
Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan
properties to Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations.
8) Planning Commission Resolution recommending that the City
Council adopt an Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development
Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan for the Medium-
Low and Medium-Mid Density designations on the Croak and Jordan
properties.
COPY TO: Property Owners
PA File
ITEM NO. IV •
Page 1 of 7
G:\PA#\2007\07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density\City Council\CC 10.7.08\ccsr 10.7.08 Medium Density.DOC
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive Staff presentation;
2) Open the Public Hearing;
3) Receive public testimony;
4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; and
5) Adopt the following:
a. Resolution amending the City of Dublin General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the existing Medium
t~ Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties
to Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations; and
b. Waive the reading and introduce the Ordinance approving a PD-
_ Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1
Development Plan for the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid
Density designations on the Croak and Jordan properties.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No financial impact at this time. Development at the midpoint of the
proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density ranges would
result in the same number of units anticipated for the existing
Medium Density designation and would maintain the existing fiscal
balance. However, topography, development standards and product
type could result in development below or above the midpoint of the
proposed density ranges.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background
The City Council held a Strategic Planning Session on January 12, 2007. During this Strategic Planning
Session the City Council discussed the existing General Plan and Specific Plan Residential Land Use
Designations within the City of Dublin and the need for larger private yards. Concerns were raised during
this discussion regarding the need for a variety of housing types (i.e. detached units, row homes, stacked
flats, etc.) and homes with larger private yards on undeveloped land within the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan (EDSP) area that has a Medium Density (6.1-14 du/acre) land use designation.
Staff studied the densities, residential land use policies, existing land use patterns, the City of Dublin
Village Policy Statement, and the status of entitlements for the land designated for residential development
within the EDSP. Staff Reports were prepared for the April 3, 2007 and October 16, 2007, City Council
Meetings with different policy alternatives for City Council consideration.
City Council Action -April 3, 2007 and October 16, 2007
The City Council reviewed both of these Staff Reports and
expressed a desire to provide a housing product type that is
between a stacked product and a larger single-family detached
unit with a private usable yard (Please refer to the August 3,
2007 and October 16, 2007 City Council Meeting Minutes
included in Attachment 3 pages 29-37 and 48-53). The City
Council also expressed a concern regarding the existing policy
to calculate densities based on gross rather than net acreage.
The City Council identified two Medium Density properties
(Croak and Jordan) (Map 1 to the right) within the EDSP that
do not have vested development rights and that do not have a
Page 2 of 7
Map 1-Vicinity Map
current development application in process with the City. The City Council directed Staff to prepare
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments (GPA/EDSPA) and a Planned Development
(PD) Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment as described below with the goal of creating private usable
yards:
1. Create Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre) land
use designations to replace the existing Medium Density (6.1-14 du/acre) land use designation on
the Croak and Jordan properties;
2. Calculate densities for the two new land use designations based on net developable acres; and
3. Require usable yards for development within the Medium-Low Density designation.
Staff prepared a GPA, EDSPA, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment for the Croak and Jordan
properties as directed by the City Council on October 16, 2007.
Planning Commission Action -November 27, 2007
On November 27, 2007 the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to review the proposed
amendments to the General Plan, EDSP, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan (Please refer to the Planning
Commission Staff Report and Meeting Minutes included in Attachment 3 pgs 54-65 and 66-81). The
Planning Commission raised a number of concerns with the proposed amendments including the
following:
1. The Medium Density product type already exists;
2. Private yards can be achieved at this time in the Medium Density;
3. Potential loss of units and fairness concerns using net density;
4. Market demand should not be limited and remain flexible;
5. Small area for application of policies; and
6. The need for a market study of housing needs to verify market demands.
Based on the above concerns, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City
Council not approve the proposed GPA, EDSPA and PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment.
Please refer to Attachment 3 (pages 7-14) for a discussion of the Planning Commission concerns.
Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session -August 19, 2008
The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint Study Session on August 19, 2008 to discuss
the following:
The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations;
Gross vs. net density requirements; and
Usable yard requirements.
The Study Session Staff Report included three policy alternatives for consideration by the City Council
(Please refer to the City Council/Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report and Meeting Minutes
that are included as Attachment 3 (pgs 1-14) and Attachment 4 respectively). The City Council
directed Staff to proceed with Alternative A and prepare a GPA, EDSPA, and PD Stage 1 Development
Plan Amendment to create the following:
1. Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations;
2. Minimum 15' rear yard setback requirements for units with private rear yards; and
3. Minimum 20' rear yard setback requirements for 1 in 5 units with private rear yards.
Page 3 of 7
Planning Commission Meeting -September 9, 2008
Staff prepared the GPA, EDSPA, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment based on the direction
received from the City Council at the Study Session on August 19, 2008. On September 9, 2008 the
Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to review the proposed GPA, EDSPA, and PD Amendment
(Please refer to the September 9, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report and Draft Meeting Minutes
included as Attachments 5 and 6).
Three members of the public spoke about the proposed modifications including Kevin Fryer of Mission
Valley Properties representing the Jordan Ranch property, Pat Croak representing the Croak property,
and Jeff Lawrence from Braddock and Logan.
Mr. Fryer presented an example of one product type that they are considering for the proposed Medium-
Low Density portion of the Jordan property. The product type example consists of clusters of four
single-family detached units built around 500 s.f. private yards that have a dimension of approximately
20'x25'.
Mr. Fryer expressed concern regarding the topography of the Jordan property and the lack of flexibility
regarding rear yard setback requirements. Mr. Fryer indicated that the northern 3.4-acres of the proposed
Medium-Low Density is too steep to develop. He felt it would be difficult to achieve the midpoint
density as well as provide usable yards using the cluster development example if the northern 3.4-acres
have limited development potential. He stated that the lack of flexibility regarding the proposed rear
yard setback requirements was of greater concern than the potential loss of units associated with the
proposed product type.
The product type provided by Mr. Fryer at the Planning Commission hearing does not appear to meet the
proposed 15'-20' rear yard setback requirement. While the product type presented by Mr. Fryer is one
example of a Medium-Low Density product type there are additional product types including traditional
single-family detached units, duplexes and townhomes that could be developed with traditional rear
yards.
Pat Croak expressed similar concerns to those of Mr. Fryer regarding the topography of the Croak
property and the unintended consequences that may occur as a result of the proposal to modify the land
use designations and rear yard setback requirements.
Jeff Lawrence stated that the development plan for Fallon Village currently provides for a variety of
different housing types and densities. Mr. Lawrence also expressed concern regarding topography and
the ability to achieve densities on the Croak and Jordan properties. He expressed concern that the
proposed amendments could result in a loss of units on the Croak and Jordan properties due to
topography.
The Planning Commission discussed the proposed amendments. Commissioners Schaub and Tomlinson
expressed concern regarding the potential loss of units, lack of flexibility in the proposed rear yard
setback requirement, and the ability to provide a variety of product types. Commissioners Wehrenberg
and Biddle felt that the proposed amendments were consistent with the City Council direction and they
felt that they could make the appropriate findings to support the proposed amendments.
Following a discussion by the Planning Commission, a motion recommending that the City Council
approve the proposed amendments was put to a vote. The vote was 2-2-1 with Commissioners Biddle
and Wehrenberg in support, Commissioners Schaub and Tomlinson against, and Commissioner King
absent. In accordance with the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure and Section 2.12.040 of the
Page 4 of 7
Dublin Municipal Code (Chairman-Rules-Records-Meetings), a tie vote ultimately defeats a motion
unless a subsequent motion is passed. A subsequent motion was not presented; therefore, the Planning
Commission does not recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments.
The following is a discussion of the proposed GPA, EDSPA, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan
Amendment for the Croak and Jordan properties. The proposed amendments are based on the feedback
and direction from the City Council at the joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session
on August 19, 2008 which was presented to the Planning Commission on September 9, 2008. No
modifications have been made to the proposed amendments described below as a result of the Planning
Commission hearing.
ANALYSIS:
Proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density Designations
Land Use Designations
Staff prepared the following definitions for proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density
land use designations on the Croak and Jordan properties:
Residential: Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 units per gross residential acre).
Units in this density range will be detached, zero-lot line, duplex, and/or townhouse developments
suitable for family living with private flat usable outdoor yard areas that accommodate leisurely
activities typically associated with a residence. Unit types and densities may be similar or varied.
Assumed household size is two persons per unit.
Residential: Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 units gross residential acre).
This density range allows detached, zero-lot line, duplex townhouse, and/or garden apartment
developments suitable for family living with private flat usable outdoor yard areas that
accommodate leisurely~activities typically associated with a residence or usable common areas (tot
lot, picnic area, swimming pool areas, etc.) that accommodate recreational and leisurely activities.
Unit types and densities may be similar or varied. Assumed household size is two persons per
unit."
Location of Proposed Land Uses
The existing Medium Density sites on the Croak and Jordan
properties would be equally divided into Medium-Low and
Medium-Mid Density as shown on Map 2 (to the right). The
proposed land uses maintain the transition from the more
intense High Density Residential and Mixed Use at the core of
the Fallon Village Center to the less intense Low Density
Residential uses that surround the Village Center.
Development at the midpoint of the proposed density range
would result in the same number of units (104 units on Croak
and 234 units on Jordan) anticipated for the existing Medium
Density that was studied in the Fallon Village SEIR and would
maintain the existing jobs/housing balance. (Please refer to
the October 16, 2007 City Council Staff Report Tables 2, 3
and 4 included in Attachment 3 on pgs 40, 44 and 46). The
units would simply be redistributed across the proposed
Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density designations
and no additional environmental review would be required.
Page 5 of 7
Map 2 -Proposed
Land Use Designations
Conclusion -Land Use Designations
The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations ensure that a variety of different
housing types are constructed on the Croak and Jordan properties (i.e. detached and attached housing).
The Medium-Low Density designation also ensures that the homes have private yards. However, the
land use designations do not guarantee the size of these private yards. Therefore, the proposed PD Stage
1 Development Plan Amendment (discussed below) includes minimum rear yard setback requirements
to ensure that the private yards are large enough to be usable.
Rear Yard Setback Requirements
The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations permit a variety of attached and
detached product types as discussed above. The Medium-Low Density designation requires each unit to
include a private usable rear yard. The Medium-Mid Density designation allows either a private usable
rear yard for each unit or shared common areas, dependent upon the product type proposed for
development.
The properties in the EDSP have Planned Development (PD) zoning with development standards that
are tailored to each development. PD zoning with customized development standards is intended to
provide greater. flexibility and creativity than traditional zoning. The Croak and Jordan properties are
subject to the Fallon Village PD Stage 1 Development Plan which includes development standards. The
proposed PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment (Attachment 2) would modify the existing
development standards to require the following rear yard setback requirements for the proposed
Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations as directed by the City Council at the August 19,
2008 Study Session:
^ Minimum 15' flat usable rear yard setback for attached and detached units with private yards;
and
^ Minimum 20' flat usable rear yard setback for 1 out of every 5 attached and detached units with
private yards.
Examples of what could typically occur in a 15'-20' rear yard include children's play equipment, a patio
with table and chairs, a garden, or a hot tub. The proposed PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment
includes a revised Stage 1 Site Plan showing the location of the land uses, and the 15'-20' rear yard
setback requirement as described above. Please refer to Attachment 2 for the proposed PD Stage 1
Development Plan Amendments.
In accordance with the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, a PD Stage 2 Development Plan is required before
development can occur on the Croak and Jordan properties. The PD Stage 2 Development Plan will
include additional development standards for the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations
that are tailored to the proposed development and that incorporate the 15'-20' rear yard setback as
required by the Stage 1 Development Plan.
Conclusion -Private Yard Requirements
The proposed 15'-20' flat usable rear yard setback requirement for the proposed Medium-Low and
Medium-Mid Densities would apply to attached and detached units that include private rear yards. The
proposed setback requirements are provided to ensure that the private yards in the Medium-Low and
Medium-Mid Densities are large enough to accommodate leisurely activities that typically occur in rear
yards. The PD zoning with customized development standards will continue to allow flexibility and
creativity while providing a minimum rear yard setback.
Page 6 of 7
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project has been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA
Guidelines and the Dublin Environmental Guidelines. On December 6, 2005, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 222-OS certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH
#2005062010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR, a program EIR, initially certified by the City of Dublin in
1993 (SCH#91103064) and the Eastern Dublin Property Owners SEIR (SCH # 2001052114) certified in
2002 by Resolution 40-02 for the Fallon Village project. The prior EIRs are available for review in the
Community Development Department. The proposed project is within the scope of the SEIR for the
Fallon Village project area because the project does not result in increased units or density beyond what
was previously studied for the subject properties, and therefore no additional environmental review is
required.
NOTICING:
In accordance with State law, a public notice regarding this hearing was mailed to all property owners and
occupants within 300 feet of the subject properties. A public notice was also sent to the City's interested
parties list, published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City.
CONCLUSION:
The City Council has the authority to modify General Plan and Specific Plan Land Use Designations at
any time. On April 3, 2007, and with further direction on October 16, 2007 and August 19, 2008, the
City Council directed Staff to prepare a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to
replace the existing Medium Density (6.1-14 du/acre) portion of the Croak and Jordan properties with
Medium-Low (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre) land use designations. The
City Council further directed Staff to prepare a PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment to require a
minimum 15'-20' rear yard setback for units with private rear yards in the proposed Medium-Low and
Medium-Mid Density designations on the Croak and Jordan properties. The proposed amendments to
the General Plan, EDSP, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan will implement the City Council direction
and ensure a variety of housing types with private usable rear yards. Any substantive changes to the
proposed GPA, EDSPA or PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment would require the Planning
Commission to review the proposed modifications and make a recommendation to the City Council
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing; 3)
Receive public testimony; 4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt the following: a)
Resolution amending the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the
existing Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties to Medium-Low and
Medium-Mid Density designations; and b) waive the reading and introduce the Ordinance approving a
PD-Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan for the Medium-Low and
Medium-Mid Density designations on the Croak and Jordan properties.
Page 7 of 7
i ~6~
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 08
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AMENDING THE CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC
PLAN TO CHANGE THE EXISTING MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION ON
THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES TO MEDIUM-LOW AND MEDIUM-MID
DENSITY DESIGNATIONS (APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002)
PA 07-056
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2007, the City Council initiated a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) Study to create Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density
land use designations for the existing Medium-Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties, which
are generally located north of the future Central Parkway extension, east of Croak Road and within the
1,134-acre Fallon Village project area (APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002); and
WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan was originally adopted on February 11, 1985, and has been
amended a number of times since that date; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report for the original General Plan was prepared and
adopted in 1984 and subsequent environmental reviews have been undertaken in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for. the various General Plan Amendments which have
been approved over the years; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan on
January 7, 1994 and both plans have been amended a number of times since that date to provide a
comprehensive planning framework for future development of the eastern Dublin area; and
WHEREAS, in connection with the adoption of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168, the City certified a Program
Environmental Impact Report ("Program EIR") (SCH No. 91103064) which was integral to the planning
process and examined the direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts, broad policy alternatives and
area-wide mitigation measures for development within eastern Dublin and is incorporated herein by
reference; and
WHEREAS, in connection with the annexation and prezoning of the East Dublin Property
Owners (EDPO) Area, which includes the Croak and Jordan properties, into the City of Dublin, the City
Council certified a Supplemental EIR (SCH No. 2001052114) by Resolution No. 40-02 which adopted.
supplemental mitigation measures, mitigation findings, a statement of overriding consideration -and a
mitigation monitoring program, all of which continue to apply to the project area; and
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005 the City Council adopted a General Plan Amendment and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for the Fallon Village project area, which includes the Croak
and Jordan properties by Resolution No. 223-05, which is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005, the City Council also adopted Resolution No. 222-OS
certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH #2005062010) to the Eastern
Dublin EIR and the Supplemental EIR for the Eastern Dublin Property Owners (EDPO) which is
incorporated herein by reference; and
y~eh-, ~- l U~ ~1 ~ fit
ATTACHMENT 1
~~~69
WHEREAS, the General Plan identifies land use designations, densities, policies related to
density calculations, and includes a General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 1-la) which shows the location
of land uses within the City of Dublin and the Sphere of Influence; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use section of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan currently includes text
related to Specific Plan Land Use Designations and the "Land Use Map" map (Figure 4.1) indicates the
location of land uses within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the California CEQA
Guidelines require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental
documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, because the project does not result in an increased number of units or density
beyond what was previously studied for the Croak and Jordan properties the proposed project is within
the scope of the Fallon Village SEIR and no additional environmental review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public
hearing on said project on September 9, 2008; and
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 08-22
incorporated herein by reference, recommending that the City Council approve the General Plan
Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated October 7, 2008, and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments for the Croak
and Jordan properties; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the project at a noticed public hearing on October 7,
2008, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and
testimony herein above set forth, including prior EIRs, and used its independent judgment to evaluate the
project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and
made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby find that
the following amendments to the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are in the
public interest and will not have an adverse affect on health or safety or be detrimental to the public
welfare or be injurious to property or public improvement and that the Dublin General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby find that
the proposed map and text amendments to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are
consistent with all other goals, policies and implementing programs set forth in the General Plan and the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby approve
the following amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan:
2
~~~~~
Section I. General Plan Amendments.
Subsection i. Section 1.8.1 (Land Use Classifications), under the subsection "Eastern
Extended Planning Area (East of Camp Parks -see Figure 1-1 a)" is hereby
amended to add the following residential land use designations after "Residential
Single-Family":
"Residential: Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 units per gross residential acre).
Units in this density range will be detached, zero-lot line, duplex, and/or townhouse
developments suitable for family living with private flat usable outdoor yard areas
that accommodate leisurely activities typically associated with a residence. Unit
types and densities may be similar or varied. Assumed household size is two
persons per unit.
Residential: Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 units gross residential acre).
This density range allows detached, zero-lot line, duplex townhouse, and/or garden
apartment developments suitable for family living with private flat usable outdoor
yard areas that accommodate leisurely activities typically associated with a
residence or usable common areas (tot lot, picnic area, swimming pool areas, etc.)
that accommodate recreational and leisurely activities. Unit types and densities
may be similar or varied. Assumed household size is two persons per unit."
Subsection ii. Figure 1-1 a, General Plan Land Use Map is hereby replaced with a revised
General Plan Land Use Map as follows:
R~bLc/Serri-PUbYCC/OpalSpace CamnatlaVtralirsvlal RetitlaN~ Raairg hea LinK ;~
gagmavrt ~Gee.a Camn<W aRa~a<~sw.yMMWaei~UaPniwra~Maamm nvnl ~~~E.eaenErnneeeMmeaHwmas ry ~ ,.~-~
~MeiWon<e u e - pai- aM'xs ~A+nmYnEamq~hea Ba.mry
("'.j Msay nuMCMmeaom ~Mevydite a~aiumvwe d.arymgera~r p.s-l aWxt '-' a"' naean~'.eaeae.aar m
~ (b[n fP%e rkrgnvnwacamnaa lavomnV Mea2rna N.a.6.a aWxl ~PV~ow`r
mean camv -Cwt a.nertWCa7an aaee mgera.ly Me~nmMa p.a a.o M'xl ~--~f stsMnn
_~ woe.dryl6.i.10.O a/MI Qspe.e alYmsvee ~~~ -C~••
S.Y..,.
~ nc~/sm.rvac ~tsaaw rie „uea..aaw Devry lio.i-i as mVMq Trt~ValkyJnlrmctlms 'R:C~~ ~Y
~a.iie.. MaVtiaaaia wa.nwamyxeaaenuilai.i..oWkl - 'cpyal~wanv< L~Y~°S ~5~,- ;CS
~ sea.rwr< ~a,vna, M:VFnanaaaouweu m...a ~radaM1ry.o~wrMeaeema iiai-a.o a~+a ~ararkaa~u~ ,_.-...-.-
~ share use ~~MOmMxaamw la.i. asysl ~cM~sa~x..mn -'J'-S'~t~ 2:_T ~.".
E - MedYa~N~MonaM1Vaenwa an Mew aree ..._.
p a..,.~r.. '^
Subsection iii. Table 2.1 (Land Use Summary: Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
Area) is hereby replaced with the following revised Table 2.1:
"~' ~` D U B L I N G E N E R A L P L A N (Figure t-tai
C'~t~tl L A N D U S E M A P as amended through October 7, 2008
~1 ~~69
TABLE 2.1
LAND USE SUMMARY: EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AREA
(Amended: Resolution 223-05, 58-07, 37-08)
Classification Acres Intensity** Units Factor Yield
RESIDENTIAL Du's/acre Du's Persons/du Population
High Density 69.9 35 2,447 2.0 4,894
Medium-High Density 132.4 20 2,616 2.0 5,232
Medium-Density ~2
524.4 10 c~
5244 2.0 a-~Fi4
10,488
Medium-Mid Densitv 16 9 12 2~ ? Q
Medium-Low Densitv ~ ~ 8 1~5 ~_ 27Q
Single Family 864.8 4 3,459 3.2 11,069
Mixed Use**** 96 2.0 192
Rural Residential 710.5 .O1 7 3.2 22
TOTAL 2,335.8 14,239 32,605
COMMERCIAL
Acres Floor Area
Ratio
(Gross) Square Feet
(millions) Square Feet /
Employee
Jobs
General Commercial 347.9 .35/.25 4.228 510 8,290
General Commercial/Campus Office*** 72.7 .28 .887 385 2,303
Mixed Use 6.4 .3/1.0 .083 490 171
Neighborhood Commercial 57.5 .35/.30 .819 490 1,671
Campus Office 189.36 .75/.35 3.052 260 11,739
Industrial Park***** 114.7 .25/.28 1.329 590 2,253
TOTAL: 788.6 9.816 26,427
PARKS AND PUBLIC RECREATION
City Park 56.3 1 park
Community Park 97.0 2 parks
Neighborhood Park 47.1 8 parks
Neighborhood Square 16.6 6 parks
Regional Park 11.7 1 park
TOTAL: 228.7 18 parks
OPEN SPACE 649.6
PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC
Public/Semi-Public 101 .25 1.120 590 1,899
Semi Public 13.1 .25
Schools
Elementary School 63.2 5 schools
Junior High School 25.2 1 school
High School 0 0 school
School Subtotal 88.4 6 schools
TOTAL: 202.5
TRANSIT CENTER (Total) 90.7
- Cam us Office (includin ancillar retail 38.3
- Hi h-Densit Residential 31.5
- Park 12.2
- Public/Semi-Public (Transit-Related 8.7
GRAND TOTAL 4,295.9
#Table 2.1 appears as Table " 2A" in the Eastern Dublin GPA. It was relabeled herein for formatting purposes.
*Numbers represent amid-range considered reasonable given the permitted density range.
'~~The Sq Ft/Employees figure utilized for General Commercial/Campus Office is the average of the figure used for General
Commercial and Campus Office uses.
4
. ~~ ~
****For the purpose of this table, Mixed Use acreage only will be considered Commercial, not residential, to avoid duplic tion
in tabulation of overall total acres.
*****The .28 FAR figure utilized for Industrial Park refers to Industrial Park areas within Fallon Village.
******The locations of Semi-Public sites on the Jordan, Croak and Chen properties of Fallon Village will be determined at the
time of PD-2 approval. The site on Jordan will be 2.0 net acres within the Village Center; the site on Croak, 2.0 net acres; and
the site on Chen, 2.5 net acres. For the purposes of this table, 2.0 acres of Medium High Density Residential land on Jordan
was changed to Semi-Public, 2.0 acres of Single Family Residential land on Croak was changed to Semi-Public and 2.5 acres
of Medium High Density residential land on Chen was changed to Semi-Public. These assumptions may change at the time of
PD-2 approval
Section II. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment.
Subsection i. The first paragraph of Section 3.3.3 (Land Use Categories) is hereby
amended to read as follows
"The Residential land use category has seven classifications: High Density (HDR),
Medium-High Density (MHDR), Medium Density (MDR), Medium-Mid Density
(MMDR), Medium-Low Density (MLDR), Single-Family (SF), and Rural
Residential/Agriculture (RRA)."
Subsection ii. Table 4.1 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary) is hereby
replaced with the following revised Table 4.1:
TABLE 4.1
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE SUMMARY
(Amended Per Resolution No. 66-03, 47-04, 223-05, 58-07, 37-08 )
Land Use Descri tion LAND AREA DENSITY YIELD
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
General Commercial 356.8 acres .25-.35 FAR 4.122 MSF
General Commercial/Campus
Office 72.7 acres .28 FAR .887 MSF
Industrial Park* 61.3 acres .25-.28 FAR .747 MSF
Nei hborhood Commercial 61.4 acres .30-.35 FAR .871 MSF
Mixed Use 6.4 acres .30-1.0 FAR .083 MSF
Cam us Office 192.66 acres .35-.75 FAR 3.730 MSF
Subtotal 751.3 acres 10.44 MSF
RESIDENTIAL
Hi h Densit 68.2 acres 35 du/ac 2,387 du
Medium Hi h Densit 144.5 acres 20 du/ac 2,858 du
Medium Densit 5~1~ 477 ~ acres 10 du/ac 51-3 4 77~ du
i m- i D n i 16.9 acres 12 du/ac 203 du
-L D n i 16.9 acres 8 du/ac 135 du
Sin le Famil 872.6 acres 4 du/ac 3,490 du
Rural Residential/A ric. 697.4 acres .Ol du/ac 7 du
Mixed Use 6.4 acres** 15du/ac 96 du
Subtotal 2,300 acres 13,951du
5
~~~~9
PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC
Public/Semi-Public 98.2 acres .24 FAR 1.027 MSF
Semi-Public 9.3 acres .25 FAR
Subtotal 107.5 acres 1.027 MSF
SCHOOLS
Elementar School 66.5 acres 5 schools
Junior Hi h School 21.3 acres 1 school
Subtotal 87.8 acres
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
Cit Park 56.3 acres 1 ark
Communit Park 97.0 acres 3 arks
Nei hborhood Park 49.0 acres 7 arks
Nei hborhood S uare 16.7 acres 6 arks
Subtotal 219 acres 17 arks
O en S ace 607.5 acres
TOTAL LAND AREA 4,073.5 acres
*The .28 FAR for Industrial Park refers to the Industrial Park areas in Fallon Village.
**The 6.4 acres is the same acreage as listed in the Mixed Use cells. The 6.4 acres under Residential is not
included in the sum of Residential uses in this table. 83,635 square feet of commercial and 96 units are
anticipated on the mixed use sites (total). The FAR for Mixed Use governs both commercial and residential
uses.
6
7~'~r -~;
Subsection iii.Table 4.2 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Population and Employment
Summary) is hereby replaced with the following revised Table 4.2:
TABLE 4.2
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY
(Amended Per Resolution No. 47-04, 223-05, 55-07, 37-OS)
Land Use Desi nation Development Sq Ft/Employees Persons/du Population
Commercial
Industrial Park .747 MSF 590 1,266
General
Commercial/Campus
Office* .887 MSF 385 2,303
General Commercial 4.122 MSF 510 8,082
Nei hborhood Commercial .885 MSF 490 1,806
Mixed Use** .083 MSF 490 171
Cam us Office 3.730 MSF 260 14,346
Public/Semi Public 1.027 MSF 590 1,740
Semi-Public 590
TOTAL: 11.481 MSF 29,714
Residential
Hi h Densit 2,387 2.0 4,774
Medium Hi h Densi 2,858 2.0 5,716
Medium Densi 5~3 4,775 2.0 49;~C 9,550
Medium-Mid Density ?~
Medium-L w Den i 1~
Sin le Famil 3,490 3.2 11,169
Mixed Use** 96 2.0 192
Rural Residential/A ric. 4 3.2 22
TOTAL: 13,983 32,098
*The Sq Ft/Employees figure utilized for General Commercial/Campus Office is the average of the figures used
for General Commercial and Campus Office uses.
**Includes Mixed Use units (6.4 acres and 96 du) within Fallon Village Center.83,635 square feet of commercial
and 96 units are anticipated on the mixed use sites (total). The FAR for Mixed Use is the maximum area for all
development (i.e. total of residential and commercial) on designated sties.
Section III. Section 4.8.1 (Residential) is hereby amended to insert the following residential
land use designations after "Single-Family""
"Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 units per gross residential acre). Units in this density
range will be detached, zero-lot line, duplex, and/or townhouse developments suitable for
family living with private flat usable outdoor yard areas that accommodate leisurely
activities typically associated with a residence. Unit types and densities may be similar or
varied. Assumed household size is two persons per unit.
Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 units gross residential acre). This density range allows
detached, zero-lot line, duplex townhouse, and/or garden apartment developments suitable
for family living with private flat usable outdoor yard areas that accommodate leisurely
activities typically associated with a residence or usable common areas (i.e. tot lot, picnic,
7
.. ~ ~~`~
swimming pool areas, etc.) that accommodate recreational and leisurely activities. Unit
types and densities may be similar or varied. Assumed household size is two persons per
unit."
Subsection i. Table 4.9 (Fallon Village Center Subarea Development Potential) is hereby
replaced with the following revised Table 4.9:
TABLE 4.9
FALCON VILLAGE CENTER
SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
(Amended Per Resolution No. roc-07)
Desi nation Acres Densi Develo ment Potential
Mixed Use 6.4 .30 FAR 83,635 sf
Commercial Subtotal 6.4 20 du/ac. 83,635 sf
Mixed Use -Residential Units' 15 du/ac 96 du
Medium-Low Densi 16.9 8 du/ac 135 du
Medium-Mid Densi 16.9 12 du/ac 203 du
Medium Hi h Residential 23.8 20 du/ac 542 du
Residential Subtotal 64 -- 976 du
Nei hborhood Park 2.7 -- --
Communi Park 18.3 -- --
O en S ace 3.6 -- --
Park/Open Space Subtotal 24.6 -- 1 community park
1 nei hborhood s uare
Semi- ublic 4.5 -- --
Total 93.1 -- 83,365 sf commercial
1,000 du
1 community park
1 neighborhood square
8
g i~~
Subsection ii. Figure 4.1 (Land Use Map) is hereby replaced with the revised Figure 4.1
(Land Use Map) updated through October 7, 2008 below.
Subsection iii. The Fallon Village Center portion of Appendix 3 (Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Land Use Summary by Planning Subareas) is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Planning Subareas
Land Use Category
Area
Density
Square Feet
Units
Fallon Villa a Center
Mixed Use 6.4 1.5 du/ac, .30 FAR 83,635 96
Medium-Hi h Densit Residential 32.8 20 542
Medium-Mid Densit Residential 16.9 12 203
Medium-Low Densit Residential 16.9 8 135
Semi-Public* 4.5
Nei hborhood S uare 2.7
Communit Park 18.3
O en S ace 3.6
Total 93.1 83,635 976
9
~°~~ 1~9
Section IV. The information for #20 Jordan and #30 Croak in Appendix 4 (Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Land Use Summary by Land Owners) is hereby amended to read as follows:
Owner/Land Use Category Acres Density Square Feet Units
#20 JORDAN
Mixed Use 6.4 15 / .30 83,635 96
Medium Hi h Densit Residential 19:8 20 542
Medium-Mid Densit 11.7 12 140
Medium-Low Densi 11.7 8 94
Sin le Famil Residential 48.0 4 192
Elementar School 10.0
Nei hborhood Park 5.8
Nei hborhood S uare 2.7
Communi Park 11.1
Semi-Public* 2.0
O en S ace 60.5
Total 189.7 83,635 1,064
Owner/Land Use Cate o Acres Densi S uare Feet Units
#28 CROAK
Medium-Mid Densi 5.2 12 62
Medium-Low Densi 5.2 8 42
Sin le Famil Residential 115.4 4 469
Rural Residential/A ricultural 19.4
Nei hborhood Park 11.5
Semi-Public's 2.0
O en S ace 6.8
Total 165.5 573
Section V. All provisions of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan not amended
by this resolution shall remain in full force and effect.
Section VI. This Resolution shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of adoption.
10
~r6 r
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
day of
by the following vote:
Mayor
G:\PA#\2007\07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density\City Council\CC 10.7.08\CC Reso MD GPA SPA.DOC
11
id ~ ~~9
ORDINANCE NO. XX - 08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH AMENDED STAGE 1
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MEDIUM-LOW AND MEDIUM-MID DENSITY
DESIGNATIONS ON THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES
(APN 905-0002-001, 905-0002-002, AND 985-0027-007)
PA 07-056
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. RECITALS
A. By Ordinance No. 32-OS the City Council rezoned the approximately 1,134-acre Fallon
Village project area generally located north of I-580 and east of Fallon Road to the Planned Development
Zoning District (PA 04-044) and adopted a Stage 1 Development Plan for the entire project area which
includes the Croak and Jordan properties (APN 905-0002-001, 905-0002-002, AND 985-0027-007).
B. This Ordinance amends the Stage 1 Development Plan approved in Ordinance No. 32-OS
by the City Council on December 20, 2005.
Section 2. FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows:
The Planned Development (PD) Rezoning, with amended Stage 1 Development Plan, (PA 07-056)
meets the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance because: it will encourage a
variety of different product types with usable private yard areas while providing flexibility. As
amended the PD will continue to provide a comprehensive and coordinated development plan for a
larger area with multiple ownerships that creates a desirable use of land that is sensitive to
surrounding land uses by making efficient use of development areas so as to allow sensitive
ridgelines and biological areas to be undeveloped.
2. The PD Rezoning, with amended Stage 1 Development Plan, will be harmonious and compatible
with existing and future development in the surrounding areas because: 1) the land uses and site
plan establish residential uses; 2) the proposed residential uses will provide a transition from
the high density neighborhoods located in the Fallon Village Center to the Low Density
neighborhoods to the north and east; and 3) the uses are consistent with the higher intensity of
uses anticipated for the Fallon Village Center and will continue to promote an active,
pedestrian oriented development in the Fallon Village Center.
B. Pursuant to Section 8.120.OSO.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as
follows:
The PD Rezoning, with amended Stage 1 Development Plan, will be harmonious and compatible
with existing and future development in the surrounding areas because: 1) the land uses and site
plan establish residential uses; 2) the proposed residential uses will provide a transition from
the high density neighborhoods located in the Fallon Village Center to the Low Density
Page 1 of 5
Attachment 2
13~~69
neighborhoods to the north and east; and 3) the uses are consistent with the higher intensity
of uses anticipated for the Fallon Village Center and will continue to promote an active,
pedestrian oriented development in the Fallon Village Center.
2. The Project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the zoning district being
proposed because: 1) the amended land uses and site plan are consistent with the amended
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) land use designations of Medium-
Low Density Residential (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density Residential (10.1-14
du/acre); 2) the Fallon Village site is flatter towards the south with rolling hills generally
north, and development is concentrated in less constrained areas; and 3) the flexibility of the
PD allows future development to be tailored to onsite conditions.
3. The PD Rezoning, with amended Stage 1 Development Plan, will not adversely affect the health or
safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety
or welfare because: the Stage 1 Development Plan has been designed in accordance with the City
of Dublin General Plan and the EDSP, and future development will comply with all applicable
development regulations and standards and will implement all adopted mitigation measures.
4. The PD Rezoning, with amended Stage 1 Development Plan, is consistent with the Dublin
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because: 1) the proposed uses on the site are
consistent with the amended General Plan and EDSP land use designations; 2) the amended
uses will not result in an increase in the total number of residential dwellings anticipated for
the subject properties by the General Plan and EDSP; and 3) the anticipated development of
the site is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the EDSP.
C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council adopted Resolution
No. 222-OS certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH #2005062010) to
the Eastern Dublin EIR, a program EIR initially certified by the City of Dublin in 1993
(SCH#91103064) and the Eastern Dublin Property Owners SEIR (SCH # 2001052114) certified in
2002 by Resolution 40-02 for the Fallon Village project. The prior EIRs are available for review in
the Community Development Department. The proposed project is within the scope of the SEIR for
the Fallon Village project area because the project does not result in increased units or density
beyond what was previously studied for the subject properties, and therefore no additional
environmental review is required.
Section 3. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code, the Dublin Zoning Map is
amended to rezone the following property ("the Property") to a PD-Planned Development district:
10.4+ acres located in an area bounded by Croak Road to the east, the future extension of Central
Parkway to the south, land designated Neighborhood Park and Medium-High Density to the north
and west, and Low Density to the north (APN 905-0002-001, and 905-0002-002); and
23.4+ acres located in an area bounded by open space to the northwest, a future elementary school
to the southeast, future Medium-High Density development to the south, and future Low Density
development to the east. (APN 985-0027-007).
Page 2 of 5
l~ ~1~9
A location map of the rezoning area is shown below:
Section 4. AMENDED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the subject properties is set
forth in the Fallon Village Stage 1 Development Plan adopted by Ordinance 32-OS and as amended below,
which amendments are hereby approved. Any amendments to the Development Plans shall be in
accordance with Section 8.32.080, Planned Development Zoning District, of the Dublin Municipal Code
or its successors.
PD-Planned Development Zoning District
Amended Stage 1 Development Plan
Fallon Village (PA OS-038, PA 07-056)
This is an amended Stage 1 Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Planned Development Zoning
District, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance for the portions of the Croak and Jordan properties with a
Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density designation (APN 905-0002-001, 905-0002-002, and
985-0027-007). The Croalc and Jordan properties consist of 10.4 acres and 23.4 acres respectively. A
Stage 2 Development Plan is required pursuant to the provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
Amended Stage 1 Development Plan. The Stage 1 Development Plan remains as approved by Ordinance
32-05, except as specified below.
1. Stage 1 Site•Plan. The current Stage 1 Site Plan is hereby replaced with a new Stage 1 Site Plan
which incorporates the Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density land use designations in
place of Medium Density designation on the Croak and Jordan properties.
Page 3 of 5
STAGE 1 SITE PLAN
~~~~~~
2. Site Area, proposed densities. The chart of proposed densities is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Lnrrttlllse Acrea a Densi
Sin le Family Residential 403.6 acres 0-6.0 units/acre
Medium Density Residential 19.3 acres 6.1-14.0 units/acre
Medium-Low Density Residential 16.9 acres 6.1-10 units/acre
Medium-Mid Density Residential 16.9 acres 10.1-14 units/acre
Medium-High Density Residential 30.8 acres 14.1-25.0 units/acre
Rural Residential/Agriculture 142.9 acres 1 unit/100 acres
Mixed Use 6.4 acres 0.3-1.00 FAR
General Commercial 72.1 acres 0.20-0.60 FAR
General Commercial/Campus Office 72.7 acres 0.20-0.80 FAR
Industrial Park/Campus Office 61.3 acres 0.35 FAR
Community Park 18.3 acres --
Neighborhood Park 23.6 acres --
Neighborhood Square 8.0 acres --
Open Space 211.2 acres --
Elementary School 21.1 -acres --
Semi Public 8.6 acres 0.50 FAR
Page 4 of 5
I~ ~16~
3. Development Standards. The Development Standards are amended to include the following rear
yard setback requirements for attached and detached housing within the Medium-Low and
Medium-Mid Density designations.
a. Minimum 15' flat usable rear yard setback requirement for attached and detached units with
private yards in the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density; and
b. Minimum 20' flat usable rear yard setback requirement for 1 out of every 5 attached and
detached units with private yards in the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density.
Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its
passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause the Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3)
public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the
State of California.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this
day of by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
G:\PA#\2007\07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density\City Council\CC 10.7.08\CC Ordinance MD PD Amd.DOC
Page 5 of 5
CITY CLER~K~Ib~
File # ^Q~~-QQ
~zo-3D
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
MEETING DATE: August 19, 2008
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION - PA 07-056: General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Land Use Designations and Densities.
Report prepared by Jeff Baker, Senior Planner and Laura
Karaboghosian, Associate Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
~,~'°,
City Council Staff Report dated April 3, 2007 with
Attachments.
City Council Meeting Minutes from Apri13, 2007.
City Council Staff Report date October 16, 2007 without
Attachments.
City Council Meeting Minutes from October 16, 2007.
Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 27, 2007
without Attachments.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from November 27,
2007.
Planning Commission Resolution recommending the City
Council not approve a General Plan Amendment and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (Exhibit A) to change the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use
Designation for the Medium Density portion of the Croak and
Jordan Properties to New Medium-Low Density and Medium-
Mid Density Designations.
Planning Commission Resolution recommending the City
Council not adopt an Ordinance (Exhibit A) approving a PD-
Planned Development Rezone with Amended Stage 1
Development PIan for the Croak and Jordan Properties.
Map of Medium Density property in the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan area.
Tassajara Meadows Unit 1 Site Plan
RECOMMENDATION: ~ Staff recommends that the City Council and Planning Commission
,,,~~ receive presentation and direct Staff to proceed with either:
A) Alternative A and prepare the appropriate General Plan and
EDSP Amendments and Fallon Village Stage 1 PD
'~ Amendment to create new Medium-Low and Medium-Mid
COPY TO: Property Owners
File
Page l of 14
G:\PA#\2007\07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density\City Council\CC PC Study Session 8.19.08\ccsr 8.19.08 Dcnsity Study Session.DOC
Attachment 3 (`I
~ ~ _~ i 6~
Density Designations and minimum usable rear yard setb k
requirements; OR
B) Alternative B and prepare the appropriate General Plan and
EDSP Amendments and Fallon Village Stage 1 PD
Amendment to create new Medium-Low and Medium-Mid
Density designations, net density policy, and private rear yard
and common area requirements; OR
C) Alternative C and provide Staff with other direction.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None at this time.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background
The City Council held a Strategic Planning Session on January 12, 2007. During this Strategic Planning
Session the City Council discussed the existing General Plan and Specific Plan Residential Land Use
Designations within the City of Dublin and the need for larger private yards. Concerns were raised during
this discussion regarding the need for a variety of housing types (i.e. detached units, row homes, stacked
flats, etc.) and homes with larger private yards on undeveloped land within the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan (EDSP) area that has a Medium Density (6.1-14 du/acre) land use designation.
Staff studied the densities, residential land use policies, and the status of entitlements for the land
designated for residential development within the EDSP and prepared a Staff Report with different policy
alternatives for City Council consideration at the April 3, 2007 City Council Meeting (Attachment 1).
The City Council reviewed the Staff Report and again expressed
a desire to provide a housing product type that is between a
stacked product and a larger single-family detached unit
(Attachment 2) with a private usable yard. The City Council
identified two remaining Medium Density properties (Croak
and Jordan) (Map I) within the EDSP that do not have vested
development rights and that do not have a current development
application in process with the City. The City Council
directed Staff to study a General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment (GPA/SPA) to equally divide the
existing Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan
properties into the following new land use designations:
^ Medium-Low Density (6.1-14 du/acre); and
^ Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre).
.Iordan
Fallon Village
Center Boundary
GGCO
i856C ... ,GF[~ ~.
i9 o pf Y3S C ~~V
1
~;
_ ~.
Map 1 -Vicinit~• !~1ah
Staff then reviewed the existing land use patterns for the Croak and Jordan properties, the concept for the
Fallon Village Center, and the City of Dublin Village Policy Statement, and prepared a Staff Report for the
October 16, 2007 City Council Meeting (Attachment 3). At the October 16, 2007 meeting, the City
Council expressed a concern over the existing policy to calculate densities based on gross rather than net
acreage. The City Council also expressed a desire to include minimum yard requirements for the proposed
Medium-Low Density designation (Attachment 4). On a motion, the City Council. directed Staff to
prepare a GPA/SPA and Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment as described below with the goal to
create private usable yards:
Page 2 of 14
~-
. ,: ~~
1. Create Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre} la~ ~~~
use designations to replace the existing Medium Density (6.l -14 du/acre) land use designation on
the Croak and Jordan properties;
2. Calculate densities for the two new land use designations based on net developable acres; and
3. Require usable yards for development within the Medium-Low Density designation.
Staff prepared amendments to the General Plan, EDSP, and the Fallon Village Stage 1 Development Plan
to address the direction by the City Council and presented these amendments to the Planning Commission
on November 27, 2007 (Attachments 5 and 6). The Planning Commission raised a number of concerns
with the proposed amendments as discussed in the Analysis section of this Staff Report. The following is
a discussion of the proposed amendments.
Proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density Designations
Land U.se Designations
Staff prepared the following definitions for the newly proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid
Density land use designations:
Residential: Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 units per net residential acre)
Units in this density range will be detached, zero-lot line, duplex, and/or townhouse developments
suitable for family living with private flat usable outdoor yard areas that accommodate leisurely
activities typically associated with a residence. Unit types and densities may be similar or varied.
Residential: Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 units net residential acre)
This density range allows detached, zero-lat line, duplex townhouse, and/or garden apartment
developments suitable for family living with private flat usable outdoor yard areas that accommodate
leisurely activities typically associated with a residence or usable common areas that accommodate
recreational and leisurely activities. Unit types and densities may be similar or varied.
Location of Proposed Land Uses
The existing Medium Density sites on each property are proposed to 1
and Medium-Mid Density as shown. on Map 2. The proposed '
land uses maintain the transition. from the more intense High
Density Residential and Mixed Use at the core of the Fallon
Village Center to the less intense Low Density Residential uses
that surround the Village Center.
Development at the midpoint of the proposed density range
would result in the same number of units (104 units on Croak and
234 units on Jordan} anticipated for the existing Medium Density
that was studied in the Fallon Village SEIR .and would continue
to ensure the existing jobs/housing balance (Please refer to
Attachment 3, Tables 2, 3 and 4 for a unit comparison). The
units would simply be redistributed across the proposed Medium-
Low Density and Medium-Mid Density designations and no
additional environmental review would be required.
into Medium-Low
Jordan -- - -- `
~ Croak -
,
Ranch 1
` Property
~ ~ 1
1
ri 7 .c
MnbR 1 ~
gb11t
~
~ 1
1
1
9 i At 6-AC 9,..p.'
1178
.a.M .,i` 17.6 K t
~
'7
kWAr M~
a a ac 1
1
CG
". a a
" ;
- -(P
YK x
~ ribu nua
3-0 AC D F al.
i
Fall~>n Villac~
Center Boundary
~,~~
.es ec Gc~cb sum
rovic ~esac'
Map 2 -Proposed Land Use Designations
Densities and the number of units are determined based on the gross acreage of the site. However, if the
Council were to adopt a Net Density policy it would reduce the number of units on both the Croak and
Jordan properties. Please see the Net Density discussion below for further information.
Page 3 of 14
Awf# ~~ :..,. .;` ..:.ao.k;rcs'~z"0.a~`k#4., ,fea~,e~,'?~cav~ `e.,~r. ;`~-„?•4~~~.~ ass.sue,.~rosz>ane:~%,>aa"<p~N.; „..','fxa,'vea"a ,ke6 ,`tla~. s.+ri. xxow~,a~.,.;.*asssq~5za.,,aa~a?s.,Rxfi«"*1;A~,Kaa Y' .... .
6
Conclusion -Land Use Designations l /
The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations would ensure that a variety of
different housing types are constructed on the Croak and Jordan properties. The Medium-Low Density
designation would also ensure that the homes have private yards. However, the land use designations do
not guarantee the size of these private yards. A policy that requires a minimum rear yard .relhack, as
discussed in the Policy Alternatives section (Page 12) of this Staff Report, could define the size of the yard
areas.
Proposed Net Density Calculation
Gross vs. Net Density
Densities are typically based on either the gross or net acreage of a project site. The gross or total acreage
of a site includes areas where development is not appropriate or feasible such as creeks, steep slopes and
streets. By contrast, net acreage excludes those areas where development is not appropriate. The General
Plan currently uses gross acreage to determine density. This enables the development of the maximum
number of units, clustered in the developable area of the site.
The following examples illustrate the difference between using the gross and the net acreage of a project
site to determine densities. The 6.51 gross acre site is constrained by a creek and the right-of--way for
public streets. As a result, the net or developable portion of the property (which excludes the hills and
streets) is 3.99 net acres and is highlighted in orange in the net density example. The following table
(Table 1) identifies the permitted number of units and density based on the gross and net acreage of the
site. In both examples, the units are located on the same developable portion of the site (i.e. outside the
creek area). The gross density example has more units because the density is calculated based on the
overall (gross) area of the site. Similarly, the average lot size is smaller using the gross density calculation
because more lots are clustered on the developable portion of the property. The smaller lot sizes would
impact the size of the private yards unless maximum lot coverage and minimum rear yard setback
standards are applied to the project. Using gross density allows more units to be clustered on the
developable portion of the project site when compared to the project with a net density.
Gross Density Example Net Density Example
GROSS AREA = 8.51 AC.
GRASS AREA
~• PROJECT 80UNDARY
,;r% NET AREA
~~ PROJECT BOIRdDARY
Page 4 of 14
1,711oVV 9.52NCROSS D.U./AC.
NET 9 52 NET D.U./AC.
5.99 GROSS D.U.jAC
NET AREA = 3.99 AC.
GROSS AREA = 6.51 AC.
~,~
Tahle 1 -Gross vs. Net nensity f'Alculatinns ~ ~ I
Gross Acres Net Acres Units Units Gross Density Net Density
Gross Densi et Densi
6.51 acres 3.99 acres 62 units 38 units 9.52 units/acre 5.99 units/acre
Proposed Net Density Calculation
As previously discussed, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a net density policy for the proposed
Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations on the Croak and Jordan properties. Therefore,
Staff prepared the following definition for the net acreage calculation:
Net Acreage Calculation: Residential densities for the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density
land use designations shall be calculated based on the total developable azea of the site excluding
public and private streets, parks, open space, common areas, environmentally constrained azeas, and
areas with slopes that exceed 30%. Development shall not be clustered on one portion of the project
site where such development would exceed the maximum density for that portion of the site even if
the overall project remains within the permitted density range.
Conclusion -Density Calculation
The proposed net density calculation would reduce the overall density of future projects by reducing the
area of the site used to calculate the permitted number of units. However, the natural features that
typically constrain development sites such as step slopes, creeks and other environmentally sensitive areas
have already been designated as Open Space on the Croak and Jordan properties. The constrained areas of
the Croak and Jordan properties are primarily related to topography (i.e. rolling hills) and streets. In
addition, the net density calculation would not achieve the goal of providing larger private yards because it
would not restrict the size of the home constructed on each lot. However, a minimum reaz yard setback
requirement, as discussed in the Policy Alternatives section (Page 12) of this Staff Report, would define
the size of the rear yard areas.
Private Yard Requirements
The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations permit a variety of attached and
detached product types as discussed above. The Medium-Low Density designation requires each unit to
include a private usable yard. The Medium-Mid Density designation would allow either a private usable
yard for each unit or shared common areas. The following is a discussion of the proposed development
standazds for private yards and common azeas within the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density
designations.
Yard Requirements
The following are current private yazd requirements for the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid
density designations. These requirements are based on the existing Stage 1 PD Development Standards
that are currently applicable to the Croak and Jordan properties. However, a minimum "common yazd
area" requirement has been added for attached projects in the Medium-Mid Density that do not have
private usable yazds. Typical "common yazd azeas" include grass area, playgrounds, and swimming pool
facilities.
The development standards for the exiting Stage 1 PD for the Croak and Jordan properties are tiered based
on the size of the lot as illustrated in Table 2 below. It should be noted that the minimum rear yazd
setback dimension of 8' is the same for both lot sizes. This existing minimum yard dimension ensures that
private yards have a dimension of 8' in at least one direction. These requirements would apply to private
yards within the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid designations, but may not be a sufficient
dimension to provide usable rear yazds.
Page 5 of 14
. . ,_
. ~ n~ / F~
Table 2-Private Yard Requirements - Medtum-Low & Medium-Mid Density
Lot Size 1,800+ s.f. 2,500+ s.f.
250 s.f. 300 s.f.
Yard area may be provided in Yard area may be provided in
Private Yard Minimum Area Per Unit more than one location w/in a lot: more than one location w/in a lot:
Min. rear yard area: 170 s.f. Min. rear yard area: 170 s.f.
Min. cou and area 80 s.f. Min. cou and area 80 s.f.
Private Yard Minimum Dimension 8' 8'
*These are existing standards for the Low and Medium Density Land Use Designations for the Fallon Village PD.
^Can substitute common area equal to 150s.f. per unit in lieu of private yard area in the Medium-Mid Density.
A yard with a minimum depth or length of 8' would be fairly limited in size. Examples of what could
occur in a yard of this size include a small patio and garden, a bistro table and chairs or lounge chairs and a
barbeque. However, these amenities would leave very little room for a children's play area or play
equipment. Please see the following photos from Roxbury for an example of what can occur in a yard
with a depth of 8'.
The following plot plan and photos illustrate the type of home and private yard that has been achieved on a
1,800 s.f. lot. The plot plan below depicts a unit is asingle-family detached home located in the Roxbury
development and includes 3 bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms, and a two car garage.
Plot Plan -1,827 s.f. lot
(43.5% Lot Coverage)
_. _,. _ ..
.... _......z..;
.~
--~ ,' ~
t I ~"`"~"~°~" i
} . i
t G' ~
_'t ~ ~ ,
. _,
`. _.
Yard: 8'x13.5' pad plus
side yard (108 s.f.)
Page 6 of 14
Detached Home at Roxbury
Private Yard at Roxbury (8' depth)
~-° , ~, /'
<''i..~~' ~,4~, /ll
Conclusion -Private Yard Requirements
The existing minimum 8' yard dimension contained in the existing Stage 1 PD development standards will
not provide a large enough Yazd to accommodate many common leisurely activities often associated with a
rear yard. However, a minimum reaz yazd setback dimension can be established to ensure larger yards.
Please refer to the Policy Alternatives section (Page 12) of this Staff Report for a discussion of rear yard
setback requirements.
ANALYSIS:
Planning Commission Action
On November 27, 2007, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to review the proposed
amendments to the General Plan, EDSP, and Stage 1 Development Plan for the Croak and Jordan
properties (Attachments 5 and 6). During the Public Hearing the Planning Commission expressed a
number of concerns with the proposed amendments. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to
recommend that the City Council not approve the proposed GPA, SPA and Fallon Village Stage 1
Development Plan Amendment (Attachments 7 and 8). The following is a discussion of the concerns
that were raised by the Planning Commission:
Concerns Raised by the Planning Commission
Existing Product Type
Planning Commission Concern #1:
The Planning Commission felt that a product type that is in between a condominium and a larger single-
family home already exists and they cited examples of such products in mature Single-Family
neighborhoods in the Primary Planning area as well as in Medium Density neighborhoods in the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan azea.
Discussion:
Primary Planning Area -The homes referenced by the Planning Commission are generally located in the
area bounded by San Ramon Road to the west, the Iron Horse Trail to the east, the northern City Limits
and Dublin Boulevard to the south. The detached homes in this area have a General Plan Land Use
designation of Single-Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/acre). This is a less intense land use designation
than Medium Density (6.1-14 du/acre). Development on land designated Medium Density in this area
primarily consists of apartments and condominiums.
The detached homes are located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) zoning district. The R-1 zoning
district has development standazds that allow a maximum 35% lot coverage fora 2-story home and 40%
lot coverage for a single story home, and a minimum rear yard setback of 20'.
The homes within this area were mostly built during the 1960's and 1970's and tend to be smaller homes
built on larger lots than homes that are built today. Thus they are generally built below the maximum lot
coverage requirement for the R-7 zoning district. Table 4 below provides average development statistics
for these single-family homes in this area based on information obtained from the Alameda County Tax
Assessor's data and is followed by an aerial view of a typical neighborhood.
Table 4: Average Development Statistics
Lot Size House Size Lot Coverage
6,862 s.f. 1,478 s.f. 22%
Page 7 of 14
~
a
.:C i
:~ . "~~t~
~~~
r
.
4i' R°:
k~
~
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan -Approximately 4,434 Medium Density units are anticipated in the EDSP.
Please refer to the map included as Attachment 9 which shows the location of the Medium Density land
in the EDSP. Table S below provides a breakdown of the number of constructed attached and detached
Medium Density units as well as the amount of remaining units to be determined in the EDSP. .
Table 5 -Medium Density Unit Tvne in the EDSP
Unit Type Number of Units % of Total Units
Detached 1,893 units 36.4%
Attached 1,615 units 42.7%
To Be Determined 926 units 20.9%
Total Number of Units 4,434 units -
Lot sizes for Medium Density detached products average approximately 3,650 s.f. Examples of projects
with lots sizes consistent with this average include Tassajara Meadows Unit 1 and Roxbury. The
Tassajara Meadows Unit l subdivision provides an example of a typical Medium Density detached
development. The following table provides average development statistics for the Tassajara Meadows
Unit l development and is followed by an aerial view of a typical neighborhood.
Table 6: Average Development Statistics -Tassajara Meadows Unit l
Lot Size House Size Lot Coverage
3,579 S.f. 1,897 S.f. 53%
Page 8 of 14
~~~ ~~~
`#.Y',CSCnR
Staff spoke with a local real estate agent about the market for single-family homes in the portion of the
Primary Planning Area bounded by San Ramon Road to the west, the .Iron Horse Trail to the east, the
northern City Limits and Dublin Boulevard to the south, and in the Medium Density portion of the EDSP.
The real estate agent indicated that while the homes in both areas are similar in size and price, the homes
in the subject portion of the Primary Planning Area attract a different buyer than the Medium Density
homes in the EDSP. The homes in this portion of the Primary Planning Area attract more first time home
buyers who want a large yard, while the Medium Density homes in the EDSP tend to attract current
condominium owners and buyers that want to downsize their home and do not want to maintain a large
yard and an older home.
Conclusion:
The homes in the Primary Planning Area as described above are not a Medium Density product. These
homes in the Primary Planning Area satisfy a different market need than the Medium Density Names
located within the EDSP. The detached Medium Density homes that have been constructed in the EDSP
tend to cover a large portion of the lot with smaller yard setbacks, therefore resulting in fairly small yard
areas.
Usahle Yards
Planning Commission Concern #2:
The Planning Commission felt that the City can achieve private usable yards within the existing Medium
Density Designation.
Discussion:
Private usable yards could be achieved within the existing Medium. Density Designation. However, the
EDSP has PD zoning with development standards (i.e. minimum setbacks, maximum lot coverage, etc.)
that are tailored to each development. Therefore, there is no minimum rear yard setback requirement to
guarantee usable private yards. Rear yard sizes in the Medium Density Designation in the EDSP typically
range from 5'-15'. Without a specific rear yard setback requirement Staff cannot ensure a private usable
rear yard.
Page 9 of 14
Conclusion: ~ ~ ~~~
Private usable yards can be achieved within the Medium Density Designation. However, the size of the
yard can fluctuate within this density range. The required maximum lot coverage and minimum rear yard
set back play a significant role in determine the size of the yard. The size of the yard will be the primary
driver of what type of amenities can be accommodated in the yard. However, without a specific minimum
rear yard setback Staff cannot ensure the homes achieve a usable private reaz yazd.
Net Acreage Calculation
Planning Commission Concern #3:
The Planning Commission expressed. concerns about the use of a net acreage calculation and the potential
loss of developable units and the fairness of applying the net acreage calculation to select land uses and
properties.
Discussion.:
The owners of the Croak and Jordan properties have not submitted development proposals for review by
Staff. Therefore, Staff cannot evaluate the full impact of using a net density calculation on these
properties. However, the land use plan (Map 3 below) for Fallon Village (which includes the Croak and
Jordan properties) was created using information in the Resource Management Plan (RMP) that was
prepared for the project area. The RMP identified environmental constraints within the plan area. These
constrained areas were designated as Open Space or Rural Residential/Agriculture in order to limit their
development potential. Therefore, the impact of a net density calculation on the Medium Density portion
of these properties would generally result from land dedicated to public streets and common areas, as well
as slopes to a certain extent.
Staff used the Tassajaza Meadows Unit 1 development, located at the northwest corner of Tassajara Road
and Gleason Drive, to illustrate the potential impacts of a net density calculation (Please refer to
Attachment 10 for the land use plan). Tassajara Meadows consists of 109 Medium Density detached
units on 13.3-acres. The following table illustrates the Gross and Net Density calculations for the site.
Table 4 - Tassa'ara Meadows Unit 1. Densi Calculation
Gross Acres Net Acres Gross Density Net Density*
13.3 9.0 8.2 du/acre 12.11 du/acre
* Excludes streets and common areas
Page 10 of 14
Map 3 -Fallon Village Land Use Plan
~~ ~~~
Similar to Jordan Ranch, the environmentally constrained creek to the west of Tassajara Meadows is
designated Open Space and does not impact the net density. However, the Tassajara Meadows site differs
from the Croak and Jordan properties in that it is relatively flat while the Croak and Jordan properties
have rolling hills. The rolling hills on the Croak and Jordan properties could result in undevelopable areas
and reduce the unit count with a net density policy.
Conclusion:
The natural features that typically constrain development sites such as step slopes, creeks and other
environmentally sensitive azeas have already been designated as Open Space on the Croak and Jordan
properties. The constrained areas of the Croak and Jordan properties are primarily related to topography
(i.e. rolling hills) and streets. The rolling hills and streets on the Croak and Jordan properties would
reduce the number of units that could be constructed if the City Council adopts a net density policy.
Flexibility of Future Development
Planning Commission Concern #4:
The Planning Commission expressed an overall concern that the proposed amendments would limit the
flexibility to allow development to occur as driven by future market demands.
Discussion:
The City Council has the ability to set land use policies that will guide future development of the City. A
market driven approach is based on the economics of real estate development and current housing trends.
Developers will typically choose to develop housing product types that achieve the highest financial
returns. Whereas, the City Council can assess the long-term needs of the community, establish a vision
for the community, and then set land use policies to help achieve that vision.
The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations do allow for flexibility in the product
types. The Medium-Low would allow single-family detached homes, duets, and townhomes. The
Medium-Mid Density would allow single-family detached homes, duets, townhomes, and stacked
products such as garden apartments and condominiums. One significant difference between the Medium-
Low and the Medium-Mid Density is that the single-family lots would be smaller on the Medium-Mid
designation which would potentially result in smaller homes. The proposed land use designations allow
for a variety of product types to address future mazket demands.
Conclusion:
The proposed amendments would establish land use policies that address the City Council's assessment of
the long-term needs and vision for the future of community. The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-
Mid Density designations would ensure that a variety of housing types are constructed on the Croak and
Jordan properties, However, the proposed amendments would limit the flexibility to construct stacked
products with shared common areas on land designated Medium-Low Density.
Limited Application of Policy
Planning Commission Concern #5:
The Planning Commission felt that the current policies are working well and that the proposed policies
would have a limited impact on the community and result in small gains because the proposal does not
cover a large area.
Discussion:
The City Council directed Staff to study the Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties
after considering the various properties within the EDSP and the status of vested development rights and
current entitlement applications. The proposed land use change would affect approximately 33.8-acres
Page 11 of 14
~ ~ ~~~
which currently includes 338 units or 7.6% of the anticipated Medium Density units in the EDSP ar a.
However, the total number of units would be reduced if the City Council adopts a policy to use net density
policy rather than the current gross density policy.
Conclusion:
While the area to be impacted by the proposed amendments is a small portion of the overall EDSP area,
the proposed amendments would effect entire neighborhoods and ensure that the future development
meets the needs of the community. The City Council could also choose to expand certain aspects of the
proposed amendments, such as minimum yard requirements, to the Single-Family Designation on the
Croak and Jordan properties.
Need for Additional Data
Planning Commission Concern #6:
The Planning Commission would like to see market statistics to verify that there is demand for a certain
product type that is not currently met with the existing housing stock and future development potential
under current land use policies.
Discussion:
Dublin could retain an economic consultant to prepare a mazket analysis of current and future housing
demand in the City. However, such an analysis would be costly and time consuming to prepare. The
construction and sale of new homes in the EDSP area is ongoing which makes it difficult at any point in
time to determine the current availability of homes.
Conclusion:
The availability of existing detached homes in the Primary Planning Area and the EDSP is fairly
constrained. The City could retain the services of an economic consultant to study the current mazket
conditions and future mazket trends in order to help develop policies to address those needs.
Policy Alternatives
The City Council expressed an overall goal to provide homes with private usable yards. While the
proposal to create Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations, combined with a net density
policy and a private yazd requirement will help to achieve a variety of housing types, densities, and yards,
these policies will not directly achieve the desired outcome for larger private yards. Therefore, Staff has
identified the following policy alternatives to help achieve larger private usable rear yazds. These policies
alternatives include adopting: A) Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations and minimum rear
yard setback requirements; or B) Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations, net density policy,
and private yard requirements; or C) Other direction as provided by the City Council and Planning
Commission. The following is a discussion of each policy alternative.
A. Medium-Low and Medium Mid Density and Minimum Rear Yard Setback Requirement
If the intent is to ensure that a variety of housing types (i.e. detached units, row homes, stacked flats,
etc.) and lazee private rear yards are constructed on the existing Medium Density portion of the Croak
and Jordan properties, the City Council and Planning Commission should consider adopting a
combination of the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations, and minimum rear
yard setback requirements.
The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations, as described on page 3 of this
Staff Report, would ensure that a variety of different housing types aze constructed on the Croak and
Jordan properties. The proposed Medium-Low Density designation would include attached and
Page 12 of 14
a-q ~ l ~9
detached units with private usable rear yards. The proposed Medium-Mid Density designation would
include either attached or detached units with private yards or usable common areas.
The properties in the EDSP have PD zoning with development standards (i.e. minimum setbacks,
maximum lot coverage, etc) that are tailored to each development. PD zoning with customized
development standards is intended to be more flexible and allow greater creativity than traditional
zoning with mandatory development standards. In the past, reaz yazds were allowed with a minimum
5'-15' setback.
The existing PD development standards for Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan
properties require a minimum rear yard dimension of 8' in one direction. The current 8' minimum
dimension provides a fairly small yard that can accommodate a small patio and bazbeque but does not
accommodate a hot tub and may not provide enough room for school age children to play. If the City
Council's goal is to establish private usable yards Staff recommends a requirement to provide a
minimum 15'-20' flat usable rear yard setback. The increased minimum flat usable rear yard setback
would apply to detached and attached homes with private yards in the Medium-Low Density
designation and would ensure that each home with a private yard has enough space to accommodate
family activities. However, the rear yazd setback requirement on its own would not guarantee
development of homes with private yards unless the City Council adopts the proposed Medium-Low
density designation which requires private yards because the existing Medium Density Designation
permits stacked products such as apartments and condominiums which do not have private yards.
Implementation: In order to adopt the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designation, and
minimum rear yard setback requirements for the Croak and Jordan properties, the City Council would
need to: 1) determine the appropriate minimum flat usable rear yard setback requirements; and 2)
direct Staff to prepare the appropriate General Plan and EDSP Amendments and Fallon Village Stage
1 PD Amendment to create new land use designations and minimum rear yard setback requirements.
B. Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations, net density policy, and private yard and
common area requirements
If the intent is to ensure that a variety of housing typos with reduced densities and small private yards
are constructed on the existing Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties then the
City Council and Planning Commission should consider adopting the proposed Medium-Low and
Medium-Mid Density Designations, net density policy and private yard requirements as previously
discussed on pages 3-7 of this Staff Report.
The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations, as described on page 3 of this
Staff Report, would ensure that a variety of different housing types are constructed on the Croak and
Jordan properties. The proposed Medium-Low Density dcsignation would include attached and
detached units with private usable reaz yards.. The proposed Medium-Mid Density designation would
include either attached or detached units with private yards or usable "common yard azeas".
The proposed net density calculation as described on page 4 of this Staff Report would reduce the
overall density of future projects by reducing the area of the site used to calculate the permitted
number of units.
The private yard and common yard area requirements, as described on page 5 of this Staff Report,
would ensure that private yards would have a minimum dimension (depth or length) of 8'. The
minimum 8' yazd dimension contained in the existing PD development standards will not provide a
large enough yard to accommodate many common leisurely activities often associated with a rear yard.
Page 13 of 14
~° fi~ l6~
Therefore, as part of this alternative Staff recommends an amendment to the existing Stage 1 PD to
require a minimum 15'-20' flat usable rear yard setback.
Implementation: In order to adopt the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designation, net
density policy, and private yard requirements, the City Council would need to direct Staff to prepare
the appropriate General Plan and EDSP Amendments and Fallon Village Stage 1 PD Amendment to
create new land use designations, net density policy, and private yard and common azea requirements.
C. Other direction as provided by the City Council and Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council and Planning Commission receive presentation and direct Staff to
proceed with either:
D) Alternative A and prepaze the appropriate General Plan and EDSP Amendments and Fallon
Village Stage 1 PD Amendment to create new Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density
Designations and minimum usable rear yazd setback requirements; or
E) Alternative B and prepare the appropriate General Plan and EDSP Amendments and Fallon
Village Stage 1 PD Amendment to create new Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density
designations, net density policy, and private rear yard and common area requirements; or
F) Alternative C and provide Staff with other direction.
Page 14 of 14
~~~
~ y
~~-~ ~e~s
"~N
X31 /6~
CITY CLERK
File #
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 3, 2007
SUBJECT: Review of General Plan and Specific Plan Residential Land Use
Designations for properties generally east of Dougherty Road and
including the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.
Report prepared by Jeff Baker, Senior Pla~lner
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Map.
Z) Village Policy Statement.
3) Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Categories.
4) Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan Criteria.
5} Table of Built or Approved Projects with Vested
Development Rights.
• 6) Map of Built or Approved Projects with Vested
Development Rights.
~) Map of Land with Stage 1 Development Plans, but without
Vested Development Rights.
8) Map of Land without Development Entitlements and without
Vested Development Rights.
9) Table of Land without Vested Development Rights.
10) Map of Land without Vested Development Rights.
~/~,~
/ ' ' ' '
RECOMMENDATION 1) Receive Staf~
presentation;
~ ~ - 2) Receive public testimony;
'-~ 3) Deliberate; and
4) Direct Staff to either:
a. Prepare General Plan/Spceific Plan Amendments to
include two new land use designations including
Medium-Low (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium (10.1-14
du/acre);
b. Prepaze a Specific Plan Amendment to adopt
development standards that require a minimum usable
yard area;
c. Prepare General Plan/Specific Plan Amendments to
include two new land use designations including
Medium-Low (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium {10.1-14
du/acre) n~ prepare a Specific Plan Amendment to
adopt development standazds that require a minimum
usable yard area; or
COPY TO: Property Owners
File
ITEM NO.~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ;~,~ ~,
Page 1 of 12 A'1TAC MENT 1
G:~Faxtem Dublin Daisityktar 4.J.07 Fast Dublin Density.DOC
d Continue to implement the existing General Plan and
Specific Plan policies.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None at this time.
PROJECT DESCRIPTTON:
Background
The City Council held a Strategic Planning Session on January 12, 2007. During this Strategic Planning
Session the City Council discussed the existing General Plan and Specific Plan Residential Land Use
Designations within the City of Dublin. Concerns wen raised during this di~ussion regarding densities
and the need for a variety of housing types (i.e. detached units, row homes, stacked flats, etc.) on
undeveloped larxi within the Easttm Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area that has a Medium Density land
use designation. Therefore, Staff has prepared this Staff Report to review the densities and the variety of
housing types within the EDSP area in order for the City Council to provide Staff with direction regarding
current residential land use policies and future residential development in the eastern portion of Dublin.
History
1993 General Plan Amendment & Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Thc planning effort for the eastem portion of Dublin was initiated by the City Council in 1987 in response
to proposals for development of the Dublin Ranch property within the City's extended planning area. The
City Council dxided that, prior to acting on the applications of various property owners in this area, a
comprehensive General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan should be undertaken to evaluate land use
options for the area and the implications for the City's growth.
A comprehensive General Plan Amendment, for the area known as the Eastem Extended Planning Area,
was undertaken in anticipation of eventual development. The Eastern Extended Planning area includes
approximately 3,300-acres of land both within the City Limits and beyond its boundary within the City's
sphere of influence. Since much of the area involved large land holdings in agricultural use, a specific
plan was needed to ensure long term comprehensive planning for future development of eastem Dublin.
Much of the land in the planning area has been annexed to the City since 1993.
The EDSP was prepared and simultaneously adopted with the General Plan amendment providing for a
range of residential and commercial uses and establishing consistency between the General Plan and
Specific Plan. The EDSP envisioned a balanced community comprised of both housing and job
opportunities. The General Plan and the EDSP have been amended several times since the 1993 approval
to include new properties and allow development consistent with the General Plan. These amendments
included the addition of the Transit Center in 2002 and Fallon Village (aka East Dublin Property Owner's
Annexation Area) in 2002. With the addition of these 2 areas, the plan area is now approximately 4,400-
acres in size. Please refer to Attachment 1 for a land use map for the EDSP area.
Resldentia/ Land Use Designations
The EDSP contains a variety of residential land uses which are dispersed throughout the EDSP area.
Table 1 below illustrates the residential land use designations and densities permitted in the EDSP area.
These residential densities allow for a variety of housing types including traditional single-family homes,
cluster homes, townhouses, and stacked apartments and condominiums.
~ ~r6~
Page 2 of 12
Table 1: Residential Land Uses and Density in Eastern Dublin
Residential Laed Use Designation Density
Rural ResidentisUA 'culture 1 dwellin unit du 100 acres
Sin le Famil 0.9-ti.0 du/acre
Medium Densi 6.1-14.0 duJacre
Medium-Hi Densi 14.1-25.0 du/acre
Hi h Densi 25.1+ du/acre
The EDSP contains Guiding Policies regarding these residential land use designations including Policy
4-2 which states "encourage higher density residential development within convenient walking distance of
shopping areas, employment centers, transit stations/stops, and other community facilities ".
The existing EDSP Land Use Map (Attachment 1) depicts the land use designations within the EDSP
area. As depicted on the land use map, the EDSP generally concentrates commercial devclopment
(including retail, office, and industrial uses) near the DublinlPleasanton BART Station, Interstate 580 and
Dublin Boulevard. The higher density residential land uses (i.e. Medium Density, Medium-High Density,
and High Density) are also concentrated near these commercial uses. The close proximity of the
residential uses to the commercial uses allows the residents of these areas to take advantage of services
and public transportation in the immediate vicinity.
Residential densities generally decrease as you move away from Interstate 580 and proceed north through
the planning arcs, with the exception of the Fallon Village Center and the Tassajara Village Center as
discussed below. The predominant residential land use designations in the northern areas of the Specific
Plan are Single Family Residential, and Rural Residential/Agriculture and some medium density
development along Tassajara Road. The Rural Residential/Agriculture land use designation has generally
been applied to areas with steep slopes in order to protect these areas from development.
The Fallon Village Center and the Tassajara Village Center contain a limited amount of land designated
for commercial use. These two areas have designated commercial uses that are surrounded by land that is
designated for Medium Density and Medium-High Density residential uses.
"Ilte "Cassajara Village Center is located near the
northerly City Limits boundary. Originally, the
EDSP identified the Tassajara Village Center to
be a larger, more robust commercial area to serve
the needs of local residents surrounded by
Medium Density and Medium High Density
housing. However, the plans for the commercial
component of the Tassajara Village Center have
bcen scaled back as a result of the
environmentally sensitive habitat in the project
area. While it is no longer possible to achieve
much commercial development due to site
constraints, the Medium Density and Medium
High Density land use designations remain in this
area. The surrounding properties that are
Tassajara Village
Center - (F)
designated for Medium Density and Medium-High Density development include the Fredrich, Vazgas,
Mission Peak and Silvers properties which are discussed later in this Staft'Report.
`33 ~ 1 ~
Page 3 of 12
~~~ ~~9
The commercial core of the Fallon Village Center is located
south of the future Central Parkway extension and is designated
for mixed use development (i.e. commercial and residential).
The Fallon Village Center was designed to be consistent with the
City of Dublin Village Policy Statement (Attachment 2) which
encourages a variety of housing types. This commercial core is
surrounded by Medium-High Density residential that transitions
to Medium Density raidential and then Single Family
Residential as you move away from the village core commercial
area. The Fallon Village Center includes the Jordan, Chen, and
Croak properties.
i`
Honsing Types in the Easton Dublin Specific Plan Area
Residential Land use categories are defined in the EDSP and included as Attachment 3 of this Staff Report.
The residential land use designations/dtnsities in the EDSP allow for a variety of housing types including
single-family detached homes, detached cluster homes, townhouses, and stacked apartments and
condomSniums. The following is a list of the residential land use designations in the EDSP, and a
description of the housing types that are typical for each of the residential land uses, followed by a
photograph of the various housing types.
Rural ResidentiaUAgricaiture (1 dn/100 acres)
Detached single family: The home typically includes accessory structures associated with
agricultural uses.
Single Family (0.9-6.0 du/acre)
Traditional detached single family home: +*~
Typically located on lots that range in size 5,000- "~ ~=.••:_~.,~s~.'~~
10,000 square feet with a backyazd. r`~ ~~ ~ .
i'l~5`.. -fix .. .. ~,
Medium-Density (ti.t-14.0 du/acre)
Small lot detached single family home:
Typically with a small usable rear yard arcs (i.e.
reaz yard depth of 10').
~.~•~
Q ~' - ~~;
.{i ~
~ ~ y
Page 4 of 12
^ Detached cluster homes: Typically built around
a motor court area with a small usable yard area
with a depth of approximately 10'.
^ Townhouses: Typically 2-3 stories in height
with garage parking on the first floor and a
small yard, patio or deck (decks typically
provide 60-100 square feet of private usable
space).
^ Apartments/Condominiums': Typically a 2-3
story stacked product (i.e. units on top of one
another) with a small patio or balcony.
~~' I67
.:.~
.=~
. ~~..
Medium-High Density (14.1-25.0 da/acre)
Apartments/Condominiums': Typically a 3-5
story stacked product (i.e. units on top of one
another) with a small patio or balcony. ~
Page 5 of 12
^ Townhouses: Typically 3-4 stories in height
with garage parking on the first floor and a small
yard, patio or deck (decks typically provide 60-
100 square feet of private usable space.
3~ ~ 16'~
High Density (25.1+ da/acre)
Apartments/Condominiums*: Typically a 4-6
story podium building (i.e. underground parking
stricture) with stacked flats (i.e. units on top of
one another) that have small patios or balconies.
* Apartments and condominiums are similar to each other except that apartments are offered. for rent
and condominiums are offered for sale.
Status of Entitlements jor Land Designated for Residential Use
A series of entitlements are needed in order to develop a residential projxt in the EDSP area. The typical
entitlements for residential projects include Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, Site Development
Review, Tentative Sub-Division Map (neighborhood of detached homes), and a Development Agreement
(DA). The EDSP requires the adoption of Planned Development Zoning Districts (PD) for all property
within the EDSP area. The City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.32) requires adoption of a PD in
a two stage process which includes a Stage 1 and a Stage 2 Development Plan as described in Attachment
4. While there are avariety ofpermits/agreements required for development, there are only two specific
types that vest an Applicant's right to develop, which arc a DA and a Vesting Tentative Map (VTM).
It should be noted that these development rights do expire based on the terns of the DA or VTM.
Property owners with vested development rights have two choices if the development regulations change
prior to expiration of the vested development rights. The property owner can complete the project in
accordance with the vested development rights prior to the expiration of those rights, or constn-ct the
project in accordance with current development regulations.
Much of the residential land in the EDSP area has ban constructed. However, there are a number of
properties that have received all of the required entitlements and have a vested right to develop through a
DA or VTM or both, but have not commenced construction or have not yet completed construction.
There are also a number of properties in the EDSP area that have some of the necessary entitlements (such
as a Stage 1 Development Plan) but do not have vested development rights (i.e. DA or VTM). There are
also a limited number of properties that do not have any entitlements and therefore do not have vested
development rights.
Page 6 of 12
Land that has been Constructed and Land with Development Entitlements and Vested Development Rights
Since the EDSP was adopted in 1993, a number of property owners with residential land have vested their
rights to develop their properties. in some cases these projects have already been constructed while others
have not yet started construction. A list and map of the properties that have been constructed or have
vested development rights are included as Attachments 5 and 6, respectively. These developments
include a variety of housing types as noted above. Apartments/condominiums are focused near transit and
commercial centers as well as detached cluster homes and townhomes with small yard areas along Dublin
Bouievard and Tassajara Road. Traditional single-family homes with larger backyards are located in the
northern portions of the EDSP area, away from the commercial shopping areas and transit centers.
Land with a Stage 1 Development Plan, but without Vested Development Rights
There are seven properties that have an approved Stage 1 Development Plan that establishes the maximum
number of dwelling units that maybe developed. Table 2 includes a list of the properties within the EDSP
that have obtained approval of a Stage 1 Development Plan. A Stage 1 Development Plan is required as a
condition of annexation. The Stage 1 Development Plan for the Fallon Village area, which includes the
Jordan, Chen, Croak, Anderson, Branaugh, and Righetti properties, was revised subsequent to annexation
to further refine the Development Plan for the projxt area. However, the owners of these properties have
not yet vested their development rights. A map identifying the location of these properties is included as
Attachment 7.
Table 2: Land with a Stage 1 Development Plan, bat without Vested Development Rights
Project Residential Land Use
Designation
Acreage Maximnm Dwelling
Units
Mission Peak (currently
under review for a Stsge 2 PD
a~ SDR) Single Family
Rural RcsidentiaUAgriculture 19.5
44.1 103
U
Jordan Single Family 48-acres 192
Medium Density 23.4-acres 234
Medium-High Density 19.8-acres 542
Mized Use 6.4-acres 96
Chen Medium-Hi Densi 4.0-acres l30
Croak Sinttle-Family 115.4-acres 469
Medium Density 10.4-acres 104
Rural ResidentiaUA 'culture 19.4-acres 0
Anderson Medium Dcnsit 7.0-acres 70
Ri etti Medium Densit 9.6-acres 96
Branau Medium Densit 9.7-acres 97
Maximum
Dwellin Units:
2133
Thcsc adopted Stage 1 Development Plans allow for development of a combined maximum of 2,133
units. The City is currently processing applications for additional entitlements for the Mission Peak
property as noted in Table 2. There are no applications under review for the remaining six properties at
this time.
Land without Development Entitlements and/or without Yested Development Rights
There ace four properties within the eastern portion of Dublin that have General Plan designations for
residential development but that do not have entitlements or vested development rights. (See Table 3).
37~ I6 ~
Page 7 of 12
The Vargas, Moller, and Tipper properties are currently located outside of the City Limits but located ~ ` ~ ~ {~.. '
within the City's sphere of influence. The City is currently processing an application to annex these three
properties into the City of Dublin. The Tipper property is only proposed for annexation and is not ///~~~
proposed for development at this time. It should be noted that the Fredrich, Tipper and Vargas properties
are within the EDSP area. The Applicant for the Moller property has requested annexation into the EDSP.
The City is also processing applications for Stage 1 Development Plans for the Vargas, Molltr, and
Fredrick properties (Please refer to Attachment 8 for a map depicting these sites).
Table 3: Land without Entitlements and without Vested Development Rights
Property Owner Residential General Plan/ Land Potential Units
Based on Land
Acreage Uae Designation
Uae Desi anon
Fredrich 3.4 Medium-High 48-85
Densi Residential
MolleP"+ 226.0 Low Density & 0-413
ltural/Residential/
A 'culture
Tipper* 8.2 Medium Density 50-1 ] 5
Residential
Vargas* 4.4 Medium Density & 59-110
Medium-High
Densi
Cam Parks 0 Public Lands*" --
* Located outside of the City Limits, but within the City's Sphere of Influence
Located outside of the EDSP area
** Property is zoned Agriculture
Fralrich Propet
The Fredrich property currently has General Plan/Spxific Plan Land Use Designation of Medium-High
Density Residential The City is currently processing a request by the property owner for a General
Plan/Specific Plan Amendment and Stage 1 Development Plan to reduce the density on the site from
Medium-High Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial to Single Family to allow a maximum
of 47 dwelling units. The request would reduce the maximum development potential of the property from
85 total dwelling units to a maximum of 47. The Applicant currently proposes to construct 37 detached
single-family homes which range from 1,400 square feet to 1,600 square feet in size with small backyards
and tandem parking. The request to initiate the General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment will be reviewed
by the City Council as a separate item on this evening's agenda.
Vargas PropgLty
The Vargas property currently has a General Plan/Specific Plan Land Use Designations of both Medium
Density Residential and Medium-High Density Residential. On June 6, 2006, the City Council authorized
Staff to study a request for a General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment snd Stage 1 Development Plan to
reduce the density of the entire site to Medium Density Residential which reduces the maximum number
of dwelling units from 110 dwelling units to a maximum of 33 dwelling units. The proposed housing
product would be the same as that noted above for the Fredrich property (i.e. small lot detached singlo-
family dwelling units) with tandtm parking. The Planning Commission held a Study Session on January
23, 2007 to review the development proposal for the Vargas property and raised concerns about the
proposed tandem parking for the project.
Page 8 of 12
Moller Property
The current General Plan [and Use Designation for the Moller property is Low Density Residential and
Rural ResidentiaUAgrfculture. On March 21, 2006, the City Council authorized Staff to study a request
for a General Plan Amendment to increase the density of the site and a Stage 1 Development Plan to
reduce the development envelope on the site as a result of environmental constraints. While this request
would increase the overall density of the project, the developable area of the site would be reduced,
resulting in an overall decrease in the number of proposed units. The current proposal would result in a
maximum development potential of 298 dwelling units, reduced from the current maximum of 413
dwelling units. The Applicant's development proposal consists of small lot single-family detached units
with rear yards, and attached townhouses with usable private yards.
Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Reserve Forces Trainine Area
The City is currently working with representatives of the United States Army regarding futtree private
development of approximately 187 acres at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks). The 187-
acre Camp Parks site is located to the north of Transit Center. The City has not yet received a formal
application for development of this property and the exact number of units and future land use
designations for the site have not been determined (the site has a current General Plan Land Use
designation of Public Lands). However, the City has completed a community visioning process for
development of this property. The preferred development alternative identified through this visioning
process includes a combination of single-family residential, medium-high density residential and high
density residential land use designations.
There are a variety of residential land use designation/densides for the land located east of Dougherty
Road and within the EDSP area. These land use residential designations /densities have resulted in a
variety of housing types as discussed above. These land use designations/densities and housing types
provide context for evaluating the variety of housing types available in Dublin and policy alternatives to
address future housing needs.
ANALYSIS:
During the Strategic Planning Session the City Council raised concern regarding densities and the need for
a variety of housing types (i.e. detached units, row homes, stacked flats, etc.) within the community. The
City Council expressed an interest in alternatives that would achieve single-family housing types that are
detached and provide a usable yard area.
The City Council has the authority to modify existing General Plan and Specific Plan Residential Land
Use Designations (which includes a density increase or decrease) and/or create new development
standards at any time. It is important to note, however, that state law (Government Code § 65863(b))
prohibits a city from reducing the residential density for any parcel or allowing development of any parcel
at a lower residential density than called out in the General Plan Housing Element without making
additional findings. However, the properties without vested development rights (Attachment 9) were not
identified in the Housing Element to meet the City's share of the regional housing needs allocation.
Therefore, such findings would not be necessary if the densities for these properties were modified.
Issues such as the net and gross acreage calculations as defined in the General Plan and development
regulations such as parking standards will also have to be fully analyzed if the City Council chooses to
direct Staff to review land use designations and/or create new development standards. In addition, the
City Council should consider the impact that a change in development regulations could have for property
owners. The following is a discussion of the impact to property owners if the City Council were to adopt
new development regulations.
3 9 ~ /~9
Page 9 of 12
Impact ojNew Poltcles . t ~ ~ ~ / ~j
Existing Residential Develop»rent: A change to the development regulations would only apply in the
event that the development is replaced with new construction which required new entitlements. A change
to the development regulations for an existing development would eftectively render the development a
legal non-conforming use. The legal non-conforming status could affect a property owner's ability to
reconstruct a demolished unit.
Land with Vested Development Rights: DAs and VTMs vest a property owner's development rights based
on the rules in place at the time of vesting. Although certain properties do have vested development
rights, those rights can terminate with the expiration of the DA or VTM. Therefore, a change to the
development regulations would not affect land with vested development rights unless the vested rights
were to expire. The City Council may authorize changes to the development regulations for property with
vested development rights. If the City Council authorizes changes to the development regulations for
properties with vested development rights, the property owner may develop the property in accordance
with the vested rights (before the development rights expire), or develop the property in accordance with
the new development regulations.
Land without Vested Development Rights: There are a total of 12 residential properties that do not have
vested development rights and could therefore be subject to new regulations established by the City
Council (Attachments 9 & 10). Developers typically spend large sums of money to obtain entitlements to
develop their property. For example, a Stage 1 Development Plan outlines the basic development
parameters including maximum densities and permitted uses. However, a Stage 2 Development Plan and
a Site Development Review Permit require design work, plans, and drawings that illustrate the proposed
development (Attachment 4). Therefore, a developer invests a considerable amount of time and money to
obtain a Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review permit. All development applications
are required to be consistent with the EDSP. If the City Council modifies the EDSP, then all applications
would be required to be consistent with the new regulations.
Application ojNew Policies: Therefore, the City Council should consider at what point new development
regulations should apply to land with existing entitlements. The City Council should decide if new
development regulations should apply to: 1) existing residential development; 2) properties that have
achieved full entitlements, but have not vested their development rights; 3) properties that have achieved
partial entitlements, but have not vested their development rights; and 4) properties that are currently
processing an application for entitlements with the City.
Polley Alterxatlves
Staff has identified four policy alternatives for the City Council to consider when reviewing the densities
and the variety of housing stock available in the City of Dublin. These alternatives include: A) adopt new
land use designations; B) adopt new development standards to the EDSP that require minimum yard sizes;
C) adopt new land use designations and adopt new development standards to the EDSP that require
minimum yard sizes; or D) continue to implement the existing General Plan/Specific Plan policies.
A. Adopt New Land Use Categories
The Medium Density Land Use Designation permits 6.1-14 du/acre. The lower end of this density
range (i.e. 6.1-10 du/acre) results in a lot size that ranges from approximately 4,356 to 7,140 square
feet. Lots within this density range can readily accommodate a detached single-family housing type
that includes a usable rear yard area. Densities between 10.1-14 du/acre result in lot sizes that range
from approximately 3,110 to 4,310 square feet in size. These arc relatively small lot sizes and are
more difficult to develop a detached housing type with a usable yard area while maintaining a
Page 10 of 12
. _ __ ___--- I
minimum distance between buildings. Detached units with usable yards in this density range~ak~e ~( ~~j
typically small lot cluster developments such as the "Courtyards" development. ~ I
The City Council could divide the existing Medium Density Land Use Designation into two new
categories (i.e. Medium-Low 6.1-10 du/acre, and Medium 10.1-14 du/acre). The new Medium-Low
designation would encourage development of housing typcs including detached single-family homes
with private yard areas. The new Medium designation would encourage development of more
compact medium density housing types such as detached cluster homes and townhomes.
Implementation: Tn order to adopt new land use categories, the City Council would need to: 1) direct
Staff to prepare General Plan/Specific Plan Amendments to create two new designations that include
Medium-Low (ti.l-10 du/acre) and Medium (10.1-14 du/acre); and 2) identify which properties with
the Medium Density Residential designation should be re-designated as Medium-Low and which
properties should be re-designated as Medium.
B. Adopt New Development Standards
The EDSP requires the adoption of PD zoning districts for all property with the EDSP area. PD
zoning is more flexible and allows for greater creativity to develop property than allowed under
traditional zoning which has mandatory development regulations such as required setbacks and height
restrictions. Further, the EDSP land use designations provide for a variety of housing types (i.e. the
Single Family Land Use Designation permits single-family detached housing while the Medium
Density designation allows development that includes small lot detached housing, and townhouses,
etc J
Development standards can be used in a similar fashion to traditional zoning to require a developer to
incorporate certain design aspects into developments that rho City Council deems as desirable to the
community, such as a minimum sized usable private yard area. Therefore, the City Council could
adopt development standards in the EDSP that require minimum private yard sizes for property with a
Medium Density Land Use Designation. All Medium Density development that is subject to the new
development standards would be required to provide this minimum private yard area. There currently
are no required minimum private yard standards in the EDSP.
Implementation: In order to adopt new development standards the City Council would need to; 1)
direct Staff to prepare a Specific Plan Amendment to create development standards; 2) determine the
appropriate usable private yard area to include in the development standards; and 3) determine which
land use designations would be subject to the development standards.
C. Continue to Implement Existing General Plan/Specific Plan Policies
After reviewing the status of existing and proposed development as noted in this Staff Report and the
development policies contained in the EDSP, the City Council may be satisfied with the variety of
housing that is being constructed within the EDSP area; in which case, the City Council could elect
not to modify the existing land use designations or adopt new dcvclopment standards at this time.
Implementation: Accept this Staff' Report and direct staff to continue implementing the existing
General Plan and Specific Plan policies.
Page I 1 of l2
CONCLUSION:
The City Council has the authority to modify General Plan and Specific Plan Land Use Designations (i.e.
increase/decrease densities) and adopt development standards. Staff has identified four policy alternatives
for the City Council to consider when reviewing the densities and the variety of housing stock available in
the City of Dublin. These alternatives include adopting new land use categories (i.e. Medium-Low
Density and Medium Density) to encourage medium density detached housing with usable yards, adopting
new development standuds to the EDSP that require minimum private yard sizes, adopting new land use
categories and new development standards, or continuing to implement the existing General Plan/Specific
Plan policies. If the City Council decides to pursue changes to the land use designation or development
standuds, Staff' will conduct the appropriate review and analysis prior to returning to the City Council for
further discussion.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Rxeive public testimony; 3)
Deliberate; and 4) Direct Staff to either. a) Prepare General Plan/Specific Plan Amendments to include
two new land use designations including Medium-Low (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium (10.1-14 du/acre); b)
Prepare a Specific Plan Amendment to adopt development standards that require a minimum usable yard
area; c) Prepare General Plan/Specific Plan Amendments to include two new land use designations
including Medium-Low (6.1-10 du/acre) and Mafium (10.1-14 du/acre) and prepare a Specifc Plan
Amendment to adopt development standards that require a minimum usable yard area; or d) Continue to
implement the existing General Plan and Specific Plan policies.
old aP ~ 6~1
~r
Page 12 of 12
~i ~ Attachment ]
r~
W
. ^ ~~ ~ ~6~
°~~
,;
-~
~~, ~s
CITY OF DUBLIN
VILLAGE POLICY STATEMENT
~r~ -'
y{t ~ ~__ a
.~ ~ RRi. 4' •Y •
~l
wnr a:er.raw
l i t~ J 11a ^ ~. w V ~ ~~~~~gx~~~ r, '
~'r~..
xoer. raren0•
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
Attachment 2
4 ~~~ ~~~
VILLAGE POLICY
Introduction
The Policy described below is not a Planning legal requirement for new development. This Policy
Statement is a definition of a Village used to refine and enhance special areas in the community that
already contain some of the characteristics ofvillages. In addition, this Policy provides dirxtion on
what characteristics comprises the Dublin Village Concept. This concept can be used as a template
for the development of new villages in the future. The development of this Policy is based on a
Background Document dated September 7, 2004.
Annli'cability
This Policy will be used by the City to identify possible Village sites in both new development areas
and redeveloping sites. An Action Plan will be developed by Staff with specific recommendations
on:
Possible Village Sites
Later modifications to the Creneral Plan and Spxific Plans to mandate the location
and characteristics of Villages.
Only when changes are made to the Planning documents noted above will this Policy become a legal
requirement.
?7rt Yillape Policy
A Village is defined as a physical development of land that has been
designed to encourage compact development of an arcs which integrates a
variety of housing types and densities with wmmunity facilities, civic and
educational uses. Commercial and industrial uses may also be located in
Villages. An emphasis on pedestrian-friendly design should be required.
Villages should have these characteristics:
1 A Village location should be compatible with the local environment including surrounding
land uses and topography. It should respect constraints, roadways and environmental
considerations;
2 A Village should have a mixture of housing types, densities and affordability and should
support a range of age and income groups;
3 Activity nodes (commercial areas, community facilities and public/private facilities) should
be easily accessible; `
4 Trails, pedestrian walkways and street linkages should be established to bring the parts and
elements ofthe Village together,
5 Street and Pedestrian linkages should link to transportation spines including buses and transit
services;
The Village should have a strong "edge" defining the boundaries. This wind include major
streets, architectural or landscaped areas;
Village size should reflect development that promotes pedestrian walkability, permits a
sufficient mixture of residential and public/private uses and convenitnt wmmercial areas.
Specific identity should be fostered for the Village areas (special signage, unique design
elements, public plazas etc.)
Imalaxextattox
An Action Plan to determine potential Village sites and appropriate modifications to the City's
General Plan and Specific Plan to include development of Villages in appropriate locations in Dublin
shall be prepared by Staff for review and adoption by the Planning Commission and City Council.
C:l~AMt2IXW~1K-0251Vilhgs Policy Statement Revisions nom ec rnts.doc
~.. ~ ~
~ ~ fSE
Program 4P: The City shall work with East Bay Regional Parks District regarding the
provision of staging areas in the Specific Plan area.
4.8 LAND USE CATEGORIES
This section describes each of the land use classifications used in the Land Use Map in
Figure 4.1. Chapter 6 on Resource Management and the Open Space Framework Map
(Figure 6.1) provide supplementary information on open space uses. Appendix 2
includes more detailed description of the specific land uses that are considered
appropriate for each Specific Plan land use designation. Table 41 summarizes land use
acreages in the planning area by the designations described below.
4.8.1 RESIDENTIAL
Rural ResidentiaUAg~culture (.Ol units per gross residential acre). Accommodates
agricultural activities and other open space uses, such as range and watershed
management, consistent with the site conditions and plan policies. This classification
includes privately held lands, as well as public ownerships not otherwise designated in
the plan for Parks and Open Space, or Public/Semi-Public uses. Assumed household size
is 3.2 persons per unit.
. i*+gl_g Fa i v (0.9 to 6.0 units per gross residential acre). Accommodates the majority
plan for Parks and Open Space, or Public/Semi-Public uses. Assumed household size is
3:2 persons per unit.
Mediu, m Density (6.1 to 14.0 units per gross residential acre). Provides for a mix of single
family detached and attached units and multi-family units. The density range allows for
detached, zero-lot line, duplex, townhouse, and garden apartment development. It is
intended that within areas with this designation, that dwelling unit types and densities
would be varied to accommodate a range of housing needs. Assumed household size is
2.0 persons per unit.
Mediu_m_ Hig Demity (14.1 to 2§.0 units per gross residential acre). Provides for
apartment, condominium, and townhouse development. Projects at the upper end of
this range may require some under-structure parking and may need three or more
stories in order to meet zoning ordinance open space requirements. Assumed household
size is 2.0 persons per unit.
i
Hig Density (2a.1 or more units per gross residential acre). Provides for apartment and
condominium development in the Town Center. Development at these densities must
meet the majority of their pazking requirements with under-structurt parking. With
careful design, densities of up to 100 units per acre can be achieved without exceeding
four stories. Assumed household size is 20 persons per unit.
46
Attachment 3
~~=~ 1~~
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT
Chapter 8.32
CHAPTER 832 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT
8.32.010 Pnrpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to:
A. Establish a Planned Development Zoning District through which one or more properties
arc phumed as a unit with development standards tailored to the site.
B. Provide maximum flexibility and diversification in the development of property.
C. Maintain consistency with, and implement the provisions of, the Dublin General Plan and
applicable Specific Plans.
D. Protect the integrity and character of both residential and non-residential areas of the
City.
E. Encourage efficient use of land for preservation of sensitive environmental areas such as
open space areas and topographic features.
F. Provide for effective development ofpublic facilities and services for the site.
G. Encourage use of design features to achieve development that is compatible with the
area.
H. Allow for creative and imaginative design that will promote amenities beyond those
expected in conventional developments.
8.32.020 Intent. The intent of this Chapter is to create a more desirable use of the land, a
more coherent and coordinated development, and a better physical enviromnent
than would otherwise be possible under a single zoning district or combination of
zoning districts.
8.32.030 Applicability. The provisions of this Chapter shall be applicable to property only
upon designation of the site as a Planned Development Zoning District pursuant
to procedures set forth in Chapter 8.120, Zoning Ordinance Amendment. A
Planned Development Zoning District shall be established by the adoption of an
Ordinance reclassifying the property to such district and adopting a Development
Plan. A Development Plan shall constitute a District Planned Development Plan
as required by Chapter 11.2.7 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The
Development Plan shall establish regulations for the use, development,
improvement, and maintenance of the property within the requested Planned
Development Zoning District, and may be adopted in stages, as follows:
A. Stags 1 Development Plso. A Stage (Development Plan shall be adopted for the entire
Planned Development District site with the reclassification ofthe property to the Planned
CHy o/Dublin Zoning Ordinance 32-1
September, 1997
Attachment 4
49. ~ - G`~
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTWCT
Chapter 8.32
Development Zoning District. The plan shall establish the permitted, conditionally
permitted, and accessory uses, Stage 1 site plan, site area and proposed densities,
maximum number of residential units and non residential square footages, a phasing plan
and a Master Landscaping Plan; statements regarding consistency with General Plan and
Specific Plans, and consistency with Inclusionary Zoning regulations, an aerial photo,
other information necessary for the review of the proposed project; and any provisions as
further described in the Applicaton section below.
B. Stage 2 Development Plan. A Stage 2 Development Plan for all or a portion of the
entire Planned Development District site may be adopted with the Stage 1 Development
Plan at the time of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, or may be adopted at a subsequent
time ns a separate Zoning Ordinance Amendment(s) pursuant to Chapter 8.120, Zoning
Ordinance Amendment. A Stage 2 Development Plan shall establish permitted,
conditionally pemritted, and accessory uses, Stage 2 site plan, site area and maximum
proposed densities, maximum numbers of residential units by type and non residential
square fooffiges for each use, development regulations, architectural standards,
preliminary landscape plan, other information necessary for the review of the proposed
project; and arty provisions as further described in the Application section below. All
Subdivision Maps, Conditional Use Permits, acrd Site Development Reviews within a
Stage 2 development area shall be consistent with that Stage 2 Development Plan. Where
phased development of the Planned Development Zoning District is proposed, Stage 2
Development Plans may be requested by the developer for portions of the property within
the Planned Development Zoning District. Ministerial and discretionary permits may be
issued only for those portions of a Planned Development District for which a Stage 2
Development Plan has been adopted.
g.32.040 Application. The Planned Development Zoning District may be requested
pursuant to Chapter 8.120, Zoning Ordinance Amendment, and Chapter 8.124,
Applications, Fees, and Deposits, in the fern specified by the City of Dublin.
The application shall be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the Dublin
General Plan and applicable Specific Plans, and shall (subject to modification by
the Director of Community Development and or the Planning Commission)
include the following:
A. Stage 1 Development Plan. The Stage 1 Development Plan shall include all of the
following information and materials for the entire Plarmed Development Zoning District
sift:
Statement of proposed uses. A written Statement of Proposed Uses, including
permitted, conditional, and accessory uses.
Stage 1 Site Plan. A Stage 1 Site Plan showing the location and arrangement of
existing and proposed land uses, and proposed development stages for the entire
Planned Development Zoning District, and uses and structures within 300 feet
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 32-2
Ssptember,1997
~. , ~ ~ ~.~
~_~ ~~,
v'
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT
Chapter 8.32
beyond the district boundary; location of public uses including but not limited to
parks, schools, and hails; proposed entry mommrents; existing and proposed
locations of freeways, arterials and collector streets.
3. Site area, proposed densities. Gross and net area of site; maximum densities for
residential and non-residential development, minimum densities where applicable
for compliance with the Dublin General Plan or applicable specific plans; and
maximum number of residential units and or maximum non-residential square
footage.
4. Phasing Plan. A phasing plan shall show the boundaries, timing and sequencing,
gross and net areas sad densities, and non-residential square footages, for
development within the entire Planned Development Zoning District. It shall also
include existing and proposed land uses; major features of the circulation system
including any existing and proposed freeways, arterials, and collector streets;
other infrastructure requirements including water supply, wastewater collection,
treatment and disposal, and drainage systems.
5. Master Neighborhood Landscaping Plan. Provide a Master Neighborhood
Landscaping Plan showing parks, pedestrian circulation, landscaping, and
hardscape proposed at the neighborhood level.
6. General Plan sad Specific Plan Consistency. A written statement addressing
consistency with all elements of the General Plan and any applicable specific
plans.
7. Ieclnsionsry Zoning Regulations. A written statement addressing compliance
with the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations for the provision of affordable housing.
This statement should.supplement any statement regarding compliance with the
FIousing Element of the General Plan.
8. Aerial Photo. An aerial photo of the proposed district and 300 feet beyond its
boundary showing sufficient topographic data to indicate clearly the character of
the terrain; the type, location, and condition of mature trees, and other natural
vegetation; and the location of existing developmenk
9. Other information. Other infom~ration as required by the Department of
Community Development as necessary for the substantive and enviromnental
review of the proposed projeck
B. Stage 2 Development Plan. The Stage 2 Development Plan shall include the following
detailed information and materials for all or a portion of the site, as applicable under any
proposed or adopted phasing plan:
Cfty of Dublin Zon/ng Ordinance 32-3
September,199T
.I Y~ {,-
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT `/I~
Chapter 8.32
1. Statement of compatibWty with Stage 1 Development Piae. A written
statement demonstrating compah'bility of the Stage 2 Development Plan with the
Stage 1 Development Plan.
2. Statement of proposed uses. A written Statement of Proposed Uses, including
permitted, conditional, and accessory uses.
3. Stage 2 Site Plan. A detailed site plan for all or a portion of the Planned
Development Zoning District showing the location and arrangement of existing
and proposed land uses on the site and within 100 feet beyond its boundary' ;
existing and proposed circulation system; existing structures and proposed
general building areas; contours; parking areas, driveways and loading areas in
general; limits of grading; and phasing boundaries per the Stage 1 Development
Plan.
4. Site area, proposed densities. Gross and net area of the Stage 2 site; maximum
densities for residential and non-residential development by type, minimum
densities where applicable for compliance with the Dublin General Plan or
applicable Specific Plans; and maximum numbers of residential units by type and
or maximum non-residential square footage for each use.
5. Development Regnlations. Development regulations for lot areas, lot square
footage per dwelling unit, lot width and frontage, lot depth, setbacks, distances
between residences, maximum lot coverage, common useable outdoor space, floor
area ratios, height limits, parking, driveways, loading areas, signage, grading
standards, and trash enclosures, accompanied by any necessary diagrams.
6. ArcAitectunl Standards. Area-wide and project-wide architectural standards,
concepts, and themes.
7. Preliminary Landscaping Plan. A Preliminary Landscaping Plan implementing
the Master Neighborhood Landscaping Plan, and complying with Chapter 8.72,
Landscaping and Fencing Regulations.
8. Other information. Other information as required by the Department of
Community Development as necessary for the substantive and environmental
review of the proposed project.
8.32.050 Permitted Uses. No use other than an existing use is permitted in a Planned
Development 7.oning District except in accordance with a Development Plan
adopted pursuant to this Chapter.
Clty of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 32-4
September, 1997
k~
~i~~~
v ~
6`~
U'1
__
--~
__~
~~
-~
~ i~~
~'
-Q
~~~~~ ~ ~
i~
Og Tf~ C1TY OF DiJ$LIR
lt~~Utt~g M~TINH~ - ~'iiIl. 3, E007
CLOSID SESSION
A closed session was held at 6:48 p.m., regarding:
I. CONFERENCE II'ITHREAL PROPERTYNEGOTIATORS (Government Code
section S~9Sd.8)
Property: 1.1759 Dublin Blvd. (Dublin Square Shopping Center)
City Negotiator: City Manager
Negotiating parties: City of Dublin; Berkeley Land Company, Inc., a California
Corporation
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, Apri13, 2007, in the
Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:04
p.m., by Mayor Lockhart.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councihnemlxrs Hildenbrand, Oravetz, Sbranti and Scholz, and Mayor
Lockhart.
ABSENT: None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited by the Council, Staff and those present.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MIlVUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
April 3, 2007
PAGE 118
Attachment 2
~'~ 169
Linda Mandolini, Executive Director of Eden Housing, thanked the Council and Staff for
efforts in negotiations. The Housing Authority was goiMg to select Overland Pacific and
Cutler as the relocation specialists for this project. Eden Housing had worked with them
on previous projects, including one in which they relocated 150 seniors, and had done a
wonderful job. There would lx two meetings with the residents and surrounding
residents on Apri124 to discuss the development of Arroyo Vista.
Mayor Lockhart stated that outreach to the surrounding neighbors was very important
since they would be curious about the project, as well as the fact that there would be an
increase in units.
Assistant City Manager Pattillo stated that during the RFQ process, Eden Housing, as well
as Citation, noted the importance of viewing this as a community project and involving
the surrounding neighbors. Eden had been involved in tough projects where at the end;
everyone in the community was celebrating the project.
On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Scholz and by unanimous vote, the City
Council 1) Authorized the Mayor to sign the ENRA on behalf of the City of Dublin; 2)
Directed Staff to include a reserve in the Inclusionary Zoning In Lieu Fee Fund for a
future loan of 51,500,000 as a low interest loan to Eden Housing for the affordable
rental units; and 3) Directed Staff to include an appropriation from the Inclusionary
Zoning In Lieu Fee Fund in the amount of SZ 50,000 for Transactional Cost in the Fiscal
Year 2007-2008 Budget.
NFW BUSINESS
Review of General Plan and
Specific Plan Raidential Land Use Designations for Properties Generally
Fast of Dougherty Road and IneludinQ the East Dublin Svccific Platt_A~+ea
7:53 p.m. 8.1 (410-20)
Senior Planner Jeff Baker presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council
would consider providing Staff with direction regarding current residential land use
policies and future residential development for the properties generally located to the
east of Dougherty Road and included in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL NIINiJTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETIl~TG
April 3, 2007
PAGE 126
~~ ~ ib~
Council and Staff discussed the number of residents, 60,000 to 70,000, estimated in the
City's original environmental plan and whether changing the number of residents now
would affect financial prognostications for the City. With unexpected decreases and
increases in number of units of developments, the numbers had stayed pretty much on
target. The City was very close to mid-point resident numbers, taking into account
developable land and environmental constraints, and tracking pretty close to medium
density.
Mr. Milton Rigltettti, Dublin land owner/developer, commented on working with the
City and the need for cooperation of neighboring land owners. Aside from City
regulations, he had difficulty in coming to any agreement with the neighboring property
owner with respect to access to the property in a place where the City would like the
access located He was unable to get secondary access to his pxnperty. He urged the
Council to stick with the present PD-2 process.
Mayor Lockhart commented that the Council needed to consider the infrastructure
needs of the City in relation to funding provided by development, and with less
development, the City would need to come up with more money for infrastructure. She
understood how this issue had come out of a previous Council workshop in talking
about density levels, but she did not believe there was a tremendous amount of support
at the time of the workshop for this issue. She did not want to change the rules if people
had been working on plans with the City and had spent money already. The City had a
commitment to follow-through with them based on what the rules were now and what
they had already brought to the City.
Vm. Hildenbrand stated she had brought the density issue forward at the Council
workshop because, on a consistent basis, she had heard from residents that there was
only a limited amount of housing stock that allowed them to grow. They had a choice to
purchase a condominium or townhome or they could move some place else, and they
chose to move elsewhere. The City was missing a balance of housing. The commitment
to the residents was to have less density housing as you moved away from the freeways,
but the development community consistently brought dense housing before the Council.
Mayan Lockhart asked how many Dublin residents, that could afford a townhome,
would be able to afford single-family housing.
Vm. Hildenbrand stated that there were a variety of single-family homes, such as cluster
or row homes that compared and were just as interesting to people that were in the same
price range as condominiums. The City was not providing an opportunity for people to
grow. When this issue was brought up at the Council workshop, there was a consensus
DUBLIN CITY COUNCII. NIINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETII~TG
April 3, 2007
PAGE 127
~~~. ~~~
to look at the issue of density.- The Council had a commitment to its residents to balance
the housing. The developers camc before the Council with condominiums and
townhomes and would say that was all they could provide in the project in order to
make ends meet. The City did not have the next-step homes for residents looking to
move.
Cm. Sbranti commented that the City had provided a good balance of housing. What
was coming on-line was single-family or medium density housing. But what has been
built now was near the freeway because there were not as many environmental
constraints. A lot of what -was zoned for higher density had been built, but now, the
projects further out were going to be built and help balance it out. He was willing to
look at the concept of medium low density. He did not want to change the entire City
development standards. Because the City had aMedium-High density category, he was
willing to look at where it might be appropriate to create aMedium-Low density
category, just for the level of consistency. There were not that many properties left in
Dublin that would be affected by any changes made by Council.
Vm. Hildenbrand reiterated that even with Medium density, the Council would still see
condominiums and townhomes where they were expectiztg to see single-family dwelling
units.. A Planning Commissioner had relayed to her that the Commission felt the train
was out of the station so they felt that was the way the Council wanted to move forward.
She stated that may have been how the Council wanted to move forward in 1993, but
not now.
Cm. Scholz asked if what Vm. Hildenbrand was supporting was not in conflict with
what the Mayor had suggested could happen with infrastructure not getting built.
Vm. Hildenbrand stated that if the Council went with Option B as outlined in the Staff
Report, it would not be modifying the infrastructure so severely that Dublin Boulevard
could not be built out as far as it needed to go. They could build cluster or row homes,
or alley loaded homes.
Cm. Oravetz stated he did not see the plan as being broken so he did not want to changc
it. Every Cauncilmember had a vote, and if Vm. Hillenbrand did not like a project that
came before Council, she could vote no and say she did not like it. If three
Councilmembers voted no, the developer would have to revise that project. She did have
a vote. The City had a long term financial plan, and if it was changed now, how would
it affect that financial plan. If he had a choice, he would like to see single-story homes
built in Dublin, but condominiums were what sold these days. If that was what sold in
east Dublin, then that was what should be built.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL NIINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETIl~iG
April 3, 2007
PAGE 128
~~~ I~ ~
Vm. Hillenbrand commented why should the City let a developer make a huge financial
investment, then come before the Council and not have plans approved and have to have
them revised. Why not make those changes before that developer made that huge
investment. Trvo years ago the Planning Commission came before the Council at a
workshop and asked why not take this opportunity to maybe change the setback and
make some yards and at that time, she was the only one that supported the issue and it
was voted down.
City Attorney Silver clarified that that if a project came before the Council that needed a
General Plan Amendment or a Spec Plan, the Council had total discretion to turn it
down. But if the project was for a Stage 2 PD, for example, the Council had to have
some reason far turning it down. If it was not within the density ranges or the zoning
for the land use densities in the General Plan, then the Council could turn it down. But it
was not going to get to the Council not being within the ranges. It might be at the low
end or the high end, but when the Council adopted the City's General Plan and Spec
Plan, the Council said the developers could come in at the low end or the high end. The
point at which the Council had total discretion was at the General Plan and Specific Plan
level. When you were below that, the Council could not arbitrarily turn someone down.
The Council and Staff discussed what number of properties in Dublin were totally
unplanned and which developers had not been working within the structure of the
City's General Plan for eastern Dublin. Council was directed to a list in the Staff Report
that detailed properkies and acreage. There were four properties that were totally
unplanned now, .Croak, Jordan, Camp Parks and Chen. In looking at the Medium
density category acreage of these properties, it totaled approximately 57 acres of land
that would be affected if changes were made by the Council. Camp Parks had other
restrictions that would also affect its development.
Cm. Sbranti stated that it was misleading to say that all the City had done was High
density or Medium-High because the City had done a varicty, leaning toward, Medium,
Medium-High and High only because in order to build, it was being done closer to the
freeway. He was willing to look at the Medium-Low density category concept of getting
more variety of Medium designations. He would ask 'Staff where they might
recommend some of the Medium-Low designation. The economic models of the future
of the City were based on the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. There had been changes in
the plan due to environmental constraints that had sometimes increased density and
sometimes lowered densities.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
Apri13, 2007
PAGE 129
~~ I~ ~
Vm. I3ildenbrand stated that she was not saying the City was only building Medium-
High. But what the Council was consistently seeing in Medium density designations was
a majority of condominiums and townhomes. Focusing in on Medium where the City
had an opportunity to provide small yards for activity, was not being offered as often as
the City was offering condominiums and townhomes in Medium density housing. She
was not saying change the land designations, but look at the possibility of getting more,
small homes with yards so residents could move out of their apartments, townhomes or
condominiums, and have a home of their own with a yard.
Cm. Sbranti commented that aMedium-Low density category would achieve, at least
conceptually, what Vm. Iiildenbrand was suggesting.
Mayor Lockhart stated that there were single-family homes in the City of Dublin that
had big back yards.
Vm. Hillenbrand stated that those older homes might need remodeling and with the
money you had spent on purchasing the home, and then the money you would use to
remodel, you could afford to buy a new single-family home outside of Dublin.
The Council discussed the high number of condominiums on the market not only in
Dublin, but in the State of California, due to the economy.
Cm. Sbranti reiterated that looking at a density catcgory of Medium-Low would achieve
some of the detached housing options being suggested. By having a Medium, Medium-
High and Medium-Low density it would achieve that. But there were not many
properties that this would affect.
Mayor Lockhart .suggested looking at the few properties that were left in Dublin that
were not in a planning process and ask if it made sense an that particular project, to
zone it that way, when they first came in to speak to the City.
Vm. Iiildenbrand asked if the Council should give Staff direction to encourage more
homes that were detached, single or cluster. Right now Staff was letting those
developers came through and if it met the range, they were seeing more townhomes and
apartments.
Cm. Scholz asked if any of the options outlined in the Staff Report reflected what Vm.
I-Iildcnbrand was advocating.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL hONUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETIl~iG
Apri13, 2007
PAGE 130
City Attorney Silver stated that in the City's General Plan, there was a description of the
different types of residential densities, Single-Family, Medium, Medium-High, etc. The
discussion had in part focused on creating aMedium-Low density category, taking a
Medium density, which was 6.1 - 14 du/acre, and splitting it up into two different
categories. In the City's General Plan, the language said that the current range allowed
detached, zero-lot line, duplex, townhomes and garden apartment developments
suitable for family living and the Specific Plan contained similar language. So if the
Council directed Staff to consider a new land use designation of Medium-Low, the
Council could specify then the types of units allowable in that land use category and
could achieve the same goal that Vm. Hildenbrand was suggesting. It could indicate that
the homes had to be detached, for example. The Council had a lot of flexibility. The
Council would have to amend the City's General Plan to create the new land use
category and it now described what type of units were allowable, so you could do the
same thing in the Medium-Low density category if the Council created it.
Mayor Lockhart asked Staff how extensive a process it would be to amend the City's
General Plan to add a category and a description of a category.
City Attorney Silver replied that if the City amended the General Plan it would also have
to amend the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because the Specific Plan had to be consistent
with the General Plan. It would require compliance with CEQA.
Jeff Baker stated that both the General Plan and Specific Plan would have to be amended
and would have to take a look at the Environmental Review.
City Attorney Silver stated that the EIR for Eastern Dublin assumed the mid-point for its
analysis and if the Council took the Medium density category and split it into two
categories; you would basically be at the midpoint. Right now, half of the development
could come in at the lower range and half at the higher half. So if you split the category
in two, that is what would also happen.
Cm. Sbranti stated that the City had aMedium-High density category, there was a
Medium density category, but there was not aMedium-Low, so that would achieve
getting more of the housing types and it would not change things too dramatically, and
it would be worth looking at.
City Manager Ambrose stated that the environmental review that the City had today was
based on Medium anyway, so there would not be any more traffic impacts because there
was Medium density, the Council would just be splitting the Medium density in two. It
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
Apri13, 2007
PAGE 131
~~ ~~~
~~~ ~~~
,~, .~ ~..
would still fall within the range of the number of units that had been originally
evaluated as part of the environmental document.
Mayor Lockhart reiterated her concern for not changing the rules on people that were
already in the process of developing, at some stage. If there were properties that could be
affected by aMedium-Low density category that the City could look at, if and when they
ever did decide to plan, then she was fine with taking a look at it then.
Cm. Oravetz made a motion to accept Option D, continue to implement the existing
General Plan and Specific Plan. Without a second, the motion was not considered.
Cm. Sbranti made a motion to accept Option A, Prepare General Plan/Specific Plan
Amendments to include two new land use designations including Medium-Low 96.1-10
du/acre) and Meclium (10.1-14 du/acre).
City Manager Ambrose asked for clarification from the Council as to what properties
would be affected by this item.
The Council and Staff discussed at what point of interaction with the City, and what
properties, would be affected by this item. Narrowing down the properties would make
it easier for developers to know what was expected before they come before the Council
so the Council would not have to vote them down.
Cm. Oravetz stated that he could vote no on any issue.
City Attorney Silver stated that Cm. Oravetz could vote no, and if there was a majority of
the Council that denied an application that was consistent with the General Plan and the
Specific Plan, the City Attorney would urge the Council to include findings as to why the
Council was denying it. For example, it might be consistent with the density rages in
the General Plan and Specific Plan, but if there was some other General Plan policy with
which it was not consistent, that would provide a basis for denying it.
The Council concurred that Staff would go back and look at a category of Medium-Low
for the Croak, Jordan and Chen properties, where there was currently a Medium
designation.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MIlVUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
April 3, 2007
PAGE 132
On motion of Cm. Sbranti, seconded by Vm. Hillenbrand and by majority vote (Cm.
Oravetz opposed), the City Council directed Staff to prepare General Plan/Specific Plan
Amendments to include two new land use designations including Medium-Low (6. i -10
du/acre) and Medium (10.1- I4 du/acres) in relation to three properties, Croak, Jordan
and Chen.
Request to Initiate a G~teral Plan Amendment and
Eastern Dublin Spociffc Plan Amendment Study to Modify the Exiatit~g Land
Deai,Rnatloxta at 6960 Taaaaiara Road, Commonly,Referred to as the Fxtidrich Pro~nerty
9:08 p.m. 8.2 (4I0-55/420-30)
Senior Planner Erica Fraser presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council
would consider a General Flan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment Study request.
Cm. Sbranti asked Staff if there was any other properly with a neighborhood commercial
designation once it was taken away from this property.
Community Development Director Jeri Ram stated that there was some Agricultural
zoned land along Tassajara Road that might come in for a change at some point and
time, south of Silvers Ranch. It included a signalized intersection.
The Council discussed the convenience of having a small store in that area because it
would be a good opportunity.
On motion of Cm. Sbranti, seconded by Cm. Scholz and by unanimous vote, the City
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 39 - O7
APPROVING THE IMITATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND EASTERN
DUBLiN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY TO MODIFY THE F.XLSTIIJG LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS TO RIDUCE THE DWEid.Il~iG UNIT DENSITY AND REMOVE THE
NIIGHBORHOOD C011~IMERCIAL DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATID AT
6960 TASSAJARA ROAD (APN 986-0004-002-03)
PA 07-004
•~
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MIN(T1'ES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
Apri13, 2007
PAGE 133
~~~ i~~
,,
- -~.
CITY CLERK
Flie # Q~, -
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 16, 2007
oaf I6~
SUBJECT: General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to
create Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density land use
designations for the portion of the Croak, Jordan and Chen
properties with an existing Medium Density land use designation.
Report prepared by JeJJ''Baker, Senlor Planner
ATTACHMENTS: I) City Council Staff Report date Apri13, 2007 w/ attachments
2) City Council Meeting Minutes from Apri13, 2007
3) Table of Built or Approved Projects
4) Map of Built or Approved Projects
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive Staff praentation;
2) Receive public testimony;
3) Deliberate; and
4) Direct Staff to:
A) Prepare a General PlanlEastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment to create the proposed Medium-Low Density
and Medium-Mid Density land use designations as
defined in this Staff Report;
B) Prepare a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment and Stage 1 PD Amendment for the Croak
and Jordan properties to:
1) Amend the existing Medium Density, site to create
two equal sized sites that include Medium-Low
Density and Medium-Mid Density at the locations
shown in this Staff Report; or
2) Provide Staff with Alternative direction.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None at this time.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Backgrannd
The City Council held a Strategic Planning Session on January 12; 2007. During this Strategic Planning
Session the City Council discussod the existing General Plan and Specific Plan Residential Lend Use
Designations within the City of Dublin. Concerns were raised during this discussion regarding densities
and the need for a variety of housing types (i.e. detached units, row homes, stacked flats, etc.) with private
COPY TO: Property Owners
File
Page 1 of l0
G:1Enldn bubli~ Dmritybcu 10.16.07 Fit DuDli~ De~uity.DOC
ITEM HO. _
Attachment 3 (I/
yards on u~eveloped land within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area that has a Medium
Density land use designation.
Staff studied the densities, residentia( land use policies, and the status of entitlemertts for the land
designated for residential development within the Fasten Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) artd prnpered a
Staff Report for the Apri13, 2007, City Council meeting (Attachment 1). The Staff Report included the
following four policy alternatives to address densities end the variety of housing stock available within the
City of Dublin:
A) Adopt new Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations for property with an existing
Medium Dettsity designation; or
B) Adopt new development standards to the EDSP that require minimum yard sizes; or
C) Adopt new lend use designations and adopt new development standards to the EDSP that require
minimum yard sizes; or
D) Continue to implement the existing General P1an/Specific Plan policies.
On Apri13, 2007, the City Council reviewed the Staff Report and the residential land use policies for the
EDSP area in order to provide Staff with direction regarding the current residential land ux policies and
fitture development within the EDSP. The City Council expressed a desire to encourage a variety of
housing types that include smaller det~hed singlo-family homes with usable yards on undeveloped land
with a Medium Density land use designation (please see City Council Minutes of the April 3, 2007
meeting included as Attachment 2) to provide a housing type that is in between an stacked product and a
larger singlo-fiunily detached unit. The City Council identified three properties (Croak, Jordan and Chen)
within the EDSP that have no entitlements beyond Stags 1 development plans as shown in Table 1 below.
Table t -Land without Current Planning Proposals
P Land llse
Dss natlon Density
Aces
Croak S Fam 0.9-8 dulac 115.4 ac
Medkan tens' 8.1-14 dulac 10.4 ac
Jordan am 0.9-8 duJac 48 ac
Medium 8.1-14 dulac 23.4 ac
Medium-H Dena 14.1-25 dulac 19.8 ac
Chan Medium-H bens 14.1-25 dulacre 8.5
The City Council directed Staff to study a General Plan and Eastern Dubiin Specific Plan Amendment
(GPA/SPA) to create new Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/acze) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14
du/acre) residential land use designations for land with an existing Medium Density land use designation
(6.I-14 du/acre) on the Croak, Jordan and Chen properties. '
The attire residential portion of the Chen property consists of 6.5-acres with aMedium-High Density land
use designation (please see Table 1). Therefore, the Chen property is not ircluded in the analysis
eorttained in this Staff Report. Similarly, the Jordan property includes 21.8-acres of lmtd with nMedium-
High Density designation that has not been included in this analysis. However, the City Council may
direct Staff to study Medium-Low Density and Mcdirun-Mid Density designations on the existing
Medium-High Density land on the Chen and Jordan properties if the Council feels it is appropriate at
these locations.
n~~ 169
Page 2 of 10 - e ••
Existing Land Use Designations
The Croak, Jordan, and Chen properties are located
within the Fallon Village project area which f
includes a variety of residential land uses. The
existing General Plan/Specific Plan land use
designations for these properties were adopted by
the City Council with the GPA/SPA for Fallon
Village on December 6, 2005 (Resolution 223-OS).
A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(SEIR) was prepared for the Fallon Village
GPA/SPA and certified by the City Council on
December 6, 2005 (Resolution 222-OS}. The SEIR
studied development at the approximate midpoint
of the residential density range for the Croak,
Jordan, and Chen properties (with the exception of
the site designated Medium-High Density on the
Jordan property which anticipated development at
the maximum density of 25 du/acre). Please refer
to Table 2 below for details regarding the
residential densities of property included in this
GPA.~SPA study. A Fiscal Analysis was also
completed to ensure ajobs/housing balance in the
EDSP and to ensure that new development paid for
itself without relying on the General Fund.
anch ~
i
- ~ ~a
~' Croak Propem
a a~
u~ .
n.v ac!
_ \) `~ "<
MEiP F ' . ., 1 S,..S AL
c,,. ac? ~
p~^c. uxr
n~.s ac
,'
'" ~~
~~~.
Falcon Viila~
Center Bound
ouauN ao ~aveao
Chen Property
Table 2 -Existing Land Use Designations
The Fallon Village SE[R studied development at the maximum density (25 dulacre) on the Medwm-Hrgh Density
portion of the Jordan property.
' The residendel portion of the Chen property consists entirely of 6.5-arms with an existing Geneeal PlaniSpecific Plan
land use designation of Medium-High Densiry. The Chen property has an obligation to provide a 2.5-acre site with a
Semi-Public (SP) land use designation within a portion of the 6.5-acres designated as Medium-High Density. The SP
site effectively reduces the residential development to approximately 4-acres. The SEIR studied development at the
midpoint of the density range for [he full 6.5-acre parcel allowing up to l30 units as showro in Table 2 abave.
However, the density range on the net 4-acre site permits a maximum of 100 units (4 acres X 25 unitslacre = 100
units).
Pro Land Use
Desi nation Density
Ran a Midpoint
Densit
Acres Dwelling
Units
Croak Sin le-Famil 0.9-6 du/ac 4 du/ac 115.4 ac 462 units
Medium Densi 6.1-14 du/ac 10 du/ac 10.4 ac 104 units
Jordan Sin le-Famii 0.9-6 doter 4 dutac 48 ac 192 units
Medium Densi 6.1-14 du/ac 10 du/ac 23.4 ac 234 units
Medium-Hi h Densi 14.1-25 du/ac 25 dulac^ 19.8 ac 495 units"
Chen Medium-Hi h Densl 14.1-25 du/acre 20 du/ac 8.5' 130 units'
ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the existing land use patterns for the Croak and Jordan properties and surrounding
properties, the concept for the Fallon Village Center, and the City of Dublin Village Policy Statement
(included as a part of Attachment 1) in order to prepare this Study. Staff has prepared a description of the
proposed land use designations and descriptions of potential housing types that could be developed within
Page 3 of 10
^7° ~ / 6
these designations; an analysis of the proposed densities; and maps showing fhe proposed location for
these proposed designations.
Proposed General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Designations
Staff has prepared the following definitions for the newly proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-
Mid Density land use designations:
Residential: Medium-Low Density {6.1-10 units per gross residential acre).
Units in this density range will be detached, rero-tot tine, duplex, and/or townhouse developments
suitable for family living with private usable outdoor yard areas. Unit types and densities may be
similar or varied. Assumed household size is twa persons per unit.
Residential: Medium-Mid Density (IO.i-t4 units per gross residential acre).
This density range allows detached, zero-lot line, duplex townhouse, and/or garden apartment
developments suitable for family living. Unit types and densities may be similar or varied.
Assumed household size is two persons per unit.
Potential Housing Types
Several developments with the existing Medium Density (6.1-14 du/acre) designation within the EDSP
were approved at the lower end of the density range and are consistent with the proposed Medium-Low
{6.1-10 du/acre) designation. A table and a map of these approved projects are included as Attachments 3
and 4 to this Staff Report. Projects that are consistent with the proposed Medium-Low Density (6.1-10
du/acre) designation are highlighted in Attachment 3.
7~ ~~~9
The proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density land use designations would permit a
variety of different housing types within each designation as described above. The following is an
illustrated list of potential residential unit types to help illustrate the type of units that could be constructed
on land within each land use designation.
Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/acre)
Small lot detached single family home:
Typically with a small usable rear yard area (i.e.
rear yard depth of 10 feet),
Detached cluster homes: Typically built around
a motor court area with a small usable yard area
with a depth of approximately 10 feet.
t'age 4 of 10
~ Ut(pIC.Y: lyplCFUly iwV umw uuVi a~uc vy a
with a shared common wall and a small usable
yard area (i.e. rear depth of approximately (0
feet).
^ Alley loaded single family detached homes:
Typically built with a detached garage that is
separated from the house by a private yard area
with depth of approximately 10 feet.
^ Detached chtister homes: Typically built around
a motor court azea with a small usable yard area
with a depth of approximately 10 feet.
^ Townhouses: Typically 2-3 stories in height ~, e
with garage parking on the first floor and a small ~ °, ~~
yard, patio or deck (decks typically provide 60- ~ _~~~~ ~
4 ~ w a,
Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 dWacre)
^ Apartments/Condominiums*: Typically a 2-3
story stacked product (i.e. units on top of one
another) with a small patio or balcony.
_`_.~
' Apartments and condominiums are sitnilar to each other except that apartments are offered for tent and condominiums are
offered for sate.
Within the Medium-Low density land use category there are greater opportunities for detached housing
types with usable yards, including small lot detached single-family, detached cluster and duplexes. The
Medium-Mid density also allows detached alley loaded homes and cluster homes with yards. Flowever,
the Medium-Mid Density also allows tawnhomes and apartments/condominiums which typically do not
have usable yard space. The actual product type that is proposed within each land use category wilt be at
the discxetion of the developer provided that the product is consistent with the density range.
Application of Proposed Land Use Designations to the Croak and ,lordan
The land plan for Fallon Village was formed around the ~, ,~ a
creation of the Fallon Village Center which serves as the 7 „"3~ ~~,...~'
social and economic center for the project area (The ~~j~~~, _ ____
Fallon Village Center is outlined in blue on the maps ''~~.;" :~
included in this Staff Report). The Medium Denstty 9~~t ~ ~ a °~
portion of the Croak and lordan properties are located ~
within the Fallon Village Center. The overall Fallon ry
Village project area includes a variety of residential land ;~
use designations with higher residential densities focused -~
primarily around the Fallon Village Center in order to ~~; ~'~ -w~
activate the Village Center and promote a pedestrian "'°`'
''~,, ~cr---
oriented development. At the hub of the Fallon Village ''°`
Center is a Neighborhood Square that is surrounded by ----''
Mixed Use, which includes ground floor retail and 'ri
residential units above, .and Medium-High Density
residential units. The densities reduce to Medium
Density as you move away from the Village Center and
transition to Low Density residential uses to the north
and east.
~ i6~
Page 6 of t0
x . ~ _ _ ..
~. , , r~~-. , .. . - ~. ~ ~_ .
Croak Property
The existing 10.4-acre Medium Density site on the
Croak property forms the eastern boundary of the
Fallon Village Center. This site provides a
transition from the more intense Mixed'Use and
Medium-High Density Residential uses in the
Village core and the less intense Low Density
Residential use located to the north and east of the
Village Center.
Proposed Density
The existing Medium Density site on the Croak
property is proposed to be divided into hvo 5.2-
acre sites with Medium-Low Density and
Medium-Mid Density designations. Table 3
(below) shows the density range for the proposed
Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density sites on
the Croak property, Development at the midpoint
of the proposed density range would result in the
same number of units (104 units) that were studied
in the Fallon Village SEIR for the existing
Medium Density designation (see Table 3) and
continue to ensure the existing jobs/housing fiscal
balance. These units would simply be
redistributed across the proposed Medium-Low
Density and Medium-Mid Density designations
and no additional environmental review would be required.
Units at impact on
Land Use Designation Density Midpoint
flares
Mid-Point Total Units at
Range ~ Density Density Midpoint
Qensit
Medium-low Densi 6.1-10 dulac 8 du/ac 5.2 ac 42 units -
Medium-Mid Density 10.1-14 du/ac 12 du/ac 5.2 ac 82 units -
Total 10.4 ac 104 units None
Table 3: Croak Property -Proposed Medium-Low Density & Medium-t'rlid Density
'74~ ~~~
Page 7 of 10
In order to maintain the transition in intensity of
land uses from the core of the Fallon Village Center
to the less intense single-family uses to the north
and east, Staff proposes to locate the new Medium-
Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre) site immediately to
the east of the existing Medium-High Density sike
and adjacent to the future Central Parkway. The
proposed Medium-Low Density (ti.l-l0 dw'acre)
site would be located to the east of the proposed
Medium-Mid Density site to provide a transition
from the higher density of the Village Center to the
Low Density neighborhoods to the north and east.
Jordan Ranch
The existing 23.4-acre site of the Medium Density land use on the Jordan Ranch forms the northern
boundary of the Fallon Village Center. This site provides a transition from the more intense Medium-
High Density Residential use located to the south and the
less intense Low Density Residential use located to the ~~,~~, :,~~,~;-'~
north of the Village Center. , Jordan T "~~"
Proposed Density
The Medium Density site on the Jordan property would be
divided into two 11.7-acre sites designated Medium-Low
Density and Medium-Mid Density. Table 4 (below)
shows the density range for the proposed Medium-Low
and Medium-Mid Density sites on the Jordan property.
Gike the Croak property, development at the midpoint of
the proposed density range would result in the same
number of units (234 units) that were studied in the Fallon
Village SEIR for the existing Medium Density designation
(see Table 4) and continue to ensure the existing
jobs/housing fiscal balance. These units would simply be
redistributed across the proposed Medium-Low Density
and Medium-Mid Density designations and. no additional
environmental review would be required.
Page$of10
~~
+:"~?~ ~:ai~ t~ `.,:;t>' t Proposed Land Use Map
~6~
" iti~8'.,:. :~:#vkkt':,~$3.*~ ~ s ,':. ~ra,~ .«~:;::: ,._ <.x~vaxsetRre ~ " ~1:
i
- ..... _..r.._~
~_ .- T. _. .__._...-._
Tsble 4: Jordan Ranch -Proposed Medium-Low Density & Medium-Mid Density
Units at impact on
Land Use Designation Density Midpoint acres Mid-Point Total Units
Range Density
Density at Midpoint
Densi
Medium-Low Densi 6.1-10 du/ac 8 du/ac 11.7 ac 94 units -
Medium-Mid Density 10.1-14 dulac 12 du/ac 11.7 ac 140 units -
Total 23.4 ac 234 units None
Proposed Land Use Map
In order to maintain the gradual transition in land
uses from the higher densities in the core of the
Village Center to the less intense Single-Family uses
to the north, Staff recommends locating the proposed
Medium-Mid Density site (1.1-14 dutacre) adjacent
to the existing Medium-High Density land use. The
Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/acre) land use
would be located further to the north to provide for a
transition from the higher density of the Village
Center to the Low Density neighborhoods to the
north and east.
By creating the Medium-Low land use designation and applying the land use to the Croak and Jordan
properties, there is an opportunity for the development of detached housing and other unit types with
usable private yard azeas.
Fallon Village Stage 1 Planned Development
The Croak and Jordan properties are all located within the Fallon Village Planned Development (PD)
zoning district. A Stage t Development Plan (Stage 1 PD) was adopted by the City Council on December
20, 2005 (Ordinance 32-OS). The Stage 1 PD has a number of different elements including a site plan and
proposed densities for each property within the PD district. The Stage 1 PD is required to be consistent
with the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Therefore, a Stage i PD Amendment will. be
required to ensure rnnsistency with the General Plan and Specific Plan. Staff will prepare a Stage L PD
Amendment along with the proposed GPA(SFA for review and consideration by the Planning
Commission and City Council at a later date.
Communication with Property Owners
A Public Meeting notice was sent to all property owners within the EDSP area that do not have vested
development rights, notifying them of the City Council Meeting on April 3, 2007 and the meeting on
October 16, 2007. Staff also contacted representatives of the Croak, Jordan and Chen properties to
discuss the direction from the City Council at the April 3, 2007 meeting.
CONCLUSION:
The City Council has the authority to modify Generai Plan and Specific Plan Land Use Designations at
any time. On April 3, 2007, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a General Plan/Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment Study to create two new land use designations including Medium-Low Density
Page 9 of 10
7~ ~P 16~'
(6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre) for the existing Medium Densi{y~portKbn of
the Croak, ]orlon and Chen properties in order to encourage an additional variety of housing stock with
usable yards. Accordingly, Staff has prepared a GPA/SPA Study for consideration by the City Council.
Since the Chen property has no lands that are designated Medium Density, the Chen property was not
included in this GPA/SPA Study. Staff is requesting that the City Council provide Staff with further
direction regarding the proposed land use designations for the Croak, Jordan and Chen properties. If the
City Council elects to proceed with this GPA/SPA and Stage I PD Amendment, Staff will prepare the
appropriate documents for review and consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Receive public testimony; 3)
Deliberate; and 4) Direct Staff to:
A) Prepare a General Plan/Eastem Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to create the proposed Medium-Low
Density and Medium-Mid Density land use designations as defined in this Staff Report;
B) Prepare a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and Stage 1 PD Amendment for the
Croak and Jordan properties to:
1) Amend the existing Medium Density site to create two equal sized sites that include Medium-Low
Density and Medium-Mid Density at the locations shown in this Staff Report; or
2) Provide Staff with Alternative direction.
~~ ~ ~~~
Page 10 of 10
~g~ !b~
~u~rr~s og~ crrYcouxcu.
OF T~ CTTY OF Di1$LIF
~~ui.>~t ~~ - oc1'o8~t i s. ~oo~
CLOSED SESSION
Silent Roll CaII: t:ouncilmembtrs Hildenbrand, Oravetz, Sbranti, Scholz, and Mayor
Lockhart present.
A closed session was held at 6:30 p.m., regarding:
1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Government Code section 54956.8
Property: APN 941-1560-007-01
City Negotiator. City Manager Richard Ambrose; Economic Development Director
Chris Foss
NegotLting parties: Advanced Computer Technologies, Inc., dba All Video Repair
(William Barnett or Tricia Lecklcr); Finishmaster, Inc. (Tom Eastland or Greg
CaWoun); Ultimate Home Solutions (Andrew Hunter or Joc Bolin); Consignment 8c
More (Simin or Hermin Laletar); Chef's Touch Catering (Stephen Orgaia); U.S. Bank
(Julie Schmidt)
Under Negotiatooe: Price and terms of payment
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Government Code section 54956.9, subdivision c (5 potential eases)
3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION
Govenment Code section 54956.9, subdtvlaion s
City of Dublin v. Ralph Gil, et al, Alameda Superior Court No. VG05241773
a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Isidatlon of litigation parsnant to Govenment Code section 54956.9, subdivision c
(one potential case) -Dropped froniAgenda
_ -.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
October 16, 2007
PAGE 423
Attachment 4
~9~16~
Cm. Sbranti stated he found the information interesting, citing the low use of Section 8
Vouchers in the City of Dublin.
Mayor Lockhart spoke in support of the information.
The City Council received the report.
Review of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Speck Plan Amendment Stndy to
Create Medinm-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density Land Use Designations for
the Portion of the Croak, Jordan and Chen properties with an Ezisting Medium
Density. Land Use Designation
7:40 p.m. 7.4 (410-20)
Senior Planner Jeff Baker presented the Staff Report and advised that during a previous
Strategic Planning Session the City Council discussed the existing General Plan and
Specific Plan Residential Land Use Designations within the City regarding densities and
the need for a variety of housing types. He included the follow-up direction for Staff to
study a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to create new
medium-low density and medium-mid density residential land use designations for land
with an existing medium density land use designation, citing the Croak, Jordan and Chen
properties, located within the Fallon Village Center. Senior Planner Baker clarified that
the entire residential portion of the Chen property consists of 6.5 acres with amedium-
high density land use designation and the Jordan property includes 21.8 acres of land with
a medium-high density designation that have not been included in the analysis. He
concluded his presentation with existing land use designations, the proposed land use
designations and an analysis of the proposed densities, including potential housing types,
stating that the proposed density would not require additional EIR review.
Cm. Sbranti asked if a developer designated a part of the property as open space, would
all of the units then be built on the remaining property?
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
October 16,2007
PAGE 431
- ~ ~~
Senior Planner Jeff Baker responded on ratio entitlements, citing the method of
calculating development density is on the gross area of the parcel, so that would exclude
things like open space requirements or a creek and creates a smaller building area, so the
product type is actually constructed at a higher density. He stated projects are developed
at the density according to the entire acreage of the site. The gross acreage calculation is
really intended to help facilitate and encourage preservation of protected or sensitive
areas.
City Manager Richard Ambrose asked how density would be calculated if a developer
wanted more open or common space?
Senior Planner Jeff Baker responded it would be analyzed, but would still fall under the
gross density and the developable area would be where the units are going to be so you
could potentially end up with a slightly more dense product then if you didn't have any
open or common space on site.
Cm. Sbranti stated he understands the density is factored using the gross acreage.
Mayor Lockhart requested clarification of potentially calculating density on net acreage,
using an example of developing 20 units on ten acres (gross density) versus 20 acres on
five acres (net density). She asked why the density is not calculated using the developable
land instead of the entire property?
City Attorney Elizabeth Silver responded that at the level the General Plan and Specific
Plan were done in 1993 that information was not available, as you get down to the more
refined planning levels, you have that information.
Mayor Lockhart asked if the General Plan could be changed now?
City Manager Richard Ambrose stated' that if he understands Council comments, the
question is could you change the General Plan so that you have a policy that specifies that
density is based on the net developable acreage?
Mayor Lockhart responded yes.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
October 16, 2007
PAGE 432
8/ €~ /6~
~~
Vm. Hildenbrand responded that is how some developers get around the density
requirements; they build up because they have some areas they cannot build on. Common
space is provided, but building up defeats the purposes of establishing density ranges.
City Manager Ambrose asked if the goal of the Council is to create homes with private
yard space?
Senior Planner Baker responded that in the proposed definition for medium-low density, a
requirement is included to provide usable open space or private yard space. He stated
language defining yard area could be included in the Specific Plan to help address the
issue of private yard spaces.
Mayor Lockhart asked if the density would be denser to accommodate private yard space?
Senior Planner Baker responded that could happen but the developer would still be
restricted by density rar-ge?
City Manager Ambrose asked about townhome density ratios and Senior Planner Baker
responded townhomes are in the medium-mid density, the higher end of the medium
density range.
City Manager Ambrose asked if the 6 - 10 density range absolutely precludes any multi-
family attached housing.
Senior Planner Baker responded you could have an attached product, as long as it has a
private yard, but not a stacked product.
City Manager Ambrose responded that if the goal of the Council is to make certain that
development within that density has a private yard, that Staff would have to put together a
General Plan Amendment that accomplishes that.
Vm. Hildenbrand responded that it is her understanding that is what the medium-low
density is providing, but would have to be specified if that is made a requirement in the
medium-mid density range.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
October 16, 2007
PAGE 433
~~ ,~~
City Manager Ambrose stated he still thinks there is a gross versus net issue, depending
on how the developer approaches that. He indicated they might provide more common
space that is not required to be open space and asked Council to keep in mind that a lot of
the open space the City has, is environmentally sensitive areas that developers cannot use
anyway and if you want to make certain you will end up with the product you hope you're
going to get, I think we need to look at that more closely and make sure that is what we
bring back to you in the General Plan Amendment.
City Attorney Elizabeth Silver recommended that level of detail be included in the
Specific Plan but not in the General Plan.
Mayor Lockhart stated this might be the last opportunity to offer more units with back
yards. She spoke on conccros regarding giving developers development credit for land
they cannot build on and allowing them to take that number and transpose it on a smaller
space. She used the example of six units per acre being six units on %Z acre if half of the
acreage is not usable.
Cm. Sbranti commented on the importance of calculating gross versus net density,
particularly in the medium-low density.
Councihnembers discussed density ranges and transition from the more intense mixed use
and medium-high density residential uses to medium-low density uses.
City Manager recapped that Council supports the medium-mid and medium-low land use
designations as proposed by Staff and prefers net density calculation to drive lower
density in both categories and require a yard in the medium-low density range.
Mr. Croak spoke on concerns relating to the development of the Croak property, citing
complexity of planning the 42 units that would be included in the med-low density,
requested an exemption, and requested Stage 2 Planning Process for the Croak property be
considered.
Vm. Hildenbrand clarified the Croak property proposed medium-low density and
medium-mid density total 104 units and referred to correspondence received from Jordan
property owners in support.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
October 16, 2007
PAGE 434
~~ ~ ~~
Cm. Oravetz commented on considering Mr. Croak's request for an exemption and Stage
2 Planning, citing the topography of his property.
Mayor Lockhart spoke on the priority of planning the entire community and providing
residents backyards and. a range of housing. She spoke in opposition to exempting the
Croak Property.
Vm. Hildenbrand spoke in opposition to exempting the Croak Property.
City Manager Ambrose recommended making density ranges part of the General Plan and
commented on providing the development community direction.
On motion of Cm. Scholz, seconded by Cm. Sbranti, and by a majority vote with Cm.
Oravetz voting no, the City Council directed Staff to proceed with preparation of a
General P1anlEastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment that would split the current
medium density designation into medium-mid and medium-low; and for both designations
of the properties identified in the Staff Report, that the densities be based on the net
acreage and that yards would be required for the mediumlow category.
NEW BUSINESS
8.1 and 8.2 heard concurrently.
Approval of First Amendment to Recreational Use License Agreement with the
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 71
8:35p.m. 8.1 (600-40)
Approval of First Amendment to Access and Maintenance Agreement with Tassajara
Creek Maintenance Association for Landscape Maintenance of Creek Parcels Owned
by the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zoae 71
8:35 p.m. 8.2 (600-30)
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
October 16, 200'f
PAGE 435
~-~ !~~
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 27, 2007
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: (Legislative Action) - PA 07-056 Croak and
Jordan Medium Density: General Plan .Amendment, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment, and Fallon Village PD -Stage 1 Development
Plan Amendment to create Mediwn-Low Density and Medium-Mid
Density land use designations for the existing Medium Density portion of
the Croak and Jordan properties.
Report prepared by Je„Q''Baker, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution recommending the City Council adopt a Resolution
approving a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
~,,, 1 to: I) change the existing Meditun Density Land Use Designation on
YN I
1 v~1N the Croak and Jordan .properties to new Medium-Low Density and
Medium-Mid Density Designations and 2) define Medium-I.ow and
Medium-Mid Density as two new land use designations with the
draft City Council Resolution in~Iuded as Exhibit A.
2) Resolution recommending the City Council adopt an Ordinance
approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage
1 Development Plan for the exi Ming Medium Density portion of the
Croak and Jordan properties with the draft Ordinance included as
Exhibit A.
3) City Council Staff Report dated April 3, 2007 with Attachments
4) City Council Meeting Minutes from Apri13, 2007
5) City Council Staff Report date October 16, 2007 without
Attachments
6) City Council Meeting Minutes f nom October 16, 2007
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive Staffpresentation;
2) Open the Public Hearing;
3) Receive public testimony;
4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; and
5) Adopt the following Resolution.:
a. Resolution (Attaclunent 1) recommending the City
Council approve a General Plan Amendment and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use
designation for the Medium Density portion of the Croak
and Jordan propertie ~ to new Medium-Low Density (6. I -
]0 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre)
designations; and
COPY TO: Property Owners
File
ITEM NO. '
Page I of 12
G:War~20o7W7-0s6 Ciwlc anA loreen Meeiwn nneity~lwrxne eo~mm~:ianl~CSr ~ ~.z7.o7 ew oab~in oanity.~oc
Attachment 5
b. Resolution (Attaclunent 2) recommending Zhe t,uy~ ~j~ ~ / ~ I
Council approve a PD-Planned Development Rezone I
with Amended Stage 1 Development Plan for the existing
Medium Density F~ortion of the Croak and Jordan
properties.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background
The City Council held a Strategic Planning Session on January 12, ::007. During this Strategic Planning
Session the City Council discussed the existing General Plan and Specific Plan Residential Land Use
Designations within the City of Dublin. Concerns were raised during this discussion regarding densities
and the need for a variety of housing types (i.e. detached units, row h~mcs, stacked flats, etc.) with private
yards on undeveloped land within the Eastern Dublin Specific Pl:m (EDSP) area that has a Medium
Density land use designation.
Staff' studied the densities, residential land use policies, and the status of entitlements for the land
designated for residential development within the Eastcm Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) and prepared a
Staff Report for the April 3, 2007, City Council meeting (Attachmen: 3 -City Council Staff Report dated
April 3, 2007). The Staff Report included the following four policy alternatives to address densities and
the variety of housing stock available within the City of Dublin:
A) Adopt new Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations for property with an existing
Medium Density designation; or
B) Adopt new development standards to the EDSP that require minimum yard sizes; or
C) Adopt new land use designations and adopt new development standards to the EDSP that require
minimum yard sizes; or
D) Continue to implement the existing General Plan/Specific Plan policies.
City Council Direction
On April 3, 2007, the City Council reviewed the Staff Report and the residential land use policies for the
EDSP area in order to provide Staff with direction regarding the current residential land use policies and
future development within the EDSP. The City Council expressed a desire to encourage a variety of
housing types that include smaller detached single-family homes wi h usable yards on undeveloped land
with a Medium Density land use designation (please see City Council Minutes of the April 3, 2007
meeting included as Attachment 4) to provide a housing product type that is between a stacked product
anti a larger single-family detached unit. The City Council identified three properties (Croak, Jordan and
Chen) within the EDSP that have no entitlements beyond Stage 1 dc~elopment plans as shown in Table 1
below.
Table 1 -Land withoat Current Planning Propo:als
Pro Lana us.
Dssl nation tHnstty
Rar s
Acres
Croak Sin le-Farm 0.9-6 du/ac 115.4 ac
Medium Densi 6.1-14 du/s,: 10.4 ec
Jordan S' le-F 0.9-8 dulac 46 ec
Medium Densi 6.1-14 du/at: 23.4 ac
Medium-H' Dens 14.1-25 dulzc 19.8 ac
Chen Medkim- Dens' 14.1-25 du/arxe 6.5
The City Council directed Staff to study a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
(GPA/SPA) to create new Medium-Low Density (ti.l-10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14
du/acre) residential land use designations for land with an existing Aledium Density ]and use designation
(ti.l-14 du/acre) on the Croak, Jordan and Chen properties.
Page 2 of 12
Existing Land Use Designations
The Croak, Jordan, and Chen properties arc
located within the Fallon Village project area
which includes a variety of residential land uses.
The existing General Plan/Spxific Plan land use
designations for these properties were adopted
by the City Council with the GI'A/SPA for
Fallon Village on December 6, 2005 (Resolution
223-OS). A Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report (SEIR) was prepared for the Fallon
Village GPAlSPA and certified by the City
Council on December 6, 2005 (Resolution 222-
05). The SE1R studied development at the
approximate midpoint of the residential density
range for the Creak, Jordan, and Chem properties
(with the exception of the site designated
Medium-High Density on the Jordan property
which anticipated development at the maximum
density of 25 du/acre). Please refer to Table 2
below for details regarding the residential
densities of these three properties. A Fiscal
Analysis was also completed to ensure a
jobs/housing balance in the EDSP and to ensure
that new development paid for itself without
relying on the General Fund.
Table 2 -Existing Land Use Designations
Pro Land Usa
Dos itl0rl DansBy
Ratt ! Midpoint
Dons
Acres DwNNrq
lMks
Croak le-Fam 0.9.8 dWac 4 dWac 115.4 ac 482 uttita
Medium Dens 6.1-14 dWac 10 dWac 10.4 ec 104 units
Jordan b-Fatni 0.9-6 dWac 4 dWac 48 ac 192 units
Medium Dena' 8.1-14 dWac 10 dWec 23.4 ac 234 units
Meditxn-H h Den ~ 14.1-25 dW~ 25 dWac` 19.8 ac 495 units"
Chen Medium-H h Oens' 14.1-25 dWacre 20 dWac 6.5' 130 units'
^ The Fallon Villagt SEIR nudied devebpnent u the maximum density (25 dWacre) on the Median-Higl: Density
portion of the Jordan property.
• The residential portion of the Chen property consists entirely of 6.5-acres a-ith an existing General Plar/Specifn: Plan
land use designation of Medimrt-High Dertsiry. The Chen property hu an obligation to provide a 2.5-acre si6e with s
Semi-Public (sP) land use designation within a portion of the ti.3-aces designated ss Medium-High Drnsity. The SP
site effectively reduces the residential development to approximately 4-acres. The SEIR studied development at the
midpoint of the density range for the full tS.S-acre parcel allowing up to 13n units as shown in Table 2 above.
However, the density range on the rxt 4-acre site permits a maximum of I(0 units (4 acres X 25 units/acre = 100
units).
Staff reviewed the existing land use patterns for the Croak, Jordatt, and Chen properties, surrounding
properties, the concept for the Fallon Village Center, and the City of Dublin Village Policy Statement and
prepared a second report for the City Council's consideration. At the October 16, 2007 City Council
Meeting (Attachment 5 -City Council Staff Report dated October lt;, 2007) Staff presented a description
of the proposed land use designations and descriptions of potential h~ttsing types that could be developed
within these designations; an analysis of the proposed densities; and maps showing the proposed location
for these proposed designations.
Page 3 of 12
~ ~~
6~
Map 1-Existing i,aad Use Designations
The entire residential portion of the (,'hen property consists of 6.5-acres with aMedium-High Density land
use designation (please see Table l ). Therefor, the Chen property was not included in the analysis
contained in the Staff Report for the City Council Meeting on Octcber 16, 2007. Similarly, the Jordan
property includes 21.8-acts of land with a Medium-High Density designation that was not included in the
analysis.
On October 16, 2007, the City Council reviewed the Staff Rtport :urd the GPA/SPA Study in order to
provide Staff with further direction regarding the proposed land use policies for the Croak and Jordan
properties. The City Council expressed a concern over the policy to calculate densities based on gross
rather than net acreage. The City Council also expressed a desir to include minimum yard requirements
for the proposed Medium-Low Density designation. On a motion, the City Council directed Staff to
prepare a GPA/SPA and Stage 1 Developrnerrt Plan Amendment to:
1) Create Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre) land
use designations for the existing Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties;
2) Calculate densities for the proposed land use designations based on net developable acres; and
3) Requir usable yards for development within the Medium-Low Density designation.
ANALYSIS:
The following is a discussion of the proposed General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment, and Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment to address the direction by the City Council.
General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
The proposed General Plan Anterrdments include the following as described in Exhibit A to Attachment 1:
• Definitions for the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Dcxrsity land use designations
• De£nition for density calculations based on net acreage
• Amendments to the General Pl.•ur Land Use Map for the Croak and Jordan properties
^ Amendments to the text and tables within the General Plan
The proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments include the following as described in Exhibit A
of Attachment 1:
• Definitions for the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations
• Amendments to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Map for the Croak and Jordan properties
• Amendments to the text and various tables within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
1) Proposed Land Use Designations
Staff has prepard the following definitions for the proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid
Density land use designations which address the direction by the City Council to include private usable
yard arcs for development within the proposed Medium-Low Density designation:
Residential: MediuttrLow Density (6.1-10 units per net residential acre).
Units in this density range will be detached, zero-lot line, duplex, and/or townhouse developments
suitable for family living with private flat usable outdoor yari arcs that accommodate leisurly
activities typically associated with a raidcnce. Unit types and densities may be similar or varied.
Assumed household size is two persons per unit.
Residential: Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 units net residential acre).
This density range allows detached, zero-lot line, duplex townhouse, and/or garden apartment
developments suitable for family living with private flat usable outdoor yard areas that accommodate
Page 4 of 12
87 ~ I6 1
leisurely activities typically associated with a raidtnce or usable common areas that accommogpte gj g
recreational and leisurely activities. Unit types and densities nay be similar or varied. Ass mod J
household size is two persons per unit.
In addition to the definitions for the two new land use designations, the term "net density" that is used
in these land use designations needs to be defined in the General Flan and the EDSP.
2) Definition ojNet Density
The General Plan land use designations for residential properties identify minimum and maximum
densities. These densities are based on gross acreage calculations (i.e. gross acreage includes streets,
open space, and environmentally constrained areas where development is not appropriate, etc). As a
rault, development may be clustered on a smaller area of the overall project site. The clustering of
development can result in exceeding the density for the developable area but remaining within the
density range for the overall project site. The following tat le (Table 3) illustrates the density
calculation for a l0 acre project site using the gross and the n(3 acreage of the site. The resulting
project would appear much more dense than the same number of [mils on a non-constrained parcel.
Table 3 -Gross vs. Net Density Calcnlatlon Example
PareN ~~ DwNopabls Land Use Mld~stnt Jnlb Giros Dsnslty Nat DsnsUy
Slss tttb tHsl anon Dsnsl
10 acres Crook: 3 acres
5 8°OS k(edlum Density
10 purse 100 unas
(1C acres x 10 dutac ZO dulac
Street: 2 apes (6.1.14 d~dac)
111 unas (100 uMts/t0 ac) (100 uNtaJS ac)
At the City Council meeting on October 16, 2007, the City Cowtcil directed the use of a net acreage
calculation to determine the density of development on land wilt the proposed Medium-Low Density
and Medium-Mid Density designations. The net acreage calculation .excludes public/private streets,
parks, open space, and common areas, as well as geologically and environmentally constrained areas.
Therefore, the proposed GPA/SPA includes a requirement to calculate density based on net acreage for
the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations only. These two new land
use designations will apply to a portion of the Croak and Jordan properties (Exhibit A to Attachment
1).
Staff has prepared the following definition for the net acreage cal<:ulation to address the City Council's
direction:
Residential densities for the Medium-Low and Medium Mid Density land use designations
shall be calculated based on the total developable area of the site excluding public and private
streets, parks, open spacva, common areas, environmentally constrained areas, and areas with
slopes that exceed 30'x. Development shall not be clua•tered on one portion of the project
where the development -rould exceed the maximum density for that portion ojthe site even if
the overall project remains within the density range wFen the density is calculated jor the
entire project area.
The policy to exclude common areas from the density calculation functions as a disincentive for
developers to provide common areas within developments. Thet~efore, the definition of the proposed
Medium-Mid Density designation includes a requirement to provide either a usable common area or
private yard area. Staff has also proposed an amendment to the existing Stage 1 Development Plan
(discussed blow) to establish development standards that implement the General Plan policy
regarding private yards and common areas which would apply to the new land use designations.
Page 5 of 12
Potential Housing Types
The proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density land use designations would permit a
variety of different housing types within each designation. An illustrated list of potential residential
product types to help illustrate the type of units that could be constructed on land within each of the
newly created land use designation is included on page 4 of Attachment 3. Within the new Medium-
Low density land use category there are greater oppottuttities for detached housing types with usable
yards, including small lot detached single-family, detached cluster and duplexes. The Medium-Mid
density also allows detached alley loaded homes and cluster homes with yards. However, the
Medium-Mid Density also allows townhomes and apartments/condominiums which typically do not
have usable yard space. The actual product type that is proposed within each land use category will be
at the discretion of the developer provided that the product is consistent with the density range.
3. Genera! Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Map Changes
Application of two new Proposed Land Use Designations to the Croak and Jordan Properties
The land plan for Fallon Village was formed around the creation of the Fallon Village Center which
serves as the social and economic center for the project area (Thos Fallon Village Center is outlined in
blue on the maps included in this Staff Report). The Medium De zsity portion of the Croak and Jordan
properties are located within the Fallon Village Center. The overall Fallon Village project area
includes a variety of residentitd land use designations with higher residential densities focused
primarily around the Fallon Village Center in order to activate: the Village Center and promote a
pedestrian oriented development. At the hub of the Fallon Village Center is a Neighborhood Square
that is surrounbed by Mixed Use, which includes ground floor n:tail and residential units above, and
Medium-High Density residential units. The densities reduce to Medium Density as you move away
from the Village Center and transition to Low Density residential uses to the north and east.
a. Croak Property
The existing 10.4acre Medium Density site on
the Croak property forms the eastern boundary of
the Fallon Village Center. This site provides a
transition fran the mote intense Mixed Use and
Medium-High Density Residential uses in the
Village core acrd the less intense Low Density
Residential use located to the no-th and east of
the Village Center.
Proposed Density `~" ~' ~ i i; i i .
The existing Medium Density site on the Croak ~ ~ :.
property is proposed to be divided into two 5.2-
acre sites with Medium-Low Density and
Medium-Mid Density designations. Table 4 Fallon Village
(below) shows the density range for the proposed l Crnter Bounds
Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density sites on ~ ~ _ ~
the Croak property. Development at the midpoint
of the proposed density range would result in the Map 2- Ealstieg latnd Use Desigaatioea '
same number of units (104 units) that were
studied in the Fallon Village SEIR for the existing Medium Density designation (see Table 4) and
continue to ensure the existing jobs/housing fiscal balance. These units would simply be
redistributed across the proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density designations
and no additional environmental review would be required.
~q ~ ,~~
Page 6 of 12
Tsble 4: Croak Property -Proposed Medium-Low Density dr Medium-Mid Density
units at Impact on
L.arW Uss Dssfpnatlon ~~ it!lWpoMt ~~ Mld-Point Total UnHs at
~~° ~~ Dsnslty Mktpolnt
Wns
Medwm-Low Den ' 6.1-10 dulac 6 du/ac 5.2 ac 42 units -
Medium-Mid Density 10.1-14 dulac 12 du/ac 5.2 ac 62 units -
Total 10.4 ac 104 units None
~----- E
na.
h.c .c
i
Proposed Lana Use Map
In order to maintain the transition in intensity of
]and uses from the core of the Fallon Village Center
to the less intense single-family uses to the north
and east, Staff proposes to locate the new Medium-
Mid Density (I0. i -14 du/acre) site immediately to
the east of the existing Medium-High Density site
and adjacent to the future Central Parkway. The
proposed Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/aere)
site would be located to the east of the proposed
Medium-Mid Density site to provide a transition
from the higher density of the Village Center to the
Low Density rti.ighborhoods to the north and east.
b. Jordan Ranch
The existing 23.4-acre site of the Medium
Dettsity land use on the Jonlan Ranch forms the
northern boundary of the Fallon Village Crnter.
This site provides a transition from the more
intense Medium-High Density Residential use
located to the south and the less intense Low
Density Residential use located to the north of the
Village Center.
Proposed Density ~4 ~ ,.; ~.~ ~ r
The Medium Density site on the Jordan property ~,o4w; ~~
. ~-;.
would be divided into two 11.7-acre sites
designated Medium-Low Iknsity and Medium-
Mid Density. Table 5 (below) shows the density ~ Fallon Village
range for the proposed Medium-Low and Center Bounder
Medium-Mid Density sites on the Jordan `tl°`
property. Like the Croak property, development
at the midpoint of the proposed density range Map 4 - E:istias Iced Use Designsttosa
would result in the same number of units (234
units) that were studied in the Fallon Village SEIR for the existing Medium Density designation
(see Table 5) and continue to ensure the existing jobs/housirig fiscal balance. These units would
Page 7 of 12
~o ~ ~6~~
Map 3 -Proposed Land Use Designations (Croak Property)
simply be redistributed acmes the proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density (~/
designations and no additional environmental review would b: required. / I
Table 5: Jordan Ranch -Proposed Medium-Low Dctuily & Medium-Mid Density
Land llae Dssiynatbn I ~~~ I lM~i~ I Aeras I ~~t I ~Id~
Medium-Low De 6.1-10 du/ac 8 dulac 11.7 a'; 94 units -
Medium-Mid Density 10.1-t4 du/ac 12 du/ac 11.7 a; 140 units -
Total 23.4 a'; 234 units .None
Proposed
Medium-Mid
Density
Proposed
Medium-Mid
Density
~ ~ MA
q.A K
o.. At --
~• :.
t,~ ks~AC
,75 At
Proposed Land Gse Map
In order to mainttiin the gradual transition in Land uses
from the higher densities in the core of the Village
Center to the less intense Single-Family uses to the
north, Staff ra:ommends locating the proposed
Medium-Mid De:tsity site (10.1-14 du/acre) adjacent
to the existing Medium-High Density land use. The
Medium-Low De ~sity (6.1-10 du/acre) (and use would
be located further to the north to provide for a
transition from the higher density of the Village Center
to the Low Den::ity neighborhoods to the north and
east.
Fslbn Village
Center Boundary
Map S -Proposed Lad Use Desigaatioas
(Jordan Property)
By creating the W odium-Low land use designation and
applying the land use to the Croak and Jordan
properties, there is an opportunity for the development
of detached housing and other unit types with usable
private yard areas.
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments
'The proposed amendments to the General Plan and EDSP l) define dte propose Medium-Low Density and
Medium-Mid Density designations, 2) define net acreage, and 3) amend the General Plan and EDSP Land
Use Mapa to incorporate the Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density land use designations on the
Croak and Jordan properties; and 4) amend the text and various tables in the General Plan and the EDSP
as described in Exhibit A to Attachment I. Furthermore, the Croak and Jordsn properties are part of an
approved Stage I Development Plan which also requires amendments as discussed below.
Fallon Village Stage 1 Development Plan
The Croak and Jordan properties arr located within the Fallon Vipagc Planned Development (PD) zoning
district (PA 04-040). The PD zoning with Stage 1 Development Plan were adopted by the City Council on
December 20, 2005 (Ordinance 32-OS). The Development Plan has a number of different elements
including a site plan, statement of proposed uses, and development standards. The Development Plan
implements, and is therefore required to be consistent with, both the General Plan and EDSP policies. It is
necessary to amend the Stage 1 Development Plan in order to ensuti consistency with the General Plan
and the EDSP. The proposed amendments to the Stage I Development Plan include a revised Stage 1 Site
Plan for the new land use categories, a modified list of permitted uses, and revised development standards
for the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land .tses as described in Exhibit A of
Attachment 2.
Page 8 of 12
Usable Private Yurd Requirement r
The proposed General Plan Amendment includes a requirement :o provide private usable yards for
development within the Medium-Low Density designation. Similarly, the Medium-Mid Density
designation includes a requirement to provide either private usable yards or common areas as described
above and in Exhibit A to Attachment 1.
The proposed Stage 1 Devebpmcnt Ptan Amendment implements the General Plan policies for private
yards and common areas for the Maiium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations. The Medium-Mid
Density designation albws for a variety of different product types which include attached and detached
units that could provide either common areas or usable private yams depending on the product design.
Therefore, the Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment establishes minimum standards for the private
usable yards for the Medium-Low Density, and private yards and common areas for the Medium-Mid
Density as required by the General Plan. The proposed Stage 1 Deg elopment Plan Amendment includes
the following as described below and in Exhibit A to Attachment 2.
^ Usable yard requirements for detached units in the Medium-1.ow and Medium-Mid Density using
the existing requirements for units with Low Density and Medium Density designations.
• Usable yard requirements far attached units in the Medium-Lew and Medium-Mid Density
^ Common area requirements and usable yard requirements for Medium-Mid Density
Detached Units with Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density Desianations
The existing Stage 1 Development Plan includes a matrix with development standards, including usable
yard requirements, for detached housing within the Low Density and Medium Density land use
designations. These development standards establish criteria For detached housing based on lot size and
include criteria for lots that would be typical within the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density
designations. Therefore, the development standards have been modified to include the Medium-Low and
Medium-Mid Density designations. The standards included in Tablc• 6 (below) are existing standards for
the Medium Density land use designation. The two newly created land uses will also be require to be
consistent with these existing standards because all three categories (Medium-Low, Medium-Mid, and
Medium) allow for detached housing types.
Table 6 - Priv:te Yard Requirements -Medium-Low & Medium-Mid Density Detached Units
Lot 31ze 1,1100+ s.f. 2,500+ s.f.
250 s.f. 300 s.f.
Yard area may be provided ut Yard yea may be provided in
more than one bcation wltn a bt more than one bcation wlin a bt
PrNate Yard Minimum Area Per Min. rear yard area: 170 s.f. Min. rear yard area: 170 s.f.
UniC Min. area 80 a.f. Min. cbu b area 80 s.f.
Privab Yard Minimum Dimensbn• ti' 8'
•"17rcse are existug standards fm the Low and Medium Density Land Use Desitmations
Attached Units with Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Dente. itv Designations
The development standards provide minimum usable yard requirements for attached housing (i.e. row-
home, etc.) within the Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Den!:ity designations. The following is a
summary of the proposed private yard requirements within the twu new land use designations. Units
within the Medium-Mid Density designation have the option of pn~viding private usable yard areas as
described in Table 7 or common areas as described in Table 8 xlow. The proposed development
standards, as described in Exhibit A to Attachment 2, will ensure that all residential development on land
designated Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density is consistent with the General Plan policies
regarding usable yards.
~Ia ~ ~6
Page 9 of l2
Table 7-Private Ysrd Requirements - Medium-Low & Medium-Mid Density Attached Uo(ts ~~ ~ I
Private Yard Minimum Aron Per Unk X50 s.f.
Private Yard Minimum Dimension 8'
Common Area Requirements for Medium-Mid Density
The Medium-Mid Density will allow a variety of product types whir i include attached and detached units
that could include either private yards or common areas based on the product design. Therefore, the
proposed Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment includes minimum requirements for both private yards
as described in Table 7 above and common areas as described in Table 8 below. This requirement would
ensure consistency with the General Plan and implement the proposed General Plan policy requiring
usable common areas for all development on land with a Medium-Mid Density designation where the
design does not allow private usable yards.
Table 8 -Common Area Requirements - Medium-Micl Density Attached Units
Common Aron
Minimum Area Per Unit 150 s.f.
The proposed amendments to the Stage 1 Development Plan includ~a l) a revised Stage 1 Site Plan with
the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations for the Cmal: and Jordan properties, 2) a list of
permitted, conditionally permitted and temporary uses for these two rew designations, and 3) development
standards for private usable yards and common areas within the Maiium-Low and Medium-Mid Density
designations as described in Exhibit A to Attachment 2.
Communication with Property Owners
A Public Meeting notice was sent to all property owners within the: EDSP area that do not have vested
development rights, notifying them of the City Council Meeting o~ April 3, 2007 and the meeting on
October 16, 2007. Staff also contacted representatives ofthe Croak, Jordan and Chen properties to discuss
the direction from the City Council at the April 3n° and October l6° meetings. In accordance with State
law, a public notice regarding the hearing on November 27, 2007, was mailed to all property owners and
occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project area. A public notice was also published in the Valley
Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. To date, flit City has not received comments or
objections from surrounding property owners or tenants regarding the current proposal.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project has been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA
Guidelines and the Dublin Environmental Guidelines. On Decemb~:r 6, 2005, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 222-05 certifying a Supplemental Environmaital Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH
#2005062010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR, a program EIR, initially ccxtified by the City of Dublin in 1993
(SCH#91103064) and the Eastern Dublin Property Owners SEIR (SCH # 2001052114) ccrtifiod in 2002
by Resolution 40-02 for the Fallon Village project. The prior EIRs are available for review in the
Community Development Department. The proposed projxt is within the scope of the SEIR for the
Fallon Village project area because the project does not result in in~:reased units or density beyond what
was previously studied for the subject properties, and therefore nc additional environmental review is
required.
CONCLUSION:
The City Council has the authority to modify General Plan and Specific Plan Land Use Designations at
any time. On April 3, 2007, and with further direction on October 16, 2007, the City Council directed
Page l0 of 12
use designations including Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14~ / ~ I
du/acre) for the existing Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties and to amend the /~ `
existing Stage 1 Development Plan in order to encourage an additional variety of housing stock with
usable yards. The proposed amendments to the General Plan, EDSP, and Stage 1 Development Plan
implement the direction by the City Council and would encourage the construction of single-family
detached homes and other product types with private usable yards on land with a Medium-Low Density
Designation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public
Hearing; 3) Receive public testimony, 4) Close the Public Hearirg and deliberate; and 5) Adopt the
following resolutions: a) Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending the City Council approve a General
Plan Amendment and Eastcm Dublin Spaific Plan Amendment to change the land use designation for the
Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties to new b[edium-Low Density (6.1-]0 du/acre)
and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre) designations; and b) Resolution (Attachment 2)
recommending the City Council approve a PD-Planned Development Rezone with Amended Stage 1
Development Plan for the existing Medium Density portion of the Cmak and Jordan properties.
Page 11 of 12
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNERS:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC
PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS:
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
City of Dublin
Francis Croak
1262 Gabriel Court
San Leandro, CA 94:177
Tony Vami
Vami, Fraiser, Harter ell & Rodgers
650 A Street
Hayward, CA 94543
APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002
PD -Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Rc~idential (6.1-14 du/acre)
The project has bt:en reviewed under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA
Guidelines and the Dublin Environmental Guidelines.
On Decunber 6, 2005, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 2:?2-OS certifying a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH
#2005062010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR, a program EIIt,
initially certified t,y the City of Dublin in 1993
(SCH#91103064) and the Eastern Dublin Property
Owners SEIR (SCH # 2001052114) certified in 2002 by
Resolution 40-02 for the Fallon Village project. The
prior EIRs are avai.able for review in the Community
Development Department. The proposed project is
within the scope of the SEIR for the Fallon Village
project area because the projxt does not result in
increased units or density beyond what was previously
studied for the subject properties, and therefore no
additional environmcmtal review is required.
Page 12 of 12
~~~~~
Planning Commission Minutes ~ ~ ~ (~ I ~
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday,
November 27, 2007, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called
the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners Tomlinson, King and Biddle;
Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Jeff Baker, Senior Planner; Martha Aja, Assistant Planner;
and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary.
Absent: None
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg the minutes of
November 13, 2007 meeting were approved as submitted.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -NONE
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.1 PA 07-049 Fallon Village Community Theme Wall: Conditional Use Permit for a
Minor Amendment to the Planned Development Zoning District, Stage 1
Development Plan for Fallon Village (PA 04-040) and the Stage 2 Development
Plan for Positano (PA 05-038).
Martha Aja, Assistant Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there were other walls of this type in Dublin. Ms. Aja answered that
there are similar walls within Dublin Ranch. Cm. Wehrenberg asked about the durability of the
walls.
Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager answered that there were no problems with the walls that
the City was aware of.
Chair Schaub asked if there was foam on top or the walls or will they be topped with concrete.
Jeff Baker, Senior Planner answered that they are capped with concrete or stone, not foam.
2'(nnnirtg (.,'omrnirrean 128 ;'~iw~rmbrr?7, :(N1
~yHnLzr Sifrrhnq Attachment 6
RESOLUTION N0.07 - 60 ~ ~ ~ 'I
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION r ~ 1
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT
STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR FALCON VILLAGE (PA 04-040) AND THE STAGE 2
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR POSITANO (PA 05-038)
PA 07-049
8.2 PA 07-056 (Legislative Action) Croak and Jordan Medium Density: General Plan
Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, and Fallon Village Stage 1
Planned Development Amendment to create Medium-Low Density and Medium-
Mid Density land use designations for the existing Medium Density portion of the
Croak and Jordan properties.
Jeff Baker, Senior Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report.
Chair Schaub stated that the Planning Commission has been asked to look at a request by the
City Council and what they were looking for was, a variety of housing types as a broad subject,
with two areas specifically which are usable yards and using net acreage as a designator. He
thought the question was, will the Planning Commission be able to accomplish that.
Cm. Biddle asked Mr. Baker to review how the list of projects used in this Staff Report came
about.
Mr. Baker answered that there was an analysis done of the different properties in the eastern
part of Dublin and what the current status of entitlements were. Out of that analysis there were
a small number of properties that currently did not have a Stage i development plan. The City
Council decided that, based on the status of the existing entitlements on some of the properties,
they should not be subject to changes because they were already in the process. But there were
certain properties that were not in the process at that point, which are the Croak, Jordan and
Chen properties and Camp Parks in the future.
Chair Schaub mentioned the previous Study Session on the Vargas and Frederick properties
and at the time the Planning Commission thought it was the densest project but actually came
out at a gross density of 6.0 but the net density was 14.9 which is more dense then Roxbury,
which is the City's densest project. He stated that on a 100 acre project the calculation is not
nearly as visible as on the smaller 5-10 acre projects.
Chair Schaub was concerned about calculating the lot coverage if the lot is 1800 square feet, then
deduct 250 square feet for a yard, then 5 ft off both sides for the length of the yard and then
there must be a driveway and some kind of front yard set back that leaves a very small house
footprint. He thought the footprint would be less than 1200 square feet.
r~lbrrn±ng C'~*¢mircirn 132 ,N;rrzmfie~ 2 ~, 3t7f/r
XCHrrlar!Nzetlnq
Mr. Baker continued with the Staff Report. w ~ / "a
" J/ K~ I
Chair Schaub was still concerned about the practicality of the new standards. They referred to /I
the diagrams in the Ordinance -Exhibit A, and discussed how they could put a garage, living
room, kitchen, and bathroom on the first floor. Chair Schaub thought the houses might be
unbuildable.
Mr. Baker stated that the diagrams the Commission was referring to are not to scale and were
provided only to show examples of where the yards need to occur but not representative of
what would be the end product. Additionally, these standards already exist as a part of Fallon
Village Stage 1.
Chair Schaub stated his concern is that on an 1800 square foot lot it would not be possible to
have a downstairs if all the rooms that are required are built. Ms. Wilson stated that it is
possible but they have not done the calculations. Chair Schaub stated that Staff should do the
calculations because his concern was that the houses might be unbuildable.
Cm. Tomlinson agreed with. Chair Schaub that the yards would be unusable. He felt the yards
were not practical and the drawings showed odd shaped yards. He stated that most people
don't use their yards up to the wall but usually have a shrub border of a foot and air conditioner
unit must have clearance also. He felt the drawings should be to scale because they are the
center of the issue. He was very concerned about mandating "usable yards" in this
configuration or a house that cannot be built.
Ms. Wilson suggested that Staff could do some exercises to plot out the rooms in the houses, on
the lot with yards, etc. She stated that through her experience working on this kind of project
the Applicant could get the house on a lot like this one. She stated that the graphics do not
depict it. She asked the Commission to consider that the 1800 square foot lot size is a minimum
standard that is a part of the Fallon Village Stage 1 PD and the developer would have to be
creative in design in order to build on a lot of that size. She continued that the developer would
have to be creative in their design in order to have the yard area and still achieve the lot density.
Chair Schaub stated that they were discussing a minimum lot size that might not be able to be
sold.
Ms. Wilson indicated the development could occur on the minimum lot size. She felt that the
developer could include all the amenities and a typical home would have smaller room sizes
than what is available today. That it would be atrade-off to have the yards with no required
minimum lot size or have a larger square footage of the home. Chair Schaub did not think you
could build a house on an 1800 square feet lot.
Cm. Tomlinson was concerned that the Commission is mandating a yard concept, where the
goal is to provide recreational activities for children, etc. He felt that the proposed yards are as
useless as the current situation. He felt that to solve the problem there should be common
areas, open space and park areas within a development instead and that would be a usable area
for children.
rl~anmr+~ (:, mrntfsiart 133 ~4>r:xmocrZ7, ~Ot1T
`XK9t:L:r'Nertinq
Cm. Biddle stated that this is an existing standard for Medium Mid Density as a pay ~ P~ the
Fallon Village Stage 1 PD. Mr. Baker stated that was correct.
Chair Schaub asked for the definition of net acreage calculation as stated on Page 5 of 12 of the
Staff Report.
Staff has prepared the following definition for the net acreage calculation to address the City
Council's direction:
Based on discussions with the Commission and Staff, Mr. Baker stated that Staff had made a
modification to the definition to further refine the definition as shown in the Staff Report as
follows:
Residential densities for the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations
shall be calculated based on the total developable area of the site excluding public and private
streets, parks, open space, common areas, environmentally constrained areas, and areas with
slopes that exceed 30'x. Development shall not be clustered on one portion of the project site
where such development would exceed the maximum density for that portion of the site, even if
the overall project remains within the permitted density range.
Chair Schaub agreed that the modification worked better than the original definition in the Staff
Report.
Cm. Tomlinson asked if Staff was proposing to apply the new net vs. gross definitions to these
particular properties. Mr. Baker answered that was correct it would only apply to these
properties and only to the proposed medium-mid and medium-low designations. Cm.
Tomlinson asked if citywide all residential sites are evaluated on a gross basis and is Staff
proposing to change all other designations citywide. He was concerned that it seems unfair that
these property owners are being singled out for the new definition that will probably
significantly reduce their ability to develop those sites.
Mr. Baker answered that City Council's direction was only to look at these particulaz sites
therefore they had not evaluated applying it to other sites. He stated that there are limited
properties that the definition could be applied to because many properties already have
entitlements.
Chair Schaub stated that he would like to discuss suggesting to the Council that they look
applying this definition to all properties and not just these two.
Cm. Biddle stated that he agreed with Chair Schaub and felt that using net rather than gross
would be a better approach and asked if the City should use it on everything including the
different categories, not just the medium density. Chair Schaub stated that the Commission
would have to suggest it to the Council and they would have to direct Staff to look at it and
bring it back to the Commission. He felt that it would be important for the Camp Parks project.
Chair Schaub opened the Public Hearing.
~~~ i~
4fGinstirtg Comeii.rsi~m 134 SYiwe~mh~r;!7, >(tD7
`R~'HuGir SNZ~ting
Pat Croak, Property Owner, 4617 James Ave., Castro Valley, CA., spoke on behalf of th~Croak ! ~ ~-. I
property. He was concerned about how this proposal will affect his property and his ability to
develop the land as he had originally planned.
Chair Schaub asked Mr. Croak to go through the number of units that were approved by the
City Council previously for his property. He stated that there were 566 total units for the Croak
property in Table 2 in the Staff Report and that was the number he would be allowed to build
regardless of the outcome of this item.
Mr. Croak stated that this was the first time he had seen that number - he stated that the
number in the Stage 1 PD and the number that the City Council approved for his property was
573 units. He stated that the 7 unit difference between the 573 and 566 pertained to the land he
gave up for the semi-public land use.
Chair Schaub asked Mr. Croak if he was asking the Commission, in the definition of net for his
property, that the Commission include that land in the density even though it is not usable. He
stated that for that property the net density formula would include the land that was given up
for semi-public land use where we have asked it to be excluded as streets, etc. He asked Mr.
Croak if that was what he is asking the Commission to do. Mr. Croak answered yes.
Chair Schaub suggested that this is one way of looking at the land that was given up.
Mr. Baker stated that the EIR for Fallon Village studied 573 units on the Croak Property. The
public/semi-public requirement is a designation of 2 acres somewhere on the Croak property.
He stated that the public/semi-public designation is showing on the low density site so that
would reduce their low density by those two acres, but the 573 units are at the midpoint of the
density range so they could build above the density range, but they could build above the
density range to recapture the lost units and still be consistent with the EIR. He continued that
the current proposal would not change their situation. The 104 units shown on Table 2 are at
the midpoint of the density range but they could still build above the midpoint as long as they
stay within the density range and they are consistent with the EIR or conduct further
environmental review for a greater number of total units if so desired.
Mr. Croak stated that the public/semi public site could go anywhere on the property but in
actuality it will probably be located where the medium density is located close to the village
area. He stated that he hadri t thought it through but he didn't want to loose units because of
this proposal.
Cm. Biddle stated that the Commission is only considering mid density and nothing else is
affected. The Commission is not considering public/semi public or other designations. He
stated that the math works out to be exactly the same number of units. He stated that this
proposal does not change the number of units.
Chair Schaub stated that what it does change is the fact that it might be impossible to build
houses at that higher density, given other restrictions. He was concerned that in order to get the
number of units back and include a garage and a usable yard, the footprint of the house would
be so small that the developer would have to build up.
'Ptanning <'amrrrzssinn 13$ 'iV+n°°enfrr?;, ::Of1;'
xBj(uGrr !Nez°~inq
,~
Ms. Wilson suggested looking at the table in the attached Ordinance on page 6 of which ~ ,~/ I
shows that all the criteria already exist for all of the 3,000+ dwelling units in the Stage 1 PD for (~
Fallon Village. She stated that it designates such things as minimum lot coverage, building
heights and minimum rear yard setbacks, including usable yards. She continued that when a
developer submits for a Stage 2 SDR they must meet the current existing standards for any
proposed development and this proposal would further define those designations by calling out
the medium-low and medium-mid designations within the medium density SFR detached small
lots designation and the SFR detached small lots/court homes designations with two new land
use designations. So the standards already exist but are just further defined by the new land
use categories.
Chair Schaub suggested looking at the far right column on the table which is labeled "Medium-
Low, Medium-Mid and Medium Density Single Family Detached Small Lots/Court Home'. He
was concerned about what the footprint would be of a house on an 1800 square foot lot.
Ms. Wilson answered that it would be based on the development standards on the table that
had been discussed. She stated that Staff does not know the particular design of the products
that will be submitted, however, all of the development standards were approved and proposed
to the City by Braddock and Logan who led the proposal for all the property owners for the
entire Fallon Village area. She continued that based on standards of development all of these
development standards are required to be met and can be met for these particular
developments. Chair Schaub suggested that the City has added 250 square feet to those
standards.
Ms. Wilson answered that they had not added 250 square feet but that the standard already
exists. All the City is proposing is that the new land use designations not only apply to medium
density land use designation of 6.1 to 14 DU/acre but that the standards also apply to the
medium-low, 6.1 to 10 DU/acres and the medium-mid 10.1 to 14.
Chair Schaub stated that all the items in the table, until the "usable yard" section were already
agreed to. Ms. Wilson stated that everything in the table already existed in the Stage 1 PD for
the entire Fallon Village area, which includes Croak and Jordan properties. Mr. Baker stated
that the only thing on the table that changed was the top box where the Medium-Low and
Medium-Mid were added.
Cm. Biddle stated that if you break down the 1800 square foot lot it would be a 30' by 60' lot or
25' by 72" lot, which is not very large.
Chair Schaub was concerned that Mr. Croak had not spent enough time on the proposal. He
stated that the proposal only affects two property owners and he wanted to make sure that the
Commission is recommending something to the City Council that is practical.
Cm. Tomlinson wanted to understand exactly what the Commission is creating. He felt that by
splitting the density from one into two densities they would be effectively forcing them to build
two different product types on different portions of the property rather than building one
product type on the overall property.
Ylanninp (;ommLssi. n 136 :~`vr am~i~r '7,w0(1~
4t pgaLSr: Nn¢tln,9
Ms. Wilson added that there could be the potential for only one product type. Currently,'the
developer must build two separate product types creating the new mid-low and mid-medium
land use designation.
Cm. Tomlinson was concerned about the Commission making a market and making the
standards too restrictive and possibly creating a situation that is not feasible or practical for
what the property owner/developer would like to build.
Chair Schaub stated that if the Commission was considering 200 to 1,000 acres he can
understand studying the issue but with such few acres it doesn't see feasible. He was
concerned about creating a change for such few acres and the unforeseen consequences of that
change.
Cm. Tomlinson agreed with Councilmember Oravetz when he stated in the minutes from the 4-
3-07 meeting that the current plan is not broken. He then asked Mr. Croak his thoughts on the
Net vs. gross issue.
Mr. Croak stated that he thought it takes away flexibility from the property owner. He asked if
the term "maximum density allowable" is in regards to the EIR and the midpoint density or is
the maximum allowable density of 14 units/acre for medium density or 9 units/acre for low
density.
Ms. Wilson answered that the EIR is a different subject and this issue deals with defining the
General Plan language as whatever the allowance is at the maximum. She mentioned the Wallis
Ranch development which shows a pazcel that had a lot of constraints, i.e., creek area, wetland
habitat, etc. Those areas were not designated by the General Plan as open space which would
have been taken out of the parcel. Then going back to the Fallon Village area the net vs. gross
may not have a significant consequence since areas such as the creek azea are designated as
Open Space and is currently on the General Plan Map designated as Open Space and therefore
not a part of a developable parcel.
Mr. Croak stated he was concerned about topography on his property and if he looses units
with the net process in the medium density categories -would he be allowed to absorb the units
into the low density area where they are slotted at the midpoint density range. He asked if he
lost units in the medium density and planned 4 units/acre in the low density category, could he
transfer those units to the low density category.
Cm. King asked if he meant to increase density in the other area. Mr. Croak answered yes but
keep the entire project wide density consistent with what's already been approved.
Cm. Tomlinson thought that theoretically, as long as Mr. Croak did not go above the limit of the
section he could transfer the units to the low density area. His concern was that there will be
multiple constraints and the property owner will lose the flexibility to balance the development.
He continued that once the developer starts to look at the project they will find that they cannot
build as many units as originally anticipated and still meet the various restrictions.
~°d~lb~
rMlannin~ Comnrisrrcr. 137 Shm:r.:n,~6-r:!7, ?txl~
~2d;~trLrr ~~lertin_q
Ms. Wilson stated that there is the potential for that to happen. She stated that typically the I ~~
EIR's are done at the midpoint because there will be many issues that must be addressed and at
times the developer may not get to the midpoint of development.
Chair Schaub was concerned that there are so few acres and thought that Mr. Croak should go
through the information in the Staff Report and decide if it is doable or that he cannot build the
project as anticipated.
Cm. Biddle stated that much of issue is worked out at Stage 2.
Chair Schaub stated that he would like an idea of what might happen on the properties in
question.
Ms. Wilson stated that it is similaz to the other land use designations, the proposal to add the
medium-low and medium-mid results in a few more detached homes.
Chair Schaub stated that the Planning Commission has been dealing with this type of issue for a
long time and the intention of the City Council that the City wants more houses with yards
sounds like an easy thing to do but in reality it has been a difficult process for the Commission
and Staff.
Mr. Croak asked if the net acreage does not apply to low density and will it stay that way.
Ms. Wilson answered yes that it does not apply to low density. She stated that the City Council
has the authority to modify any of their policy documents and this discussion was at the
direction of the City Council to Staff to look at this land use designation and zeroed in on a very
particular land use designation. The City Council can at any time make other changes but have
not given that direction but they could ask to see net density used for all land use designation.
Chair Schaub thought it was less of a problem in low density but where it gets harder is on the
larger parcels.
Mr. Croak suggested that the Commission consider the two densities together, that if the net
concept will apply to the medium density then there should be flexibility allowed in the low
density.
Chair Schaub answered that the Commission could do that because they are only talking about
the Croak and Jordan properties. Ms. Wilson stated that there was some correspondence from
the Jordon property indicating that they had no problem with this proposal.
Chair Schaub closed the public heazing.
Cm. Biddle commented that as far as vested right to develop, the developer would need a
development agreement and a vesting tentative map at Stage 2, and there can be changes up
through Stage 2. He agreed with Cm. Tomlinson that there really isri t much change and we re
only talking about 33.8 acres. Cm. Tomlinson stated that it means a lot to the two property
owners involved. Cm. Biddle continued that if using the midpoint calculation the number of
units does not change.
tY(onnnrg {'~mnrsrsinn 138 ;tiro erbrr ''r; 'tNJ
~iYgu&rr Netting
Ms. Wilson stated that there would be no net change to either property owners or the number of
dwelling units would not change. She stated that basically this decision would drive the market
to allow for more of one type of product. She stated that if the Planning Commission feels that
this does not go far enough they have the ability to further discuss the issue. She stated that this
is what the Council had directed but if the Commission feels that it needs to apply to additional
properties it is appropriate for the Commission to further discuss the issue.
Chair Schaub wanted to clarify what Ms. Wilson was saying and stated that the Commission
could come back and say this is interesting but if it applies to these two properties then why
doesn't it apply to any property that does not have some very strict legal documentation such as
a Stage 2.
Mr. Baker stated that the developers would need either a Development Agreement or Vesting
Tentative Map which could be done at Stage 2 or separately.
Chair Schaub continued that the Commission could recommend that this change should be
applied to everybody that does not have any vested right to develop which is approximately 10
properties, i.e., Jordan, Croak, Chen, Branaugh, Righetti and Anderson and then Vargas, Tipper,
Frederick and Moller.
Ms. Wilson stated that Moller, Frederick, Vargas and Tipper only have annexations, Stage 1 PDs
and are included in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
Chair Schaub asked about the density designations for those properties.
Ms. Wilson answered that the density for the properties is mid density.
Chair Schaub asked if the Commission could recommend including those properties.
Ms. Wilson stated that the Commission could do that but they would need to indicate why they
think it's appropriate to include the additional properties. She stated that the City Council
talked about all of those properties and concluded that if they were already moving through the
process and working on entitlements they did not want to stop them even though they do not
have the legal right to develop but had already spent funds on permits, etc.
Chair Schaub asked if the Planning Commission must have certain findings to recommend the
resolutions to the City Council.
Ms. Wilson answered that the Commission is only making recommendations to the City
Council to make amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and then the
Stage 1 for Fallon Village which are all considered legislative. She referred to Attachment 1,
page 2 in the "further be it resolved" sections which are broad based and not as specific as in
SDR findings that they see more frequently and it would also apply to the EDSP.
Cm. King asked if the recommendation is legislative and requires findings. Ms. Wilson stated
yes that the policy must find external consistency within documents.
Y(nnainp (,bmmtrs/on 139 i4m rmlierl~, _'(11)~
~eHrrGrr,3fee; ing
Cm. King asked how the directive from the City Council came about and how density bec~me /o ~ I b
the issue.
Mr. Baker answered that it was framed within the medium density designation that allows for a
range of attached product types but that the Council was looking for a variety of product types
that included private usable yards. He stated that there was a perception that they were seeing
mostly stacked product types in the medium density range with only balconies and the Council
wanted to ensure that there were units within the medium density range that were smaller type
homes with private usable yards.
Cm. King stated that the Council's concern was from statements of residents who thought there
is a need for the middle product but they were also hearing the contrary, that the density is too
high in the new developments. He asked if the Commission is trying to create a middle product
without decreasing density.
Chair Schaub stated that they are trying to build a product with a yard and keep the density the
same with the same number of houses. He thought the answer was to make the footprint
smaller on the lot.
Cm. King was concerned that the current plan allows for too much density and thought that
they should try to reduce density by creating that middle product but it would require fewer
units. He was unsure why the City Council limited the question to these two properties.
Chair Schaub answered that the Council looked at how far through the process to their final
entitlements those 10 properties were and found that these two properties had enough
flexibility. He added that they did not include Camp Parks which has not been submitted yet.
Ms. Wilson stated that currently Camp Parks' land use designation is Agricultural land but as
the Military goes forward the City would look at entitlements, (i.e. Specific Plan and
development standards) and the discussion of net vs. gross could also be reviewed for the
property at that time. She added that most of Fallon Village does not have entitlements and the
City Council could have asked for only single family homes to include large yards in that area
directing Staff to move in that direction but they did not. Instead they limited it to these two
properties and only a small portion of these properties.
Cm. King stated that he understands the Council's concern that plans should not be changed for
property owners and developers who have begun the process but if there is a need in the
community it is the Commissions responsibility to meet that need. He agreed with
Councilmember Hildebrand's concern that young people cannot buy a home with room to grow
in Dublin. He was concerned that the small lots and small houses would not really meet the
need but just create an odd product.
Chair Schaub stated that the problem is there is the perception that the City is too dense and
that young people cari t buy a house but there are older homes with large lots available in the
City. He stated that those young people want a home similar to their parent's home and they
cannot have it so they go to Tracy or somewhere else. He felt that until they had the facts about
the housing opportunities in Dublin he could not believe the statements about housing and that
a casual conversation about housing needs doesn't help plan the City. He stated that the
rYlnnninfj <'nmmicrinn. 140 `h`rrr , m.6cr ' ; 'Uft
4PBpvGtrM1fe~tfn;q
Commission doesn't really know what the need is and therefore cannot plan anything pad the ~'~~ ~ I ~j ~~
last General Plan update.
Ms. Wilson commented that from strictly a land use standpoint the Commission would want to
plan the City to look the way we want it to look and feel. She stated, for example the City of
Dublin wanted to have a Village concept that we would assume the market will eventually
build over time. She referred to the list of all built and approved projects which is one of the
attachments to the Staff Report. She pointed out that there are many projects in the eastern
Dublin area which have been built at the low end of medium density with single family
detached homes with private yards.
Chair Schaub commented that most of the houses west of Tassajara Road all have yards.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that he disagreed with the comment by Cm. Biddle's regarding no
change in the number of units. He stated by changing and splitting the site into two
designations you are reducing the flexibility on half of the parcel therefore he may think he has
104 units but the reality is it may be less once the layout of the site takes place. He stated that
one of the things that you have to look at is how housing has changed. He felt that apartments
are now used as permanent housing and are larger with more amenities, etc. He said that
interior square footage is what people look for in a home, the yard is second. He stated that
when Councilmember Hildebrand indicated that the residents have complained that houses are
stacked on top of each other it is because houses are larger now and the developer wants to
provide as large a home as possible which means smaller yards and houses closer together. He
stated that the zoning code, when it states units/acre, does not make a distinction between
whether there is a 1,500 square foot house on the lot or a 6,000 square foot house and he
continued that if the Council wants to provide larger yards, the issue is not density or units per
acre but the discussion should be about FAR's, setbacks, and lot coverage and start limiting
those. He stated that he is concerned about this proposal and its potential to limit the flexibility
of developments. He stated that the Commission has many opportunities to make a project
more appropriate for a site. He was more concerned about the net vs. gross calculation and that
with all the deductions the only thing left would be the footprint of the house and a small front
yard which amounts to is a significant downsizing of the project. He concluded that this
proposal will reduce the number of units, which will make projects less financially feasible,
create markets and then by requiring them to deduct the common areas and then forcing them
to add a common element before the project is approved just won't work.
Chair Schaub commented that his intent in mentioning net calculation originally was to
understand net density not to set zoning. He only asked for net calculations to be included in
Staff Reports so that he could visualize the project. He stated that he never thought through
zoning it and the more they talked about it the more he is concerned with the unforeseen
circumstances that can happen.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she could not support this proposal without understanding the
cause and effect to it.
Chair Schaub stated that he could not support the proposal.
4'lonnuig Commission 141 ;44nem{~e* ''r, 30117
ABgr~4tr'Mettiag
Cm. Biddle agreed with Cm. Tomlinson that the potential will change the flexibility of projects
and if the City uses net calculations in one project then it should be used for every project.
Chair Schaub stated that as long as we know the difference between the net units and the gross
units then they can make a decision.
Cm. Biddle stated that his comment regarding a usable yard of 250 squaze feet is what is
required currently therefore standard that is not changing.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that having recreational opportunities for kids where they don't have to
drive anywhere has been important to him. He stated that he would be supportive of
compressing the houses and creating small pocket parks close by that would serve as a place to
congregate as well as a play azea.
Chair Schaub agreed that more common areas for this density would be preferable as opposed
to requiring the individual 250 square foot private usable yard.
Cm. Biddle stated that the change in housing types and the number of bathrooms per home has
increased.
Cm. King commented on the minutes of the City Council meeting of 4-3-07 stating that there
was an observation that residents had complained that there was only a limited amount of
housing stock that allows them to grow within Dublin. He then asked Chair Schaub if he
agreed with that statement.
Chair Schaub answered that until he sees the inventory of the housing available in Dublin he
did not agree with that observation.
Cm. King stated that the Planning Commission needed to have the answer to that question
otherwise he felt they could not make a decision to recommend the proposal.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that the Commission could obtain the information from real estate
brokers or realtor.com. Chair Schaub added that the City's GIS system can provide the square
footage information as well.
Ms. Wilson stated that it would be time consuming to obtain the information. She stated that
Staff has looked at some of the density ranges but it comes down to land use because you build
for the longevity of the community while providing a variety of land use types which is the
premise of General Plan. She added that land use decisions don't necessarily equate to the
market.
Cm. King was concerned that the mazket issue is essential to what the Council's concern was
regarding there being a limited amount of housing stock that would allow residents to grow
within Dublin. He stated that if that is true the Commission needs to address it.
Ms. Wilson stated that the 5 members of the Council struggled with this information as well.
She continued that the information was anecdotal, personal experience, etc. but no actual
statistics were used.
142 ;~`m~emhcr2, 3Gt17
Planning ('ommisrion
:~~guGrr "Keetinq
1~9~ ~6~
w i ~~~ ~~
Chair Schaub stated that until the Commission has the facts it would be difficult for them to /~ 111
change Mr. Croak's property designation based on anecdotal evidence. He felt that adding 250
squaze feet of yard area would not change the conversation about density.
Ms. Wilson asked to clarify that the Commission is unified in their thoughts on this proposal.
She stated that she thought the Commission felt that this was not appropriate and that the
Commission would recommend not approving the resolutions and state the reasons.
Chair Schaub asked the Commission if they were in agreement that they would not recommend
approving the resolutions as they are not appropriate for the community.
Cm. King stated that he would rather not take any action on the resolutions then recommend
them either for or against. He stated that a planning decision involves the market otherwise the
Commission cannot determine the land use.
Cm. Tomlinson answered that there are two issues before the Commission which are: 1) is it
appropriate to split the medium density into two sub-categories and 2) the net vs. gross issue
which he doesri t recommend a change. He felt it was selective and will have many unintended
consequences. He stated that he agreed with Councilmember Oravetz who believes that the
system is not broken and that we shouldri t change it.
Cm. King stated that it may be broken but he wanted to know what is meant by "housing stock
that allows them to grow'. He felt that the Commission should not try to create a market but
thought there might be a demand that is not being met.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that there is the flexibility to do that now because the medium density is
broad range and what were are proposing is to take half the property and restrict it to the lower
half of the range and the other half would be restricted to the other half of the range.
Cm. King stated that he felt from reading the City Council minutes that there is a demand that
is not being met for a medium range product and if the developers are left to decide what
density they wiI1 build they will opt for the high density homes. He agreed that the information
was anecdotal and he also hears comments from parents that their children can't afford to live
in Dublin.
Chair Schaub stated that the discussion regarding the product need that is not being met is an
entirely different discussion. He stated that he would need to have the facts about the inventory
in Dublin to make a decision and not base it on anecdotal evidence.
Cm. Tomlinson commented that as Ms. Wilson pointed out many of the developments that have
been built have been built in lower density range of the medium land use. He continued that
when talking about the number of units/acre it doesn't take into consideration the square
footage of the house.
Chair Schaub stated that in order for the Commission to make decisions in the future they will
be based on what we believe to be a need in our community which is not being met then we will
base our decision on facts not anecdotal evidence.
'Nlnnnutg ('nmmrssion 143 ,-h`nr cmix•r ~ ~, ;CNJ7
KcprrGsr'4fe~7inq
Cm. Biddle stated that he thought that the comment referred to new homes only in one area of
the City and didn't refer to planning the whole city.
Cm. King stated that there may be, as the Chair thought, plenty of housing inventory in the
City.
Chair Schaub stated that he didri t support the idea of making markets and that he believed that
the developers would not build a house they couldn't sell and if the market perceives the need
then it will be built.
Chair Schaub stated that he didn't think the resolution would create the solution that the
Council wants.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that he thought this was not the correct way to go about what the Council
wanted and that there would be unforeseen detrimental consequences at a later date and he was
prepared to make a motion to recommend that the Council not recommend this ordinance.
Ms. Wilson suggested that they go over their reasons for not recommending the proposed
changes which are:
1) The Commission was worried about the possibility that they would be creating
inflexibility and felt that they would be driving the market where the market
should be picking up these types of products that are needed because the current
land use of medium density allows for different product types.
2) The Commission was concerned about starting to define net vs. gross in the
General Plan for only specific land use designations for a few properties without
looking at land use designations for the General Plan. Additionally the Planning
Commission was concerned about modifying an existing policy regarding the use
of net density rather than gross density as we have and continue to use.
3) The Commission felt that they can achieve usable yards currently in the low
density range or the lower portion of the mid that is existing in the 6.1 to 10 range
and in the zoning that exists today.
4) The Commission felt that there are a variety of product types that already exist as
noted in the table in the Staff Report that are already built and sold.
5) The Commission- felt that the plan is working well and to change such a small
portion of it doesn't seem that it will yield great change for the community for
usable yards.
6) The Commission felt that if they really believe there is a shortfall in a certain
market then we need facts (formal study) to help them understand the total
inventory that is available to buy.
~o~~ ~6~
=Plnnnanjj (,'nmmrrftma 144 Ain ~rmFrr *~, :f7(1S
4j{'{jrrGxr Mee•hirp
Ms. Wilson asked if there was anything else that the Commission would like to articulate to~the '(~ ~ ~ f
City Council. She asked the Commission if they felt that if there were more properties that were t%
put into the proposal, would they be more comfortable with modifications.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that the key for him was that Councilmember Hildebrand felt that the
City was too dense and if the question is to broach the concept with the Council regarding Floor
Area Ratios (FAR) vs. units per acre or Lot Area Coverage (LAC).
Cm. Tomlinson asked for clarification of Lot Coverage Ratio - would a single story and a two
story house compute to the same Lot Coverage Ratio.
Ms. Wilson answered that lot coverage is actually the footprint of the building.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that he thought that Floor Area Ratio (FAR) was more appropriate
because FAR takes into consideration the differences between a one and two story house and a
high rise building.
On a motion by Cm. Tomlinson and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, and by a vote of 5-0-0, the
Planning Commission did not recommend adoption of either:
RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 62
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PD-
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH AMENDED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES
(APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0~2-002)
PA 07-056
RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 61
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE GENERAL
PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE
MEDIUM DENSITY PORTION OF THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES TO NEW
MEDIUM-LOW DENSITY AND MEDIUM-MID DENSITY DESIGNATIONS
(APN 985-0027-00'7, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002)
PA 07-056
,Ylnnaiag (Ymsmirrinn 14$ A~'oeem6~*Zr, 30p°
~s~nLar'Heeirng
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Cm. Tomlinson wanted to complement the staff and ~ I' ~,Q, 1 t
the Commission on the Lowes project. He felt that it turned out fantastic and it was a great job. ',11' J l~
Ms. Wilson promised to pass on the comment to Erica Fraser, the project Planner.
Chair Schaub wanted to add a discussion item on the agenda regazding covering up windows
with signs. He stated that he did not like what Video Only has done to black out the windows
or Bed Bath and Beyond who has covered up a portion of the their window space with ad signs,
shelving and product. He indicated that he wanted to discuss the signage rules also to help the
code enforcement officers.
Ms. Wilson stated the item would be agendized. She reminded the Commission about the
study session on 12-11-07 which begins at 5:00 pm on zoning ordinance modifications.
ADTOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bill Schaub
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Mary Jo Wilson, AICP
Planning Manager
G: ~ MINUTES ~2007~ Plmming Commission ~ ~ 7.2Z07.dar
3'Cannirtlj ('mnmzrsion 146 'rtm:~m6rr 27, '(N)S
~~ pr.ar!4(rciin;4
RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 61 ' I ~ ~ ~ ~ A
A RESOLUTION OF TAE PLANNIIYG CObII4IISSION (~ ~1
OF TAE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL NOT APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE GENERAL
PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND i:SE DESIGNATION FOR THE
MEDIUM DENSITY PORTION OF THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES TO NEW
MEDIUM-LOW DENSITY AND MEDIUM-MH) DENSITY DESIGNATIONS
(APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 9')5-0002-002)
PA 07-056
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2007, the City Council initiated a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to create Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land
use designations for the existing Medium-Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties which are
generally located north of the future Central Parkway extension an~i east of Croak Road and within the
l ,134acre Fallon Village project area (APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002); and
WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan was originally adopted on February 11, 1985, and has been
amended a number of times since that date; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report for the origjnal General Plan was prepared and
adopted in 1984 and subsequent environmental reviews have beer- undertaken in accordance with the
California Envirorurrer-tal Quality Act (CEQA) for the various General Plan Amendments which have
been approved over the years; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted the Eastern Dublin General P.an Amendment and Specific Plan on
January 7, 1994, both plans have been amended a number of Mmes since that date, to provide a
comprehensive planning framework for future development of the eastern Dublin area. In connection
with this approval, the City cxrtified a Program Environmental Impact Report ("Program EIR'~ Pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 (SCH No. 91103064) that is :available for review in the Planning
Division and is incorporated herein by reference. The Program EIR was integral to the planning process
and examined the direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts, broad policy alternatives and area-wide
mitigation measures for development within eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the East Dublin Property Owners (EDPO), rdluested annexation and prezoning of
the EDPO.Annexation Area, which includes the Croak and Jordan properties, into the City of Dublin. in
connection with the annexation and prezoning request the City Council certified a Supplemental EIR
(SCH No. 2001052114) by Resolution 40-02 that is available for review in the Planning Division and is
incorporated herein by reference. in connection with the 2002 proja:t approval, the City Council'adopted
supplemental mitigation measures, mitigation findings, a statement of overriding consideration and a
mitigation monitoring program. All adopted supplemental mitigation measures continue to apply to the
project area; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendment for the Fallon Village project area, which includes the Croak and Jordan properties on
December 6, 2005 by Resolution 223-OS that is available for review in the Planning Division and
incorporated herein by reference; and
Attachment 7
i~3 9~~
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 222-OS certifying a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SE1R) (SCH #2005062010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR and
the Supplemental EIR for the Eastern Dublin Property Owners (EDPO) which is available for review in
the Community Development Department and is herein incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan currently identifies land use d~.signations, densities, policies related
to density calculations, and the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 1-la) that shows the location of land
uses within the City of Dublin and the Sphere of Influence; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use section of the Eastern Dublin ;ipxific Plan currently includes text
related to Spxific Plan Land Use Designations, and the "Land Use Map" map (Figure 4.1) that shows the
location of land uses within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; ar.d
WHEREAS, the City Council discussed the Medium Density land use designation and on April
3, 2007, and October 16, 2007, authorized a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment to change the existing Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan
properties to new Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density lFmd use designations; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State CEQA
Guidelines inquire that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental
documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is within the scope of the Fallon Village SEIR because the
project does not result in an inceeaaed number of units or density be;,rond what was previously studied for
the Croak and Jordan properties. Therefore, no additional environmental review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Planning Commission (`Tlanning Corntniasion'~ held a public
hearing on said project on November 27, 2007; and
i~VHEREAS, a Stag' Report was submitted, and incorporatal herein by reference, recommending
that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of a General Plan Amendment
and Eastern Dublin Spxific Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, rxommendations
and testimony herein above set forth, including prior EIIis, and used its independent judgment to evaluate
the projxt.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended tha: the City Council not approve the
proposed Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan for the Croak and
Jordan properties bxause the Plamvng Commission found that: 1) the proposal created inflexibility; 2)
selectively modified Citywide policies regarding density calculations using net rather than gross acreage
calculations; 3) curnnt policies enable projxts to achieve usable yards on land with an existing Medium
Density designation; 4) small single-family detached homes wilt. usable yards already exist; 5) the
housing market will dictate housing needs and the type of housing built within the community; and 6)
concerns about density could be addressed with policies regarding lo~: coverage, setbacks and design.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing rxitals are true and correct and
made a part of this resolution.
., fig -~~
BE TT FURTAER RESOLVED that the Planning Commi:~ion, based on the findings listed
above, could not recommend the findings in the attached draft City Council Resolution and therefore
rccommends that the City Council not adopt the Resolution attached as Exhibit A, which Resolution
approves a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for the existing Medium
Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties which includes the following as described in the
attached Resolution:
1) Defimition of the propose Medium-Low Density ar:d Medium-Mid Density land use
designations;
2) Definition of net acreage and the associated density calculation based on net acreage for
Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations;
3) Amends to the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 1-1 a) and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Land Use Maps (Figure 4.1); and
4) Amends to the text and various tables in the General Flan and thc Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2'7°' day of N~~vember 2t>D~ by the following vote:
AYES: Schaub, Wehrenberg, Tomlinson, Biddle and king
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
P arming
G:1PAN1?0~7107-056 Cromt m~/Jordw~ A6dlr~ LkrulfyWlasM~r~ Ce~nrfaiarlPCRm GrA EASPA DarislDOC
~ ~~ i ~~
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 07
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
,rwwre,tir,tw
APPROVING A GENEEL~L PLAN AMENDMENT ANIt EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN
SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION F~tR THE MEDIUM DENSITY
PORTION OF THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPEILT[ES TO NEW MEDIUM-LOW
DENSITY AND MEDIUM-MID DENSITY DESIGNATIONS
(APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002)
PA 07-056
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2007, the City Council initiated a <ieneral Plan Amendment (GPA) and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to create Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land
use designations for the existing Medium-Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties which are
generally located north of the future Central Parkway extension and east of Croak Road and within the
1,134-acre Fallon Village project an;a (APN 985-0027-007, 905-000:!-OOI, AND 905-0002-002); and
WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan was originally adopter- on February l 1, 1985, and has been
amended a number of times since that date; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report for the original General Plan was prepared and
adopted in 1984 and subsequent environmental reviews have been undertaken in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality r\ct (CEQA) for the various Gcteral Plan Amendments which have
been approved over the years; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan on
January 7, 1994. Both plans bare been amended a number of times since that date, to provide a
comprehensive planning framework for future development of the eastern Dublin area. In connection
with this approval, the City certified a Program Environmental lmpnet Report ("Program E[R") pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines sxtion 15163 (SCH No. 91103064) that is ;tvailable for revicw in the Planning
Division and is incorporated herein by reference. The Program EIR was integral to the planning process
and examined the direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts, broad policy alternatives and area-wide
mitigation measures for development within eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the East Dublin Property Owners (EDPO), ruluested annexation and prezoning of
the EDPO Annexation Area, which includes the Croak and Jordan properties, into the City of Dublin. In
connection with the annexation and prezoning request the City C~wncil certified a Supplemental ElR
(SCH No. 20010521 l4) by Resolution 40-02 that is available for review in the Planning Division and is
incorporated herein by reference. (n connection with the 2002 proja;t approval, the City Council adopted
supplemental mitigation measures, mitigation findings, a statement of overriding considtration and a
mitigation monitoring program. All adopted supplemental mitigation measures continue to apply to the
project area; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendment for the Fallon Village project area; which include:. the Croak and Jordan properties, on
December 6, 2005 by Resolution 223-OS which is available for review in the Planning Division; and
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 222-OS certifying a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH #200506:?010) to the Eastern Dublin E[R and
Exhibit A
~i~ ~~~
the Supplemental EIR for the Eastern Dublin Property Owners which is available for review in the
Community Development Department and is herein incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan currently identifies land use designations, densities, policies related
to density calculations, and the Gencval Plan Land Usc Map (Figure l-la) that shows the location of land
uses within the City of Dublin and the Sphere of Influence; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use section of the Eastern Dublin :specific Plan currently includes text
related to Specific Plan Land Use Designations, and the "Land Use Map" map (Figure 4.1) that shows the
location of land uses within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; anJ
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEC1A), together with the State CEQA
Guidelines require.that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental
documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is within the scope of the Fallon Village SEIR because the
project does not result in an increased number of units or density be~rond what was previously studied for
the Croak and Jordan properties. Therefore, no additional environmental review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public
hearing on said project on November 27, 2007; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated November 27, 2007, was :.ubmitted and incorporated herein by
reference, recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of a
General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendrr.ent; and
WHEREAS, on November 27, 2007, the Planning Com~nission adopted Resolution 07-XX
incorporated herein by reference, recommending that the. City Council approve the General Plan
Amendment and Eastcm Dublin Spcciftc Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated ,and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyred the General Plan and Eastem Dublin Specific Plan Amendments for the Croak
and Jordan properties; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the project at a noticed public hearing on
at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and
testimony herein above set forth, including prior EIRs, and used its independent judgment to evaluate the
project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE [T RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and
made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby approve the following
amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan based on findings that the amendments
are in the public interest and will not have an adverse affect on health or safety or be detrimental to the
public welfare or be injurious to property or public improvement acid that the General Plan and Eastem
Dublin Specific Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent.
~-~~~~~
Section I. General Plan Amendments.
Subsection i. Replae:e the first paragraph after the section heading "Density
Measurements' in Section L8.1 (Land Use Clzssifications) with the following:
"Residential densities are based on gross residential acreage for all properties,
except the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid density sites on the Jordan and Croak
properties, and the density is calculated as follows:"
Subsection ii. Add the following paragraphs to Sect on 1.8.1 (Land Use Classifications)
after the Ponderosa Village Example:
"Residential densities for the portion of the Jordan and Croak properties with
Medium-Low Density Residential and Medium-Mid Density Residential land use
designation are based upon net acreage that is ~:alculated as follows:
Residential densities shall be calculated based on the total developable area of the
site excluding public and private streets, barks, open space, common areas,
environmentally constrained areas, and areas with slopes that exceed 30%.
Development shall not be clustered on one: portion of the project where the
development would exceed the maximum den:~ity for that portion of the site even if
the overall project remains within the density range when the density is calculated
for the entire project area:'
Subsection iiLAdd the following residential land use designations to Section 1.8.1 (Land
Use Classifications) under the subsection "Eastern Extended Panning Area (East of
Camp Parks -• see Figure l-1 a)'" after "Residential" Single-Family":
Residential: Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 u sits per net residential acre).
Units in this density range will be detached, zero-lot line, duplex, and/or townhouse
developments suitable for family living with lrrivate flat usable outdoor yard areas
that accommodate leisurely activities typical);i associated with a residence . Unit
types and densities may be similar or variai. Assumed household size is two
persons per unit.
Residential: ~ledinm-Mid Density (10.1-14 emits net residential acre).
This density range allows detached, zero-lot line, duplex townhouse, and/or garden
apartment developments suitable for family living with private flat usable outdoor
yard areas that accommodate leisurely activities typically associated with a
residence or usable common areas that accommodate recreational and leisurely
activities. Unit types and densities may be similar or varied. Assumed household
size is two persons per unit."
~g ~~
5ubseetimt ic.Replace (~'i~;ure 1 lu, General Plan Land lse ti9ap wlih the rc Ied .~enerd (Ian Land
tap updated tlvuugh [;)ecember ~ 1.200? bclo«.
~D t; I; L 1 ti 1; I' ti 6 ft ,y L '' f. ;4 N
'~ ~ ~ Lfl~ l YI
_ ~ ~:
__ ,
. 1 ":;t
6 --~ -
.-A um.ndrd Ihnmgh De~cmixr 31-'U07
*`'• . f.
. .. ...,
,. ~ ;Is
- , i..
~. * r
~••~~.•
n ~, ~ s
°~'~ ~~
~~ ~rii ~' ~ #~
Subsection v. Replace l~~ablc 3.1 tLan(l (~'sc Sumtnary' 1ia~tem Dublin (.~enerul P!an
Amendn)cnt Area) with the tbllo\ving rcvis(xl `('able 2-l
r.~Hl_L: = ~
1.:1\,) I,.SIr: Sl ll\L1R1 F.;\~ I flt\ DLnL I\ (il?\!?R:\(. I'1. \\ \\ll.~l)11F.\7:\ItFi \
(Anlaudc<i: Rc.nlulirn 22:~-0). ~B-u', ct-it?1
( ('.:~Iili:ll It lrt ~ \CI'lti Illlll <Iil'k~ 1. 1 if:• I~:1':li ~r ~ ~.;IJ
Rttill)L\ll:\I ~ Uu':err: Du F Pu: r<d_i I pu'ni•,r
\hY6u;a-ih~~h Urr.itl I I':: n OY ~ ?.n ?.UiS
llrdiunt O••hi+v ~ ..:I,i
---~- _ UI ~ .I1 ,:I
__. _.. '~_ ~_ t Ir ?S
- - --
._ ._.._ _..
\hillun\IIIUllllt .__+--
i 16.:1 I' j ~; _-'il
~ Itb
t
llalim 1 1 oit t)Jl. ~liv
Sinrl~ I •,uli:)
! it''1
fr ,e i ~ It
~ t
t ..
.; t 1 ~) i '
~ -
4 ('
.__.~ ..--
.._I itA'1
\II\~YI I t
al
t
t
i h
{ 1
j
I Il , 1
4~
1 `I
~
'
l
I :
ura
I
u~ ._1-.. ~_
6 _ }=1;u,r Aroa s' ti; µrarc Feet ~ Syutlr.: Feet
I (USI\1E•R! :1L 1 t i rt ~ tntilh t.) t t rI 1. clr I;,i
I
:+1.?0 i(r a t
~ 12~C .ip
")1;
(•FC*d (ott ncnl I 1
Genrnl Commenial/C s Otti«•••• 72.7 .26 .887 38s 2.303
Misal Use 6.4 .311.0 .08) 490 171
Ndghborl+ood Commercial 57.5 .35!.30 .8I9 490 1,671
C s Ot'Fice 189.36 .75/.35 3.052 260 11,739
lerrlustrid Park"•'• 114J .251.28 1.329 590 2,253
TOTAL: 788.6 9.816 26,427
PARKS AND PUBLIC RECREATION
Ci Park 56.3 I pxk
Community Park 97.0 2 parks
Nei Park 47.1 8 parks
Nd boriwod Square 16.6 6 parks
R 'onal Park I I.7 I park
TOTAL: 228.7 18 puks
OPEN SPACE 649.6
PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC
Public/Semi-Public 101 .25 1.120 590 1,899
Semi Public 13.1 .25
Schools
Elrntentary School 63.2 5 schools
Junior High Schad 25.2 I school
Hi Sdrool 0 0 school
School Subtotal 66.4 6 schools
TOTAL: 202.5
TRANSIT CENTER (Total) 90.7
- C s Otth:e includin an~tilla retail 36.3
- Fti h-Dexail Residential 31.5
- Park 12.2
- Publir/Semi-Public Trarait-Rdated 8.7
GRAND TOTAL 4,295.9
Table 2.1 appears ac Table "2A" in the Eastern Dublin GPA. k was relabeled herein for formatting purposes.
"Numbers represent amid-range considr:ml reasonable given the permitted densiq range.
"'Numbers represem a mid-range but may vary becaux density based on net Bevel ~pable acreage calculation.
~~"The Sq FvEmpMvees figure utilized for General CommerciaUCampus Oftce is the average of the figure used for General
Cotnmereial and Campus Office uses.
•"'For the purpox of this table, Mized Use acreage only will be considered Commercial, not residential, to avoid duplication
in tabulation of overall total acres.
•••••The .28 FAR figure utiliud for Industrial Puk refers to Indu-ctrial Park areas within Fallon Vitlage.
••••••Tlte locations ofSemi-Public sites on the Jordan, Croak and Chen propertir.: of Fallon Village will be determined at the
tirtte of PD-2 approwl. The site on Jordan wilt be 2.0 net acres within the Village Center, the site on Croak 2.0 net acres; and
the site on Chen, 2.5 net acres. Fa the purpoxa of this table, 2.0 acres of Medium High Density Residential land on laden
was changed bSemi-Public, 2.0 acres of Single Family Residential land on Croak .vas changed to Scmi-Public and 2.5 acres
of Medium High Density residential Iasi on Chen was changed to Semi-Public. Tt.ese assumptions may change at the time of
PD-2 approval
Subsection vi. Revise "Implementing Policy C" under Section 2. t .3 (Residential
Compatibility) as follows:
Require a planned development zoning process for all development proposals over
6.0 units per gross residential acre.
Section II. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment.
Subsection i. Revise the first sentence of the first paragraph of Section 3.3.3 (Land Use
Categories) to read as follows:
"The Residential land uses category has seven ~;lassifications: High Density (HDR),
Medium-High Density (MHDR), Medium Density (MDR), Medium-Mid Density
(MMDR), Medium-Low Density (MLDR). Single-Family (SF), and Rural
Residential/A~iculture (RRA)."
Subsection iL Replace Table 4.1 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary) with
the following revised Table 4.1:
TABLE 4.1
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PL.~N
LAND USE SUMMARY
(Amended Fer R~selutien Ne. 66-03,17-04, 22705, 5607, xx-071
Land Use Descrl lion LAND AREA DENS[T1' YIELD
COMM ERCIAUINDUSTRIAL
General Commercial 356.8 acres 25-.35 FAR 4.122 MSF
General Commercial/Campus
Office 72.7 acres .28 FAR .887 MSF
Industrial Park' 61.3 acres .25-2f~ FAR .747 MSF
Nei hborhood Commercial 61.4 acres .30-.3`~ FAR .671 MSF
Mixed Use 6.4 acres .30-1.0 FAR .083 MSF
Cam us Office 192.66 acres .35-.7~~ FAR 3.730 MSF
Subtotal 751.3 acres 10.44 MSF
RESIDENTIAL
Hi Densit 68.2 acres 35 d~/ac 2,387 du
Medium Hi h Densit 137.5 acres 20 d~/ac 2,750 du
Medium Densit 484.5 acres 10 da/ac 4,845 du
Medium-Mid Densit 16.9 acres 12 du/ac 203 du
Medium-Low Densi 16.9 acres 8 du/ac l35 du
Sin le Famil 872.6 acres 4 du/ac 3,490 du
Rural ResidentiallA ric. 697.4 acres .01 du/ac 7du
Mixed Use 6.4 acres" 15du/ac 96 du
Subtotal 2,300 acres 13,913 du
PUBUC/SEMI-PUBLiC
Public/Semi-Public 98.2 acres .241~AR ].027 MSF
Semi-Public 9.3 acres 251~AR
Subtotal 107.5 acres 1.027 MSF
SCHOOLS
Elements School 66.5 acres 5 schools
unior Hi h School 21.3 acres 1 school
Subtotal 87.8 acres
~~~~ i~~
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
Ci Park 56.3 acres 1 ark
Communit Park 97.0 acres 3 arks
Nei boyhood Park 49.0 acres 7 arks
Nei hborhood uare 16.7 acres 6 arks
Subtotal 219 acres 17 arks
S a~-e 607.5 acres
TOTAL LAND AREA 4,073.5 acres
.,jai ~~
"The .28 FAR for [ndustrial Part: refers to the lndustrial ['ark areas in hauon vwage.
•"The 6.4 acres is the same acreage as listed in the Mixed Use cells. The 6.4 acres under Residential is not
included in the sum of Residential uses in this table. 83,635 square `eet of commercial and % units are
anticipated on the mixed use sires (total). The FAR for Mixed Use governs both commercial and residential
uses.
Subsection Iil.Replace Table 4.2 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Population and
Employment Summary) with the following revised Table 4.2:
TABLE 4.2
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY
lA,ra,aea rer Ressmdee Nu. rr~M, zuas, xx-07)
Land Use Desi lion Develo ment S Ft/Em to ees Persona/du Po ulation
Cotnmcrcia[
Industrial Park .'~47 MSF 590 1,266
General
Commercial/Campus
Office' .387 MSF 385 2,303
General Commercial 4 122 MSF 510 8,082
Nei hborhood Commercial .385 MSF 490 1,806
Mixed Use'" !)83 MSF 490 171
Cam us Office 3.730 MSF 260 14,346
Public/Semi Public 1.027 MSF __
590 1,740
Semi-Public ~`~
TOTAL: 1].481 MSF 29,714
RcsiAential
Hi h Densit 2,387 2.0 4,774
Medium Hi h Densi 2,750 2.0 5,500
Medium Densit 4,845 2.0 9,690
Medium-Mid Dmsi 203 2.0 406
Medium-Low Densi 135 2.0 270
Sin le Famil 3,490 3.2 11,169
Mixed Use'"' % 2.0 192
Rural ResidentiaUA ric. 4 3.2 ~
TOTAL: 13,913 32,023
Updated 12/2007
The Sq FUEmployees figure utilized for Ceneral CommerciaUCaml~us Office is the average of the figures
used for General Commercial and Campus Office uses.
''Includes Mixed Use units (6.4 acres and %du) within Fallon Village Center.83,635 square feet of
commercial and % units are anticipated on the mixed use sites (total). The FAR for Mixed Use is the
maximum area for all developrrent (i.e. total of residential and commercial) on designated sties.
Subsection iv. Add the following residential land use designations to Section 4.8.1 (Residential)
after "Single-Family"
"Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 units per net residential acre). Units in this density range
will be detached, zero-lot line, duplex, and/or townhouse developments suitable for family
living with private flat usable outdoor yard areas that accommodate leisurely activities
typically associated with a residence . Unit types and densities may be similar or varied.
Assumed household size is two persons per unit.
Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 units net residential acre). Thin density range allows
detached, zero-lot line, duplex townhouse, and/or garden apartment developments
suitable for family living with private flat usable outdoor yard areas that accommodate
leisurely activities typically associated with a residence or usable common arena that
accommodate recreational and leisurely activities. Unit types and densities may be
similar or varied. Assumed household size is two persons per unit."
Subsection v. Replace Table 4.9 (Fallon Village Center Sub<<rea Development Potential) with the
following revised Table 4.9:
TABLE 4.9
FALCON VILLAGE CENTER
SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
(Amended Per Resotafien Na nr-07)
Desi nation Acres Densi Develo rnent Potential
Mixed Use 6.4 .30 FAR 83,635 sf
Commercial Subtotal 6.4 20 dWac 83,635 sf
Mixed Use -Residential Units' t5 du/ac 96 du
Medium-l.ow Densi 16.9 8 du/ac 135 du
Medium-Mid Densi 76.9 12 du/ac 203 du
Medium Hi h Residential 23.8 20 du/ac 542 du
Residential Subtotal 64 -- 976 du
Nei boyhood Park 2.7 -- __
Communi Park 18.3 -- --
O n S ace 3.6 -
ParWOpen Space Subtotal 24.6 1 community park
1 nei boyhood s uare
Semi- ublic 4.5 -- --
Total 93.1 -- 83,365 sf rnmmercial
1,000 du
1 community park
1 nei boyhood s uare
~~ ~ ~ ~ C~
Subsection vi. R~hlare Fi~ura ~.I (l,anJ L se Stahl with the rc~i,cd Pigur~ -l.l {[.:uxl l:e Wnpl
upJatcd ihmu~rh Dc~ember 3 I. ?CIO' belcs«~.
I R
..fir ~ FiyUre: ~•-
.,~,
<, R~ ~._.__ ~ i.and Use fi1a
- ~. .,.,
~~ ~ !! j
?d ~i(!, Ras~r.e forces Trei nin.~ Area + ~
~.
~:
,. .
S ~ I
(,.. `.
.. _ ._ ,~
~ - ~ _. a _. .
. ""... ~
_...
I ~ .,... ? ~ ,<.. ~ ,~ j
..
. ......
.~ ~,
-r
_. ~ '~ ~ .
~~~~~
~ h i - ,
e
'~f
_, '~'"~.
Subsection vii. Re~~isr P.allon Village (.'enter purlion uY Appendix 3 (W:astem Ck;blin Speeilic Platt
[..:uul l.!sc Sununarv by Planning tiuharc
r~, a) with the iollo~~~ing:
~.
t'lanning Subareas f
Land use Category _ ~ Area Uensitr S uare Feet Unttti
a
~
~
~
a. flilnn VIii~C Center
~ ~ ~„ _
j
q
1 blir~ 1 Lye b.~ ~ 15 du ~~, .3p FAK ~ ~; h- ~ ur,
I ~3cdwm f [i ~h l7, nit; Rc Snlential ~ s'.8 ~ 20 ~.
v T..._.. ..~- -__..._...__~
~ ~'ll'1111 7 111-~IIJ [~l n>ItV ILi. AIL{i`n t111
~-
~ , I~,.~) - (Z ~ ~ 2(J,'?
__.._-.. ..___~__ .._. _.
4 -
--
! ~1eJuim-[
na Density t~
siJ
tial
~ ~_ ._._.~
1(;~~ _:..
...._._- _~.. .._.__~__.....~.--
S ~
~ G
r
a
e
~
n 1i,
._ _ ___- __ _ `__.
_
_ j
\t i;3hburh.x,J Gduart~ '; ~ ; ~C
__
_-- ~ ._
~ormnunih~ [',irk ~ Iti.3 i
_....._,
'Cnta[ 93.1 i
83,635 97b
9
~~~~ I~
Subaectlon viii. Replace the information for #20 Jordan and #30 Croak in Appendix
4 (Fasten Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary by Land Owners) with the
following:
Owner/Land Use Category Acres Densit~_ S uare Feet Units
620 ORDAN
_
Mixed Use
6.4
15 / .30
83,635
96
Medium Hi Densi Residential 19.8 20 542
Medium-Mid Densi 11.7 12 140
Medium-Low Densi 11.7 8 94
Sin le Famil Residential 48.0 4 192
Elementar School 10.0
Nei hborhood Park 5.8
Neighborhood Square 2.7
Community Park 11.1
Semi-Public* 2.0
n S ace 60.5
Total 189.7 83,635 1,D64
Owner/Land Use Category Acres -Densi Scare Feet Units
630 CROAK
Medium-Mid Densi 5.2 12 62
Medium-Low Densi 5.2 8 42
Sin le Famil Residential 115.4 4 469
Rural ResidcntiaUA ricultural 19.4
Nei hborhood Park 11.5
Semi-Public" 2.0
S ace 6.8
Total 165.5 573
Section III. All provisions of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan not amended
by this resolution shalt remain in full force and effect.
BE [T FURTHER RESOLVED that the proposed map and text amendments to the General Plan
and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are consistent with all other goals, policies and implementing
programs set forth in the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendment shall be effective :30 days after the date of approval.
10
. ~~ ~~
., ~
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:.PAa ?OOT~DI-056 Crock and Jordan Malium pemitylCity CwnciPCC R~so GPA SPA.DOC
RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 62
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL NOT ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PD-
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH AMENDED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES
(APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 9t15-0002-002)
PA 07-056
WHEREAS, on Apri13, 2007, the City Council initiatai a General Plan Amettdmcnt (GPA) and
Eastem Dublm Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) Study to create Maiium-Low and Medittm-Mid Density
land use designations for the existing Medium-Density portion of thy. Croak and Jordan properties which
are generally locatai tmrtit of the future Central Parkway extension aid east of Croak Road and within the
1,134acre Fallon Village proja;t area (APN 985-0027-007, 905-000:!-001, AND 905-0002-002); and
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2005, the City Council approved a PD rezoning and related Stage
1 Development Plan for the Fallon Village project area, which includes the Croak and Jordan properties
(PA 04-040), Ordinance 32-05, incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, PD Zoning districts artrcquirai to be consist.•rtt with all elements of the General
Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.120) the
Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and make a written recommendation to the City Council
regarding Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Following the Planning Commission's recommendation, the
City Council shall hold a public heating and may approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove
Zoning Ordinance Amendments; and
WHEREAS, the California EnvironmenW tZttality Act (CEUA), together with the State CEQA
Guidelines require that certain proja;ts be reviewai for environmaral impacts and that environmental
documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, on December G, 2005, the City Council adoptai Resolution No. 222-05 axtifying a
Supplemental Enviromnental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH #20050E•2010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR, a
program EIR, initially certified by the City of Dublin in 1993 (SCI-[#91103064) and the Eastern Dublin
Property Owners SEIR (SCH # 2001052114) certified in 2002 by Resolution 40-02 for the Fallon Village
project. The prior EIRs are available for review in the Community fevelopment Department and herein
incorporated by reference. The proposed project is within the scope of the SEIR for the Fallon Village
project area because the project does not result in incn;ased units or density beyond what was previously
studied for the subject properties, and themfore no additional environmenW review is trxluired; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Planning Commission ("Planning Commission'? held a public
hearing on said project on November 27, 2007; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required bylaw;
and
~6~ 16
Attachment 8
~a~ ~ ~, ~f
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted, and incorporates! herein by reference, recommending
that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the General flan Amendment and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment, the PD rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment for
Fallon Village; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did heaz and consider all said reports, recommendations
and testimony herein above set forth, including the prior E1Rs, and used its independent judgment to
evaluate the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council not approve the
proposed Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan for the Croak and
Jordan properties because the Planning Commission found that: 1) the proposal created inflexibility; 2)
selectively modified Citywide policies regarding density calculations using net rather than gross acreage
calculations; 3) current policies enable projects to achieve usable yards on land with an existing Medium
Density designation; 4) small single-family detached homes with usable yards alreauiy exist; 5) the
housing market will dictate housing needs and the type of housing built within the community; and 6)
concerns about density could be addressed with policies regarding lot coverage, setbacks and design.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission could not recommend
the findings in the attached draft Ordinance and therefore recommer:ds that the City Council not approve
the Ordinance attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, which Ordinance would
approve a PD rezoning including the following related amendments to the Stage 1 Development Plan for
the Croak and Jordan properties as described in the attached Ordinan~:e:
I) A revised Stage 1 Site Plan with the Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density
designations for the Croak and Jordan properties;
2) A list of permitted, conditionally permitted and temporary uses for the new Medium-Low
Density and Medium-Mid Density designations; and
3) Development standards for private usable yards and common areas within the Medium-Low
and Medium-Mid Density designations.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27'" day of November 2007 by the following vote:
AYES: Schaub, Wehrenberg, Tomlinson, Biddle and I':ing
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
1 1
~~ ~~
Planning Comm: scion Chair
ATTEST:
G:IPAAA200710T-dS~C oek and JadA~,J/eelirn~ DensifylMonni~Caw~wissJonlPCReao Skase 1 PD Awd DendrLDOC
ORDINANCE N0.07- XX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBL[i\
•r*:wr,tw,r,trw*
APPROVING A PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING AND AMENDED STAGE 1
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR'fHE MEDIUM DENSITY PORTION OF THE CROAK AND
JORDAN PROPERTIES (APN 905-0002-OOI, 905-0002-002, AND 985-0027-007)
PA 07-056
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HERIsBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. RECTfALS
A. By Ordinance No. 32-OS the City Council rezoned the approximately 1,134-acre Fallon
Village project arm generally located north of [-580 and east of Failo t Road to the Planned Development
Zoning District (PA 04-044) and adopted a Stage I Development Plan for the entire project area which
includes the Croak and Jordan properties (APN 905-0002-001,905-0002-002, AND 985-0027-007).
B. This Ordinance adopts an amendment to the Stage I Development Plan approved in
Ordinance No. 32-OS by the City Council on December 20, 2005.
Section 2. FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 ot'the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows:
The Planned Development (PD) Rezoning, with amended Stage I Development Plan, (PA 07-OS6)
meets the purpose and intent ojChapter 8.32 of the Zoning L'rdinance because: it will encourage a
variety of different product types with usable private yard ~ueas while providing flexibility. As
amended the PD will continue to provide a comprehensive and coordinated development plan for a
larger area with multiple ownerships that creates a desirable use of land that is sensitive to
surrounding land uses by making efficient use of development areas so as to allow sensitive
ridgelines and biological areas to be undeveloped.
2 The PD Rezoning, with amended Stage I Development Plan, will be harmoniotcr and compatible
with existing and future development in the surrounding arecs because: I) the land uses and site
plan establish residential uses; 2) the proposed residential uses will provide a transition from
the high density neighborhoods located in the Fallon Village Center to the Low Density
neighborhoods to the north and east; and 3) the uses are consistent with the higher intensity of
uses anticipated for the Fallon Village Center and will continue to promote an active,
pedestrian oriented development in the Fallon Village Center.
B. Pursuant to Section 8.120.OSO.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as
follows:
I. The PD Rezoning, with amended Stage I Development Plan. will be harrnoniour and compatible
with existing and.~uture development in the surrounding area:: because: 1) the land uses and site
plan establish residential uses; 2) the proposed residential uses will provide a transition from
the high density neighborhoods located in the Fallon V Ilage Center to the Low Density
neighborhoods to the north and east; and 3) the uses are consistent with the higher intensity
Pagelofl0
lo~S ~ ~ 6
Ezhibit A
of uses anticipated for the Fallon Village Center and will continue to promote an active,
pedestrian oriented development in the Fallon Village Center.
The Project site is physically suitable for [he type and intensity ojthe zoning district being
proposed because: I) the amended land uses and site plan are consistent with the amended
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) land use designations of Medium-
Low Density Residential (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium•Mid Density Residential (10.1-14
du/acre); 2) the Fallon Village site is flatter towards the south with rolling hills generally
north, and development is concentrated in less constrainaf areas; 3) the flexibility of the PD
allows future development to be tailored to onsite conditions.
3. The PD Rezoning, with amended Stage 1 Development Plan, will not adversely a_(fect the health or
safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety
or welfare because: the Stage 1 Development Plan has been designed in accordance with the City
of Dublin General Plan etid the EDSP, and future development will comply with all applicable
development regulations acid standards and will implement all adopted mitigation measures.
4. 77re PD Rezoning, with amended Stage /Development flan, is consistent with the Dublin
General Plan and Easte-•n Dublin Specific Plan because: I) the proposed uses on the site are
consistent with the amended Ceneral Plan and EDSP lancl use designations; 2) the amended
uses will not result in an increase in the total number of residential dwellings anticipated for
the subject properties by the General Plan and EDSP; 3) the anticipated development of the
site is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the EDSP.
C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council adopted Resolution
No. 222-OS certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact R~;port (SEIR) (SCH #2005062010) to
the Eastem Dublin EIR, a program EIR, initially certifies. by the City of Dublin in 1993
(SCH#91103064) and the Eastern Dublin Property Owners SE[R (SCH # 2001052114) certified in
2002 by Resolution 40-02 for the Fallon Village project. The prior EIRs are available for review in
the Community Development Department. The proposed proja:t is within the scope of the SEIR for
the Fallon Village project aroa because the project does not result in increased units or density
beyond what was previously studied for the subject prop;rties, and therefore no additional
environmental review is requires.
es;tion 3. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code, the Dublin Zoning Map is
amended to rezone the following property ("the Property") to a PD-Planned Development district:
10.4+ net acres located in an area bounded by Croak Road to the east, the future extension of
Central Parkway to the south, land designated Neighborhood Park and Medium-High Density to
the north and west, and Low Density to the north (APN 905-0002-001, and 905-0002-002); and
23.4± net acres located in a~i area bounded by open space to the northwest, a future elementary
school to the southeast, future Medium-High Density development to the south, and future Low
Density development to the east. (APN 985-0027-007).
~~ ~~~
Page 2 of 10
- . _ ,,.
location nuu~ of the rezoning area i.: vluni n bclo~c:
,,
Section 1. ;1~1E?tiDf~:U S'T;\(7E 1 DE~'EI.OP~'lf\T' PC,:1\
Chc regul.uionstbr the use, elevelvpment, improvement, and m.+intenancc ref the suhjert pr„pertics i. set
lirr[h in nc~ i:alon Village Stake I Dc<~elopment Plan ndoptctl through C)rdinance 3?-th ,rnd a; amended
brlon•, ~shieh amendments arc hereby approveil. \nv amendments to the Deg elopment Plans sh;rll be in
accordinu•c kith Section `i.:i_'.URtI, Planned Development 7c}ning 1)ish•ict, of tho Dublin 'Municipal ('ode
of it> suc:;essor,.
PD-Planned Dcvelopmentloning District
.~lmended Stage 1 Development Plan
Fallon villaKe (YA 1)~-038, PA 07-lli(rj
lhi i~ an antendcd Stage I Development Plan pursuant to t'haptrr S.)?. i'lanned Development tuning
Di~h•ict. of the Dublin Zoning Ordinanec fi>r the lwrtivns of the Croak and .Iord<ut pr~~,perties kith a
\teclium-Loa [)cosily anti ~-tedium-Viid t)onsity desienutiun (;at'N 90;_OpQ2-001, ~>(15-000?-r)UZ, ;uril
~~>~~-0027-iti)'), The Cn,ak an41 Jordau properties con,ist oC 10.4 acres arul'_3.4 acres respectively.
Amended Stu~~e I I)evelonment Ylan. The Shr~c I Development Plan remains as appro:cd throuLh
i)rdin.ince .i?-0~, except ris specified below.
1. Statement of Proposed lases. The Stage I Development Plan i atncnded to include the
tbllou°ing permitted, axulitionally pcr7nittcd, and tcmixn•ary land uses for the ~lcdiunrf.ow and
h~tcdium-~Ld Density desi,ytations:
PD-~icdiunr-I.n~e Density Residential
Intent. The tiledium-Lo+v Den-situ land use designation is established to: a) reserve appropriately
ideated area, ti,r tinnily litiing in a variety of types nl' chyellinrrs at a rcasnnahlr ranee u(
I~~ ~6~
1'a~C) of 10
populations densities consistent with sound standards of public health and safety; b) preserve as
many as possible of the desirable characteristics of the one family residential district while
permitting higher populations densities; c) accommodate a variety of housing types including
detached and attached housing with usable private yard areas; d) ensure adequate light, air, privacy
and open space for each dwelling unit; and e) provide necessary space for off-street parking of
automobiles.
Permitted Uses
Accessory structures and uses in accordance with Section 8.4C.030 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance
Animal keeping -residential
Community care facility/small (permitted if required by law, otherwise as conditional use)
Garage/yard sale
Home occupation in aecorda~rce with Chapter 8.64 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
Small family day care home
Single family dwelling
Row houses
Private recreation facility (for homeowners' association and/or tenant use only)
Similar and related uses as determined by the Community De~~elopment Director
Conditionally Permitted Uses
Bed and breakfast inn
Boarding house
Community clubhouse
Community facility
Day care center
Large family day care home
Mobile home/manufactured home park
Parking lot -residential
Semi-public facilities
Similar and related uses as determined by the Community De~•elopment Director
Temporary Uses
Please refer to Zoning Ordin:mce Chapter 8.108 for a list of permitted temporary uses and permit
procedures.
PD -Medium-Mid Density Residential
Intent. The Medium-Mid Density land use designation is established to: a) reserve appropriately
located areas for family living in a variety of types of dwellings at a reasonable range of
populations densities consistent with sound standards of public health and safety; b) preserve as
many as possible of the desirable characteristics of the one family residential district while
permitting higher populations densities; c) ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for
each dwelling unit; d) minimize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities by
preventing the construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the land around them; e)
provide nexessary space for off-street parking of automobiles, and where appropriate, for off-street
loading of trucks; and f) protect residential properties fron- the hazards, noise and congestion
created by commercial and industrial traffic.
-:~-~ ~~~
Page 4 of l 0
Permitted Uses
Accessory structures and uses in accordance with Section 8.40.030 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance
Animal keeping -residential
Community care facility/small (permitted if required by law, otherwise as conditional use)
Garage/yard sale
Home occupation in accordance with Chapter 8.64 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
Small family day care home
Single family dwelling
Multi-family dwelling
Private recreation facility (for homeowners' association and/or tenant use only)
Similar and related uses as detennincd by the Community Development Director
Conditiona!!y Permitted Uses
Bed and breakfast inn
Boardinghouse
Community clubhouse
Community facility
Day care center
Large family day care home
Mobile homeJmanufactured home park
Parking lot -residential
Semi-public facilities
Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director
Temporary Uses
Please re&x to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.108 for a list of permitted temporary uses and pemtit
procedures.
2. Development Standards. The Development Standards are amended to include standards for
attached and detached housing within the Medium-Low and N~edium-Mid Density designations.
a. Multi-family attached housing with aMedium-Mid Density designation shall provide one of
the following:
i. Each unit shall include a minimum 250 s.f. flat usable private yard with a minimum
dimension in any one direction of 8'; or
ii. Each development shall provide a minimum of ISO o-:.f. per unit of usable common area
that will accommodate recreation and leisure activities
b. Row homes with aMedium-Low Density designation: Each unit shall include a minimum 250
s.f. flat usable private yard with a minimum dimension in any one direction of 8'.
c. Single-family detached housing with a Low, Medium.-Low, Medium-Mid and Medium
Density designation: .The following table shows residential development standards and
plotting concepts for Lo~+, Medium-Low, Medium-Mid and Medium Density single-family
detached housing:
~~~i~~
Page 5 of 10
Criteria
Low enslty --
~~ ~
~~
Mod'wm Lac Low. Medium-Low. ~ ~ and
Mad,un Druny F
Fad' ~~
sman Lora
"Mdium-Low. Medarn-I'W and Medtwn DamltY
5~ ~Cou't
Typicoi Neighborhood Lot Width 5S "ide and aDOVe Less than ss' wide -~ NA
Typicd Neighborhood Los Size ssoo sF and =raster +ooo sF and ynter 2500 SF and trnte- 1800 SF and enter
Mirrirnum Street Frorrtap wWth
Q euF~dt-sac/1uwcWes 35• 35' 25' 25'
Mirsimwe Fie[ La Frontote 20' 20' 20' 20'
Meaimsun t.ot Coverap
+5X (two-story) Pt) (tal
5f% (one-story) 11 l> Inl +5% [wo-s
SS%(one-story)
(rw one sto karenfant)
SSX
(no one story requirsatertt)
SSX
(no one story requirement)
Moalmum su~9: HeiBbt 3t' 38' 38' 38'
Mmrtmum Stories 3 PI (al 3 PI lal 3 PI PI 3 VI P>
Minimum Fmm Yard Setbada (~ IBI (al tal 1al ~Strastsu Cart reencou~
Livint Area I S' two-story. I2' one-story I S' two-story. 12' one-story I T 12' +'
Porch 10' 10' 10' 10' 4'
Courtyard t' 8' S' S' 1'
Frax-on Garate 19' li Il till 19' Lets than S' or It' Less d+an S' tx It'
Swint-in Garate Ip alPgpA PIA hlA - Nl1
Mlnlmwn Side Yard Sstbocb lsl (N (8)
pne-story to pne-story S' - 5' (atyrepte 10) !A (C) 5' - S' (attretau 10~ ltl (C) 0 or +' min. 1~1 (C) 0 or +' min. ls) (Cj
Onrstory w Two-story 5' - 7.5' (attrgau 12.5) pI (C) S' - 7.5' (agretau 12.5) U) (C) 0 or +' mia Isl (C) 0 or 4' min, tN (C)
Two-sorry to Two-story 7.5' - 75' (gtrgau I S) PI (~ 7.S' - 7.S' (attrgau I S') t» (C~ 0 or +' min: lsl (C) 0 or +' mtn. IQ (C)
Corns La (setback ht>,rt street side) to 12' two-story. 10' one-story lal (C) 10' 9' 9'
pardtl4/Courtyard tl% S' 4' +~ +•
Encroativttsrw (C) (C) (C) (~
Mirsimum Rear Yord Setbaca isl l4 _ {E) (~ (E) (~
taint Span (N I S' avy per bt 10' min. (C) 12' avt. per lot S' min. (C) 17 avt. per lot 5' min. (C) 8' avt. per lot. 5' min. (C)
One-story Garate S' min. 3' min. IN 3' min. tN 3' min. tal
Lia~ G AbovdSecad Unit 7S' min. (t 0 Pat 7.5' min. 7.5' min. 7.S' min. l S' min. ~ ateys
Vsable Yard(s) 500 SF rota flat un. Mm.
Dimension 10'. Yud up nuy be
provided in more than one bation
within a lot +00 SF tool flat un. Min. Dimension
10'. Yud uea may be provided in more
than one
- _~~tidri~a ht. ~ 300 SF total Bat un. Min.
Dimension B'. 7ud un may
be provided in more than one
- Jokationavitlkin a lot. 250 Sf toW Bat eras. Min.
Dimension lY. Yud arse may
be provided in more tan one
~eation within-slot
170 Sf
- - --" -
Iarkint tart Mqulred Mln. rear yard area - 350 SF.
Mia owrtyrd un - 1 SO SF.
2 covered and 1 toes[ 1h tt tl Min. rear yard eras -250 SF.
Min carrtyud area • I SO SF.
2 covered and I tkrest Isl Min. rear yard un •220 SF.
Min. courtyard area - ~ SF.
2 covered and 1 tkrest l>) .
Min. reu yard un •
Min. courtyard area • 80 SF
2 covered and 1 toes[ lb
Pabe 6 of I O
f.f,\
r~J~'
W
~~
"„
Typical Plotting Concepts
NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS ONLY.
300 Sf total flat yard area (Typ) with a min. 8'dimension. Yard
area may be provided in more than one location within a lot.
Min. rwar vard arwa - 7~0 Gf I,
Tra/fir
Visibilil
Arca
LEGEND
0 1st Story Elements LOT COVERAGE: 5596 Max
Q 2nd Story Massing (No One-Story Requirement)
Usable Rear Yard Min. Area
NEIGHBORHOODS OF
LOTS 2500 SF AND GREATER
LOW. MEDIUM-LOW, MEDIUM-MID AND
MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY
DETACHED SMALL LOT
c
cy
'~3~ f
Y
Page 7 of l0
TWO-STORY TWO-STORY T1+V0-STORY TWO-STORY
CORNER LOT INTERIOR LOT INTERIOR LOT CORNER LOT
Typical Plotting Concepts
RECI
USE
250 SF coral flat yard
xea (TYP) with a min
a' dimension. Yard
area may be provide<
in more than one
location within a bt.
Min. rear ysrd • 170 SI
Min.courtyard-80 SI
LEGEND
RECIPROCAL
USE EASEMENTS
~REENCOURT
0 1st Story Elements LOT COVERAGE: 55% Max
0 2nd and 3rd Story Massing (No One-Story Requirement)
Usable Yard Min. Area
NEIGHBORHOODS OF
1800 SF AND GREATER
MEDIUM-LOW, MEDIUM-MID AND MEDIUM DENSITY
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED
SMALL LOTSICOURT HOMES
RECIPROCAL
USE EASEMENrS
250 SF total flat yard area (Typ1
with a mM. 6' dimension. Yard
area may be provided in more
than one location within a lot.
Min. rearyard - i 70 SF
Min. courtyard - 00 SF
COURT
'ER HOMES
I~~ ~
~,,,
Page 8 of 10
NOTE:ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS ONLY.
~~~ ~~+°
;,. Stu1;e 1 tiite Piaui. ~Tf~c amended titage 1 tiiiL Phan uic~,rpca•ate$ the Medium-l..o~+ Dcnsit) and
\-lediuurM19id Dencit~ laud u,c dcci, nati~~n in race ~.,f ~{a4iurn 1kn,itq designation un the Cr,~ak
and Jordan prone;tie..
~~,
~ Rt74
Sl.dO 0.C
.~
F~.1 ~
,"
I'';
r -'
F ` ','
,. r.,~
;, ~ ;`~
:r:: ~_~
»tl 4i.
Fallon Village
State 1 !'D Amendment Site f'I~n
i
r
'~ulil. \4~~
r
a F{
x ~ ~
i'G~~' ~-~ S vy~~
_..._.._..,_. _ vcn t
:P~'
iV
d LG:
rtes ~ :? a t ~~
r i
n te%w ..F-~ • +.
a25tj . " I ,._ ..
i~.~ 4C - LG' - rn..
z , .. ... ~ .: ,,
~_ i .. o.r=^_~~.,
M a ~ MOP.
.,~, a , pL
~•.
t+
sr:~c:F: ~ srrr: PI-:a
rage ~~ ~,e 1 ~~
4. Site Area, proposed densities. As follows:
Land Use Aerea a Densi
Sin le Famil Residential 403.6 acres 0-6.0 units/acre
Medium-Low Densit Residential 16.9 acres 6.1-10 units/acre
Medium-Mid Densit Residential 16.9 acres 10.1-14 units/acre
Medium Densit Residential 26.3 acres 6.1-14.0 units/acre
Medium High Density Residential 23.8 acres 14.1-25.0 units/acre
Rural ResidentiaVA 'culture 142.9 acres 1 unit/100 acres
Mixed Use 6.4 acres 0.3-I.00 FAR
General Commercial 72.1 acres 0.20-0.60 EAR
General Commercial/Cam tts Office 72.7 acres 0.20-0.80 FAR
Industrial Park/Cam us Office 61.3 acres 0.25-0.80 FAR
Communi Park 18.3 acres --
Nei boyhood Park 23.6 acres --
Nei hborhood S uare 8.0 acres --
O S ace 21 l.2 acres --
Elemen School 21.1 -acres --
Semi Public 8.6 acres 0.50 FAR
Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE
~ a::
~~~ .
..
This Ordinance shall take et'fect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its
passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause the Ordimmce to be posted in at least three (3)
public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36433 of the Government Code of the
State of California.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this
day of __ by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
G:'~PAM'.21MITO7a1S6 Cnxk and Jo'dan Medium Drnsiry+Ciry CouneiP.CC Onlinancn PD.DOC
Page 10 of 10
!off o~t°~'
~Q
M
w
^
^
r
NIO.~i B1T11Y H.EUa1GN
~I ~m7
coq ~ ,~
PRELIMINARY
LANDSCAPE PLAN
Muw+sn~1AI1'f ~A1Rf/
°~--.__S1YM1F+~_ __..
w s r
~~
~`~ `~
~~ ~N
~r .~
~n~~
nY~YR~ C/rJ~~~
~~_
... x-y
~Ya B-}
® rer. ~'rbrary MN
Nw6 ~
~~.. _ l,~.,~.
I.~w/rx'nn~: nw ~u nx-n~lle
Attachment 10
-___
~`~,.
4s
/~ Q~ I~~
City Council/Planning Commission
Study -S`ession .11~inutes
8-19-08
A special joint meeting of the Dublin City Council and Planning Commission was held on
Tuesday, August i9, 2008, in the Regional Meeting Room at the Dublin Civic. Center.
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m., by Mayor Lockhart.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT; Council members Hillenbrand, Oravetz, and Scholz, Vice Mayor Sbranti and
Mayor Lockhart.
Planning Commissioners Biddle, Tomlinson, Wehrenberg, King and Chair
Schaub
Mayor Lockhart opened the public comment portion of the meeting and hearing no
comment, closed the public comment.
CROAK AND JORDAN MEDIUM DENSITY STUDY SESSION
PA 07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density
Mayor Lockhart asked for the presentation fiom Staff.
Jeff Baker, Senior Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report.
Chair Schaub asked Mr. Baker to explain the pximary planning area. Mr. Baker stated the
General Plan shows three planning areas. He continued the primacy planning area is the
center of Dublin, everything west of Camp Parks and the Transit Center to Schaefer
Ranch. He continued Schaefer Ranch is the western planning area and everything east of
Camp Parks is the Eastern Extended Planning Area.
Mr. Baker stated the reason for the study session is to receive direction from the City
Council and the Planning Commission on the proposed policy amendments. He stated
there are three alternatives up for discussion tonight:
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~
VOLUME 27
SPECIAL MEETING ru ~ ~i e i.
August 19, 2008 t~\\~~~/
~ j tie
Attachment 4
i~~ ~ 16y
Alternative A -medium-low and medium-mid density designation and also
adopting a minimum rear yard setback requirement.
Alternative B - similar to Alternative A, but includes an additional requirement
for a common area yard for products without a private yard and
also a net density policy.
Alternative C - other direction from Council to Staff
Chair Schaub .asked if the 1800 square foot lot Mr. Baker was discussing includes the 20
foot setback between the street and the patio. Mr. Baker answered it would depend on
where the home is located on the Iot. He continued the home Chair Schaub was referring
to was an "alley loaded" home. He stated the home was not on an 1800 square foot lot; an
1800 square foot lot would have an alley and a paseo so that access to the home would be
from the paseo.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there was open space behind the lot. Mr. Baker answered yes
there is a park or common area outside their product yard.
Chair Schaub mentioned the example is a 14.2 unit net density, not 6 unit net density,
which changes the look of the project.
Mr. Baker concluded his presentation and asked for feedback fiom the City Council and
Planning Commission.
Mayor Lockhart asked if there were any questions for Mr. Baker. There were no
questions.
Mayor Lockhart asked for feedback from the panel.
Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned about what the market would be for these units and what
is available within Dublin. She stated she would support Alternative A or C. She
continued that with Alternative C the developers would have parking issues and it would
be difficult for them to meet density with the amount of buildable space.
Cm. Tomlinson felt that by splitting the property into two new zoning designations it
would reduce the overall flexibility of what can be built on the site. He felt it could result
in a more comprehensive development for the entire site with more public parks in
exchange for more units. He stated the kind of yards that would be created would not be
considered "usable" yards. He had concerns about the fairness of applying this new
zoning designation to only two properties. He felt the "Net Density" concept is a potential
problem because it would significantly reduce the number of units that can be built on the
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2
VOLUME 27 oe a
SPECIAL MEETING nip ~ u~
August I9, 2008 '~\~~~~
lid ~~~
~~
site. He stated when trying to create a yard using units/acre is not the most appropriate
way to calculate. He continued when building a 6,000 sq ft house vs. a 1500 sq ft
townhome the lot coverage is different but each home is still considered one unit. He felt
that if the goal is to create larger yards the issue should be lot coverage rather than density.
Chair Schaub stated the Planning Commission had determined that the Net Density
calculation does not work very well. He stated the Commission asked Staff to leave
density calculations per the General Plan and only include the net density calculation as a
sidebar on the green sheet to give a feeling for the real density. He stated that he is
concerned about the unforeseen consequences of taking steps for a problem that is not
clear. He felt that flexibility would be better than an arbitrary rule.
Cm. King agreed with Cm. Wehrenberg who was concerned about the current housing
market. He stated there was a comment at the last Planning Commission meeting that
indicated the Planning Commission should not be concerned with the market, but felt the
Commission could not do effective land use planning if they did not know what will be
done with the land. He was also concerned about young families and the size of yard they
would want. He preferred less density with easier parking but also some neighborhood
open spaces. He felt public space is more important than larger yards but again was not
sure what people would what for their homes. He felt that most people prefer bigger yards
but he could justify smaller yards if, in order to prevent urban sprawl, you must infill with
higher density. He was not sure what to recommend but would prefer open neighborhood
space.
Cm. Biddle had some concerns regarding changing the. net density calculation for only a
few properties. He stated the size of the yard is directly proportioned to the placement of
the house on the lot. He suggested options to accommodate that placement would be zero
lot lines, eliminating either the front yard or back yard, and perhaps one side of the side-
yard setback. He felt more flexibility would help. He mentioned a product within the for-
sale units at the new Arroyo Vista project where they used 3-story, split level units and
created a small footprint.
Mayor Lockhart asked if there were any members of the public who would like to
comment.
Kevin Fryer, Mission Valley Homes, representing the Jordan Ranch property owners,
spoke regarding the project. He felt it was important to remember the policy being
discussed would apply to only two specific properties with special physical limitations.
He stated that within the 23.4 acres of medium density amid-range approach would yield
approximately 230 units. He stated because of the topography of the site it is very difficult
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES s
VOLUME 27 ,~ DUB
SPECIAL MEETING ~~~u~
August 19, 2008 \~ ~ /~
c' ~~s
/~ 3 ~,~ -
~ .
to work with. He stated the goals of the medium density designation is to provide
affordable and diverse housing products not only larger, more expensive homes with larger
yards. He stated the examples given in the presentation of a 15 foot set back were built on
relatively flat lots which make it an easier area to plan. He stated developers would like to
have the most flexibility to bring a variety of products within the medium-density range.
He stated requiring a 15 foot rear yard setback would eliminate all alley loaded products
which include small lot detached, duets, duplexes, and larger townhouses that all have
front and side yards associated with them. He suggested if the Council requires a
minimum yard setback they should tty to create as much flexibility as possible. He asked
for the opportunity to bring forward a site plan that addresses the specific concerns of their
site. He understands the Council's concerns and shares them as well.
George Zika, Dublin resident, asked Mr. Fryer if there is 15 foot rear yard setback would
that eliminate back loaded units and did he assume the requirement of a 20 foot set back in
front. Mr: Flyer felt they could still have a front yard area or a private side yard area but
the alley would take up the back of the unit so there would be no area for a rear yard. Mr.
Fryer felt they would have to widen the lots to provide the space for usable rear yard.
There was a discussion regarding the current requirement for front and rear yard setbacks.
Mr. Pat Croak, property owner spoke regarding the project. He felt that Net Density was
not the answer and that it takes away their flexibility with the kind of topography
constraints and edge conditions that exist on the Jordan and Croak properties. He felt it
would be unfair to apply Net Density to their two properties. He also felt it was difficult to
predict the market but the fact that there is product (imitation would limit their project. He
stated the. unintended consequences of this change are also of concern.
Councilmember Hildenbrand explained that in 2004, at the Council's Goals and Objectives
meeting they discussed this subject and it has taken this long to review the issue and that is
why there are only two properties left. She was concerned the perception was that the
Council was singling these two properties out. She agreed with Cm. Biddle's comments
that the placement of the house on the lot is the key. She felt the most important thing are
the long term needs of the community and how to balance the current housing stock. She
felt that one of the unintended consequences of building The Villages is the lack of
parking. She stated the residents are using their garages for storage not for parking their
vehicles. She felt it was a good idea to build villages but they did not anticipate the
parking problem. She felt there are a lot of products in Dublin with very little yards. She
continued there were a lot of people moving to San Ramon and Livermore because they
can have a bigger yard in those cities. She felt that on the west side of Dublin there were a
lot of home with larger lots, some smaller homes with larger lots but there are not many
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES a
VOLUME 27 b°~
SPECIAL MEETING ~,~,~tu
August 19, 2008 ~~`V~~'~c%~
~~~ .~
~~~ ~ i~~
available. She felt that the residents of Dublin want more space and Dublin is not
providing it. She stated this is an opportunity to provide a different option. She felt that
Net Density probably will not work at this time. She supports Alternative A with a
requirement for a rear yard setback.
Vice Mayor Sbranti stated he also supports Alternative A. He felt the City was very
flexible with landowners and developers and avoided applying this issue to those
properties that were well into the process with entitlements, He stated that by providing
flexibility within the medium density range the City has consistently gotten the same type
of product. He felt the market will produce what is most profitable for the developer and
people will buy what the market produces. He felt there was not the same volume of
product on the west side of town. He stated while looking at the aerial photographs he
noticed the City is not getting the yards that we need. He felt it was important for the
Council to produce a community that has product differentiation. He felt Alternative A
creates two types of density. He felt people want yards and some developments have
common area but did not think the residents used the area and there is no adequate
substitute for a private yard. He felt the City needed to plan with the best interest of the
City even if it is the last two properties. He supports Alternative A.
Councilmember Oravetz felt the yard issue is different then the net density issue. He
stated the housing market in California is at its worst ever. He commented the City does,
not want to limit the ideas of the development community and what they can build in
Dublin. He complemented the Planning Commission on the job they do of reviewing
projects before they come to the Council. He felt the Planning Commission has the pulse
of the community as much as the Council does as far as housing and they review what will
sell within Dublin. He stated the number one economy generator in Dublin is car sales and
the Ford dealership just went out of business. He wanted the Council and Commission to
consider that no more car sales means no more sales tax and putting restrictions on
developers will reduce property taxes which is the second biggest economic generator in
the City. He does not support putting any restrictions on developers and therefore supports
Alternative C which is the plan that has been working. He felt in this economy it is not the
time to restrict development. He wanted the City to be viewed as open minded not
restrictive. He supports Alternative C.
Councilmember Scholz commented having looked at Alternatives A & B she was
concerned because she did not want to restrict developers but felt the City was crowded
and the density was a big issue for her. She supports and agrees with Councilmember
Oravetz. She stated the five areas of concern that the Planning Commission sited are
valuable and appreciates their concerns, She wanted to hear more from the developers
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES s
VOLUME 27 ~ °e~
SPECIAL MEETING ~„~~~,~
August 19, 2008 `~ ' //
~~~~
~y5~ ~b~
regarding their ideas. She agreed with Cm. King regarding land use planning. She would
like to see bigger yards and more public space. She supports Alternative C.
Councilmember Hildenbrand mentioned an example of the Casamira Valley project,
located north of Dublin off Tassajara Road, was approved with the idea to live smaller so
there would be less sprawl and more density. She stated that when the Casamira Valley
project first came to the Council they submitted stacked products and the Council felt it
was too far away from transit and retail to be that dense. She continued the developer
came back with a plan that took out the stacked product. She stated that Wallis Ranch
submitted a product that included stacked condominiums which was not Council's intent
for .the area. She stated the intent was if the development was far away from shopping and
commercial then it should be less dense. She felt that if the City requires setbacks they
will get a different variety. She stated that in every project there was the highest density
because the developers feel the only way to make a profit is by building the most units.
Cm. King asked Councilmember Hildenbrand which plan she would prefer.
Councilmember Hildenbrand answered she prefers Alternative A and stated she did not
support net density at this time and thought, if the City were going to require Net Density
they should have done it a long time ago. She also felt it was important to include the rear
yard setback requirement.
There was a discussion between Chair Schaub and Councilmember Hildenbrand regarding
the Moller Ranch and Wallis Ranch projects and the types of units that were submitted.
Councilmember Oravetz felt the Wallis Ranch project was an example where not having
Net Density calculations caused unintended consequences and stated he would not
advocate for Net Density at this time. He felt Roxbury was also a project with unintended
consequences which calculated at 6 or 7 units per acre but if Net Density were used it was
actually 14 units per acre. He liked the part of Alternative A where the unit count remains
the same.
Cm. King asked how Alternative A would help solve the parking and traffic issues at The
Villages.
Councilmember Hildenbrand responded the Villages are very dense with some units
having only aone-car garage but two people you both have cars and must park one on the
street.
Cm. King asked if the idea of larger rear yards necessitates more parking.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES s
VOLUME 27
SPECIAL MEETING ;9;~®,~~;~ti
August 19, 2008
~~
Councilmember Hildenbrand responded the parking situation was an unintended
consequence of assuming that by building The Villages the residents would use transit or
walk instead of drive. She continued the residents do not use their garages for parking,
but for storage and park on the street which has caused the parking problem. She
continued the Council felt by allowing flexibility they would get a variety of housing types
but what they got was either large homes or small homes with very little yards.
Mayor Lockhart was concerned with. Net Density vs. Gross Density because of projects
like Wallis Ranch and others where she was surprised by the finished product. She felt it
is difficult to understand all the different facets of the problem if you are not a
professional. She stated she wanted to understand net density rather than require it. She
stated she would not support the net density calculations for the last two properties in
Dublin. She felt that would drastically change the way Dublin does business. She stated
she would still like to have the information and will weigh the information when making a
decision but won't penalize anyone. She stated she only has anecdotal information but
hears from a lot of Dublin residents and their concern about seeing the same type of
housing over and over. They stated the housing products are the same, with the same look
but with a different name. She stated the Council will take responsibility for what was
approved in the past, but felt even it this policy will affect only two properties they would
like to have the option. She also stated that these two properties do not have entitlements
and can be planned for the future and could be the last two shining examples of planning
in Dublin. She felt back yards are important to residents of Dublin having lived on a street
with very small back yards and the children play in the street in front of their home so their
parents can supervise them. She stated the Council thought that Emerald Glen Park would
be the answer to the high density development but most parents do not allow their young
children to go to the park unsupervised. She felt the park serves a great family use but does
not independently serve all the families without yards. She stated she would like to see an
accommodation in the east that does not include a 3,000 square foot home so that young
families with small children can have a pet and a patio until they grow up and get the
house. She commented that the new housing stock does not have that option. She would
like to see the information on Net Density just to be able to weigh the value of a project
but won't hold developers to a new standard. She feels product differentiation is a good
thing for the community. She supports Alternative A.
Mr. Baker asked for clarification regarding rear yard set backs in Alternative A. He stated
Staff is asking for a minimum of 15 to 20 feet of rear yard set back and asked which the
Council would prefer.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7
VOLUME 27 ~orDU
SPECIAL MEETING ~9'~d"`"'~,u
August 19, 2008 ~`` ~ /~
~ N`
~~r~ ~ 1~
Mayor Lockhart asked if there could be an average between 15 and 20 feet based on lot
size and an average for the overall project.
Jeri Ram, Community Development Director suggested one in five units could have a 20
foot setback.
Rich Ambrose, City Manager suggested they could require a certain percentage of units
have a 20 foot setback and a certain percentage have a 15 foot setback and which would
provide the developer some flexibility.
Chair Schaub suggested drawing a plan that showed how a house would be built on an
1800 square foot lot with a 20 foot yard; add a garage and a driveway and that would leave
only 400 square feet.
Mr. Ambrose responded the consequences are they may not be able to have an 1800 square
foot lot because, to meet the requirement, they would have to create lots that work.
Mayor Lockhart felt the Council would not be taking away the high density or medium
high density they are simply saying as you feather back the project create the product that
includes a backyard for residents who are not on the park and give residents an alternative.
VM Sbranti stated within the medium designation there is medium and medium high,
which balances and stated he supports the 15 ft minimum setback.
Mr. Ambrose suggested there could be a number requirement and the developers must
work within that framework.
VM Sbranti felt there should be a minimum 15 feet setback.
Mr. Baker asked if the Council wants to create a medium low and medium mid density
designation and require a minimum 15 foot usable rear yard setback, 1 in 5 would have a
20 foot setback and it would apply to medium low and medium mid units that have a rear
yard.
Mayor Lockhart responded yes.
In favor: Hildenbrand, Sbranti and Lockhart
Opposed: Oravetz and Scholz
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES s
VOLUME 27 or Do
SPECIAL MEETING ig'~C,~~,,~
August 19, 2008 \\\ ~ //
~~ ~~
ADJOURNMENT
lug~f6~
There being no fiirther business to come before the Joint City Council/Planning
Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
Minutes prepared by Debra LeClair, Secretary.
.P
Mayor
ATTEST; ~ / ` d~"i
City Clerk
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9
VOLUME 27 0~ ~
SPECIAL MEETING 19~~~~„~
August 1.9, 2008 `\ ~ /~
~l
~~~ ~
} `~
_~_~. ~~
~~~~~ AGENDA STATEMENT
~~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: September 9, 2008
\~LIFnR~~
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: (Legislative ~~ction) - PA 07-056 Croak and
Jordan Medium Density: General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment and Fallon Village Ply - Stage 1 Development Plan
Amendment to change the existing M~;dium Density portion of the Croak
and Jordan properties to Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density
land use designations with minimum rear yard setback requirements.
Report prepared by,Jeff Baker, Senior ~'lanner
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution
amending the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan to change the existing Medium Density land use
designation on the Croak and Jordan properties to Medium-Low and
Medium-Mid Density designations, with the draft City Council
Resolution included as Exhibit E~.
2) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance
approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage
l Development Plan for the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid density
designations on the Croak anc Jordan properties, with the draft
Ordinance included as Exhibit A..
3) City Council/Planning Commis on Study Session Staff Report dated
August 19, 2008 with attachmen~s.
4) City Council/Planning Commis Sion Study Session draft Meeting
Minutes dated August 19, 2008.
5) Resolution transferring original hearing jurisdiction of these
amendments to the City Council pursuant to Section 8.96.020.C.3 of
the City of Dublin Zoning OJ dinance due to the unique policy
implications of these amendment s.
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive Staff presentation;
2) Open the Public Hearing;
~~ 3) Receive public testimony;
4~`~ 4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; and either
5) Adopt the following Resolution(;;):
a. Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending that the City Council
adopt a Resolution approving; a General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment to change the existing Medium
Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties
to Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations; and
COPY TO: Property Owners
File
ITEM NO.
Page 1 of 7
G:\PA#\2007\07-056 Croat: and Jordan Medium Density\Planning Commission\9.9.08\pcsr 9.9.08 East I )ublin Density.DOC
Attachment 5
[~, [~e~i>1>atit~sr`r ('~tt~~chznent ~} r~cirrrrtrr~°r~3it~~,~ tl~:~t 111 C`it~ {`c:>~~ncil 5
~tclta},t €~rt {)1°tlin~lclce €a}?~~r`t~~~ir~~ it ~'I)-~'l~zr~a~eti l)c~ e1.~~,11~tat.
IZ~;~;~1r~e ~ii111 €ta~1e11~[~tl `~t<r~~a` l t)z:~~;lt~pr~~~nt: ['i<rrt 1}r t[7sr
1'[~:cli~It1~-I_.~»~ at1~1 `~'E`~lit.tr~t-'~Ii~~ sit:rawil~ cie~ii,~rl~at3c~aas o€~ t1aL
C°rt~salc tat~tl ,l~srtl~tal }~rEs}a~:rti~::~.
(~12.
c'. E~e~wcslt,atrirta {;`~,tt4tt:lante~ri :+t tr<tra4~E~~€`srr~s; csra;.~ra€i~l I~Li:ra'~`.~
jt'rigc[ie.tic~ tt~ t€~~ t'it~• {:"c}utl~ail Y1~aea~a;;~: t}~, tlae ttrlic}ztt~ ~Srkli~:~
i€n}?lic°~ttit~rl caE`tlte°~e }art>}t>;,c~<I ctTllellLltllt'IiT`~.
t~acw~;:~rc-ur~s
[ ~'°#~' t'c~r:rarcil }1e1;.1 ii ~i:r ~r~ ~~ I'I=ar~a~ir-ay~ ;tie5~i~a11 tsrl ~~an€r~rr;~ 1 ~. '{~f), . 1)t.r3•ir~r~ t11i4 `~taa.ieti~i~ I'1~t1€~ia~a,F
c;, .;~,,~ '1e {.'its' {.'tat€rr~;il ila..~.,,.ecl il`a~: c:.~i~lira4.~ {eller:al 1`'ltar~ arac} `~~~eei€ii; f'l~tra Ii*e~i~;3etlti,al I.~tr~~l t. s
.~ ~ r~:: ~:itl~aira tltc; C'it~ tai i.)-~tE?li€a rtt~l Ilse neet~ f~}r 1 ~.-~. € ,,€-i~,<atc: ~'aar°il~, t'i>?a~ea`r1~; ti~,Gr`e r°aisecl cltrr`ira,~
;....,,,n re~~zcr~3i€r,'. the alt;erl }~>r . r~1ri+::t~ t,t`l~tau:;ira` ttil,,;~ ti.t~, Elet<ael~et~l trr€it~. res~~ tat~r~a:s, ~t;i'ke~[
,:.c.) tanti 11~~rr1e.~ ~~iti~ laar`.~L€` }?ri~,<a ~' }~~r°c3~, ~sr~ iac~~lc°~~Ic~}~c~a[ I~a~~I Z~iil~ir~ tlr~: 1.<>~t~3°€~ I)t~hlira ~1,~~:i`i~~
11; a i l:l>:~l?'.t ~ar`eta t~1si1 1~<t~ a '~llt[itrars E~::tsit~ {"~}.1-1=E clt€`4~cre'} 1€1r1d a€;,e tiest~tlatit:sll,
~, ~•` iL,.:it:E.! the tit?rt~itii°s. a.~itleali~tl Itrrlc[ €.a>4 }?€~lici~.°~. ~°itiiixr~~; l.~ai~[ ra,: }~~?ttear7:. t114 C~it~ t~l° I)t€blir~
~'i~1ia_~ ~Iztter11t11t. ~ f t11d 4t€tIt€:~ c.}1'erYitlemerlt~ [tar t}it~ l;aalt3 clc:~i;~aa.a.t:~l f~;r r°e~itlential c[e~elt~~~r31ea1t
~, :1.~: }~:I~)`il', ~fit~[`#` I~~,` ;:i,^. ~~cr~ ~?r°~}'si~•~'c~ tsar tl~~ :'4}`sa~il .~ 'a){?; ~rl~~.i (`~ tc:sE~4a• } {;. ?(t€:.i7° t-'its (`cst:rrcil
°,.,:.i~r,tg `t~it31 tiil`i~rc°rrt }~t;>l'a~ ~ .rlt~:rr~ttta~b'~~ [i>r C'it~ {'cftattcil ::c}rt~i;:isr°rttitst?,
~_'its (`~-cuncl :~c:tit~ - ri~ril3, ?{l()7 c t)ct~~er- lti, 2{}!?7
"1 :re Cite t;c3trlat;il r°e~•ie°~scl} I-s~?t}a t3f~t11~:~c tii~tf7.~~,e}~t>r1~ ~1t~ci i:~t~l~tirat.-.~~1 t} e;~~lres~ ~~ ii i1`e ~s }~r•ta~i~3e Ea
<~i~t€ ~~~~~; ~~r-~~tltact t~~~ }?=r tl~<tk a~ 1~>`~[ti~~~;ra <t ~t~:~,~e~} }~1`ra~l ~ a~ t x€r1t1 _. -..:A... ~ -`
I~r~~.~~t ~rr~<<,~I~-iirr~~il~~ cl~ tr~:la~~~i trt~i~t (:~#t~ch~~;tct~t 3 }?~a~s.~ '~~- ~ . ~~tr>' ~ ° 31~_ ~ ~ €,~_~
`: -. ,t c,
_-1} 'b~~€~ tt ~?.r~a~~aie us~l~le ,,~i~r~. I~t~~, {.:`alp C'tttarlc~al <a~rc~ ~ _° ~'svi'~ 3
- /'~ l;. E
..:<~~1 a c-t,a-a~erra ~a~er^ the ~tiSt€a~°~ ~cslic~~ tt~s ~<alc~€[1xtc; ~l~r~>iti--a ~ ~°°~p ,
} .. i t't1 ~r`(lti4 r°at~leT 111;1x1 a1ct 4~1G!'~ 2i~?C:. /f/ a., ~
?: ,
_, ~:,--
I~'~c C.'itti ~'~ rrt~e.il ici~:°z~tiii~,°c{ ~tti~~G~ r•>t;~€irzir~=~ 1~'1~.~itrr7~ I)~r~sit~° ~---- ___-_-.
- ,. -- ,;.
~~at € °~:: {(;t~sa1•. artc3 ~t~>rc~€rr~) ~;a'~Ist~°F ~ lc~ tl~c. ri~l~1) i~~itl7in the ~ ~__,
l.t)~.a' ,l~~rt ~~t~ Wert ttati~c~ ~eslecf tl~;~clt~pr~~etlt t`i~,~_hts at~acl I11~1t t1t3 r~t~t ~ ,: ~` ~ 't~:= ~
t:€r~e <.r ctrl°r~nt i3e~''Glt~}?rrrt:.nt a}~plic,itit~n i€1 }~r°ta~.e~,~ r~i1[1 tl~e ('i1~- ~` "~~; "~
t>;a t t~~tsti~~aln t}~~°- {`i#~' {'{~~at~t;i1 clit~cctet~ '~t€1['t trs pre~;~re Cic€i>Wr~tl
[' .~° : r`rti `~}~e~ilic I'1<ar°a .,aa~,'satlrcaerltti {til'.'2i~iI'.•1) t1t1t1 ~:tr~letlt[ tlae
I =~t~^.r=~~: l I:)s:~elc~~}r3.alr~;r~~ if'[aa ~a~~ ~~~:cr•it~e~} [~~lt»~ ~~itl~ t17L ~<>al c>9` // rf 1
4-3 L, idtaltws }errs-~itie tas~1~1~.. 4.11 ~.~}i,`l. ~. Ssi; ~~ 1. ...... ~ 1C11111~'y~ ~1~~Tr
1. {'t•e<1te i~l.clirrar~s-l_.t~ss. I7ert.=;iTti' {C~.1-lt) <[a.€'~=i;r`s;;} :~€rcl ~-1e~iiti€axt-i~'1i~ I.~e~~~ity (1{t.l-l~ clu'<rcr°t 't iz~a~c3
r.r~z c}_ _s<tlit}[14 tR:s re~al~lce t~1e s:>itir-a~~ .lletlitlal~ Ti)er~it~ {l;.i-1=~ ~laa%'~1t'r~) l~rr1~[ tare t3e~i;~r-aztiiia€~ tin
t17~; ~ t`ds<;k _I~tl .lcar°~i€rr1 ~?rtlper°tirw~:
~, t'tlctrlat~ s;~n~itie> fizr tl~c ttit~} rls~ss- It1rr~1 tt~e cle~i~.~a~rrtitara~ k~tls::t~ t~a~a €1et tl~~.elt~}~al~s(e rzc°r`~:~: Ltrlci
}~e~]tail`e><rs~thli ~~srtl~ #tr€`cie~eli>}`srlaerlt s~itl~rirr thL .~+'}e€tilitatrl-l.t~s~, I3t'r`rtiit~ ~1e_~i`tirlGrticata.
i'1•.rr~i~a~; (.:'r~rt~nu5sit~t` :~~t>tr;a; - ~+It~~ c~~~hc~r Z7, 2()()'7
.,i }~~~[7~1re~:1 €1 CiF't, `~['.~, €rtrGl 1~~111t}n ~'illay.~~ 'sta.='e 1 [)e~elc~~t~~ent l'l.,aa .~lt~~erac~r~r~aerat i~ar flat: ('rya{al<
<. ,Esrl~trr ~~st`~sl-st:~rtie~ ~i clit`ectecf 1-,y, tl-a: {:its` C't>t:rrcil. ()r, `vtasarl~:~` ~? `~tl)?. t11e 1'l~trlraiar~.~}
t'~_sarilri~~ic?°. }~~1~1 a I't€hlia 13ed1rita;~ t;~ a°~~ie~s tlae 1?ris~tsSCCi 4rr11er1ri11~et~t~ tts tEaL {+et~er;rl 1'[car. 1i;i)'~P'.
1''r<~'~' ~ t:af` r
{ ~/ ~ l
ment Plan Attachments 3 s 54-66 and 66-81 7'he Plannin Commission raised
Stage 1 Develop ( pg ) g
number of concerns with the proposed amendments, including the foll,~wing:
1. Medium density product type already exists;
2. Can achieve private yards in Medium Density;
3. Loss of units and fairness ol~ Net Density;
4. Limit market demand flexibility;
5. Limited impact/application of policies; and
6. Need market study to verify market demands
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that :he City Council not approve the
proposed GPA, SPA and Fallon Village Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment. Please refer to
Attachment 3 (pages 7-14) for a discussion of the Planning Commission concerns.
Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session -August 'l9, 2008
The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint Study Session on August 19, 2008, to discuss
the proposed land use designations, gross vs. net density requireme~rts, and usable yard requirements.
The Study Session Staff Report (attachment 3 pgs 1-14) included three policy alternatives for
consideration by the City Council. 'Che City Council directed Staff ~:o proceed with Alternative A and
prepare a GPA, SPA, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment :o create the following:
1. Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designatioc~s;
2. Minimum 15' rear yard setback requirements units with priv<<te rear yards; and
3. Minimum 20' rear yard setback requirements for 1 in 5 units with private rear yards.
The following is a discussion of the proposed GPA, SPA, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan
Amendment for the Croak and Jordan properties. The Planning Commission is requested to review the
proposed amendments and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the adoption of the
proposed GPA, SPA and PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment.
ANALYSIS:
Proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density Designations
Land Use Designations
Staff prepared the following definitions for proposed new Mediurl-Low Density and Medium-Mid
Density land use designations on the Croak and Jordan properties:
Residential: Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 units per net reside~ttial acre).
Units in this density range will be detached, zero-lot line, duple:{, and/or townhouse developments
suitable for family living with private flat usable outdoor yard areas that accommodate leisurely
activities typically associated v~•ith a residence. Unit types and densities may be similar or varied.
Assumed household size is two persons per unit.
Residential: Medium-Mid Density .(10.1-14 units net residenti~.l acre).
This density range allows det:~ched, zero-lot line, duplex tov~~nhouse, and/or garden apartment
developments suitable for family living with private flat usable outdoor yard areas that
accommodate leisurely activities typically associated with a residence or usable common areas (tot
lot, picnic area, swimming pool areas, etc.) that accommodate recreational and leisurely activities.
Unit types and densities may tie similar or varied. Assumed Household size is two persons per
unit."
Page 3 of 7
i~~~~
Location of Proposed Land Uses
The existing Medium Density sites on the Croak and Jordan
properties would be equally divided into Medium-Low and
Medium-Mid Density as shown on Map 2 (to the right). The
proposed land uses maintain the transition from the more intense
High Density Residential and Mixeci Use at the core of the Fallon
Village Center to the less intense Low Density Residential uses that
surround the Village Center.
Development at the midpoint of the proposed density range would
result in the same number of units (104 units on Croak and 234 units
on Jordan) anticipated for the existing Medium Density that was
studied in the Fallon Village SEIR and would maintain the existing ~
jobs/housing balance. (Please refer to the October 16, 2007 City
Council Staff Report Tables 2, 3 and 4 included in Attachment 3 ~~n
pgs 40, 44 and 46). The units would simply be redistributed across the
proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density designations
and no additional environmental review would be required.
Conclusion -Land Use Designations
The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations ensure that a variety of different
housing types are constructed on the Croak and Jordan properties (i. ~. detached and attached housing}.
The Medium-Low Density designation also ensures that the homes have private yards. However, the
land use designations do not guarantee the size of these private yards. Therefore, the proposed PD Stage
1 Development Plan Amendment (discussed below) includes minimum rear yard setback requirements
to ensure that the private yards are la~•ge enough to be usable.
Rear Yard Setback Requirements
The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designation; permit a variety of attached and
detached product types as discussed above. The Medium-Low Density designation requires each unit to
include a private usable yard. The IViedium-Mid Density designation allows either a private usable yard
for each unit or shared common area;.
The properties in the EDSP have Planned Development (PD) zonin„ with development standards that
are tailored to each development. l'D zoning with customized development standards is intended to
provide greater flexibility and creativity than traditional zoning. The Croak and Jordan properties are
subject to the Fallon Village PD Stage 1 Development Plan which includes development standards. The
proposed PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment (Attachment 2, Exhibit A) would modify the
existing development standards to require the following rear yard sett~ack requirements for the proposed
Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations as directed by the City Council at the August 19,
2008 Study Session:
^ Minimum 15' flat usable rear yard setback for attached and detached units with private yards;
and
^ Minimum 20' flat usable rear yard setback for 1 out of every 5 attached and detached units with
private yards.
Examples of what could occur in a 15'-20' rear yard include children's play equipment, a patio with
table and chairs, a garden, or a hot tub. The proposed Stage 1 PD Am ~ndment includes a revised Stage 1
PD Site Plan showing the location ~~f the land uses, and the 15'-20' rear yard setback requirement as
described above. Please refer to Exhibit A of Attachment 2 for the proposed Stage 1 PD Amendments.
Page 4 of 7
Map 2 -Proposed
Land Use Designations
~~3~ ~~.~
In accordance with the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, a PD Stage 2 Development Plan is required before
development can occur on the Croak and Jordan properties. The stage 2 PD will include additional
development standards for the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Dens ty designations that are tailored to
the proposed development and that i~icorporate the required I S'-20' rear yard setback as required by the
Stage 1 Development Plan.
Conclusion -Private Yard Requirements
The proposed 15'-20' flat usable rear yard setback requirement for the proposed Medium-Low and
Medium-Mid Densities would apply to attached and detached units that include private rear yards. The
proposed setback requirements are provided to ensure that the private yards Medium-Low and Medium-
Mid Densities are large enough to ~iccommodate leisurely activities that typically occur in rear yards.
The PD zoning with customized development standards will continw~ to allow flexibility and creativity
while providing a minimum rear yard setback.
CONCLUSION:
The City Council has the authority t~~ modify General Plan and Spec: fic Plan Land Use Designations at
any time. On April 3, 2007, and with further direction on October l 6, 2007 and August 19, 2008, the
City Council directed Staff to prepare a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to
replace the existing Medium Density (6.1-14 du/acre) portion of the Croak and Jordan properties with
Medium-Low (6.1-10 dulacre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 di~acre) land use designations. The
City Council further directed Staff to prepare a PD Rezone with ame Zded Stage 1 Development Plan to
include rear yard setback requiremenrts for the proposed Medium-Lo,v and Medium-Mid Density. The
proposed amendments to the General Plan, EDSP, and PD Stage 1 De velopment Plan will implement the
City Council direction and ensure a variety of housing types with private usable rear yards.
Planning Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council
on this project as noted above. However, should the Planning ~~ommission determine that these
amendments have policy implicati~~ns that are unique the Commission may, pursuant to Section
8.96.020.C.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, transfer its hearing jurisdiction to the City Council. Section
8.96.020.C.3, "Referral to City Council," states that "At any point in the project review process the
Planning Commission may transfer original hearing jurisdiction to the City Council at its discretion
because of policy implications, unique or unusual circumstances, ~~r the magnitude of the project."
Should the Planning Commission so desire to transfer the original hearing jurisdiction, Staff has
included a Resolution (Attachment S:1 that sets forth those unique poli~;y implications.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project has been reviewed under the California Environmental ~~uality Act (CEQA), State CEQA
Guidelines and the Dublin Environmental Guidelines. On December 6, 2005, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 222-OS certifying a Supplemental Environmenl"il Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH
#2005062010) to the Eastern Dubli~i EIR, a program EIR, initially certified by the City of Dublin in
1993 (SCH#91103064) and the Eastf;rn Dublin Property Owners SEIR (SCH # 2001052114) certified in
2002 by Resolution 40-02 for the Fallon Village project. The prior 1_:IRs are available for review in the
Community Development Department. The proposed project is within the scope of the SEIR for the
Fallon Village project area because the project does not result in incr~;ased units or density beyond what
was previously studied for the subject properties, and therefore no <<dditional environmental review is
required.
Page 5 of 7
RECOMMENDATION:
f ~~ ~i~
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public
Hearing; 3) Receive public testimony; 4) Close the Public Hearing acid deliberate; and either, 5) Adopt
the following resolutions: a) Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending that the City Council adopt a
Resolution amending the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the
existing Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties to Medium-Low and
Medium-Mid Density designations; and b) Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending that the City
Council adopt an Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1
Development Plan for the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid density de~:ignations on the Croak and Jordan
properties OR c) Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 5) transferring original hearing jurisdiction to the
City Council because of the unique policy implication oi' these proposed amendments.
Page 6 of 7
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNERS:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN/SPF;CIFIC
PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS:
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
~~~~/~9
City of Dublin
Francis Croak
12b2 Gabriel Court
San Leandro, CA 94' 77
Jordan Ranch LLC
5000 Hopyard Road, Ste. 170
Pleasanton, CA 9458 3
APN 985-0027-007,'105-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002
PD -Medium Densit•~ Residential
Medium Density Res .dential (6.1-14 du/acre)
The project has begin reviewed under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA
Guidelines and the Dublin Environmental Guidelines.
On December 6, ?005, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 2~.2-OS certifying a Supplemental
Environmental Irr pact Report (SEIR) (SCH
#2005062010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR, a program EIR,
initially certified by the City of Dublin in 1993
(SCH#91103064) acid .the Eastern Dublin Property
Owners SEIR (SCH # 2001052114) certified in 2002 by
Resolution 40-02 for the Fallon Village project. The
prior EIRs are available for review in the Community
Development Department. The proposed project is
within the scope of~ the SEIR for the Fallon Village
project area because the project does not result in
increased units or density beyond what was previously
studied for the subject properties, and therefore no
additional environmental review is required.
Page 7 of 7
DRAFT DRAFT
«~~1~9
,:~~
~_ Planning Commiss-~on Minutes
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday,
September 9, 2008, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub
called the meeting to order at 7:05p.m.
Present: Chair Schaub; Vice Chair Tomlinson; Commissioners Wehrenberg and Biddle; Mary Jo
Wilson, Planning Manager; Jeff Baker, Senior Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary.
Absent: Commissioners King
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg, seconded by Cm.
Tomlinson the minutes of the August 26,.2008 meeting were approved.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS -
8.1 PA 07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density (Legislative Action): General Plan
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and Fallon Village PD -Stage 1
Development Plan Amendment to change the existing Medium Density portion of
the Croak and Jordan properties to Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid
Density land use designations with minimum rear yard setback requirements.
Jeff Baker, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Chair Schaub suggested to Mr. Baker that he change the wording regarding the alternatives to
make it clearer. Mr. Baker agreed to review the wording.
Cm. Biddle mentioned the medium-low and medium-mid density designation assumes a
household size of 2 persons/unit and asked what impact would that have on the product type.
Mr. Baker answered none. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager answered it is an assumed
average. Chair Schaub asked why not use the standard household size. Cm. Wehrenberg
agreed and mentioned the standard is 3.2 persons/household.
103
Attachment 6
~~
7
DRAFT ~ /~ " D FT I
Mr. Baker stated the 3.2 persons per household is standard used for single family and estate
residential which are larger products and an assumed larger household but for the medium and
medium high density the average in the General Plan is 2 persons per household.
Chair Schaub asked what the zoning designations are for the properties adjacent to the Croak
and Jordan properties. Mr. Baker pointed out the different densities in the Fallon Village area
on the map.
Chair Schaub stated if the Council chooses to require the 15' rear yard setback in the medium-
mid designation, and if they choose the other options how would that be achieved.
Mr. Baker stated that a portion of the property is required to be medium-low and they would be
required to have a minimum 15' rear yard setback. He continued the medium-mid allows for a
variety of product types so they may or may not have a private yard. If there were private
yards then they would need to meet the setback requirements, if no private yards then a
common area would be required. There are no development standards for the common yard
area.
Chair Schaub asked if the developer decides to provide only common areas and no yards, how
would Staff determine the adequate size of the yard. He stated there is no policy regarding the
minimum yard size and asked how we would determine the alternative to these yards.
Ms. Wilson answered it would be through the Stage 2 PD process where standards would be
defined that would define the square footage allowances for the common space.
Chair Schaub felt the alternatives were too vague and wanted to ensure that it was clear to the
City Council what the tradeoffs would be. Mr. Baker stated one of the alternatives suggested at
the Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session on August 19, 2008 was for a
standard size for open space or common area but it was not part of the direction received from
the City Council at that meeting.
Cm. Tomlinson stated in the Staff Report and the proposed Ordinance it stated "flat usable rear
yards." He understood the property is not level and felt the actual setbacks could be greater
than required by trying to accommodate the topography but there could be a potential
reduction in units if there is a 15' rear yard setback requirement and the lots are not all flat. He
felt the way the proposed Ordinance was written the lots had to be flat.
Mr. Baker answered a typical requirement in most PDs is for a flat usable yard area and agreed
that requirement would impact the land plan.
Chair Schaub commented a retaining wall could be done. Ms. Wilson stated they could grade
and modify the topography also.
Cm. Tomlinson stated retaining .walls can be expensive but they were a good way to transition
from lot to lot but they could also cause a loss of at least 1 foot from each of the lots.
104
DRAFT J ~DRT~ ~ "
Cm. Biddle stated the ordinance does not address front or side setbacks and felt that would give
more flexibility.
Chair Schaub commented Staff needs to ensure that when replacing the medium-low and
medium-mid designations in the Specific Plan it is pointed out that these zoning designations
are for these two unique properties only. He stated this is necessary because there are other
medium density projects in the EDSP area that are already entitled. He also mentioned that
most documents, EIR's, Specific Plans, etc. are on the City of Dublin website and can be
accessed for the most up-to-date information.
Chair Schaub asked if the total units differ in the Specific Plan and the General Plan which
would take precedence. Ms. Wilson answered the General Plan is the highest level policy
document and the EDSP has more specific data for the plan area and that the two documents
must be reviewed together.
Chair Schaub commented that the Planning Commission has been through a lot of issues, and is
aware that the City Council wants these amendments to be approved. He felt the issue at the
meeting was to discuss the implications of approving the amendments.
Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Chair Schaub and mentioned that in the Study Session minutes
one of the developers wanted to offer examples of possible site plans.
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing.
Kevin Fryer, Jordan Ranch representative spoke regarding the project. He showed an example
of a product type. He stated the developers share the same concerns as the Council and stated
they have tried to provide a variety of housing types within the medium density designation.
He stated the difficulty of providing. those housing types and the unintended consequences of
making such decisions without knowing the .property could be a problem. He showed a
residential cluster product with a courtyard cluster and courtyards on either side. He stated
typically in between the units would be a paseo to access their front doors through the middle
of the courtyard. He commented there are always four houses in this cluster product. He
continued this product would put the pedestrian access into the courtyard and the middle area
would be four private rear yards. He stated this product takes the area typically dedicated to
the paseo or common area and divides it between all 4 units and creates 20'X25' fenced off
private yards. He stated each unit would have an approximately 500 square foot private rear
yard.
Chair Schaub asked what the unit per acre on the slide is. Mr. Fryer answered it is 10 to 11 units
per acre on a flat site and would be considered amedium-mid or medium-low product.
Mr. Fryer stated the rear yard setback requirement creates a definite lack of flexibility. He felt
the product on the screen was the best he could present to the Commission that would, within
the requirements of medium-low, still provide the rear yard requirement. He felt this was the
best product they could provide and felt the next level of products will have drawbacks.
105
DRAFT f DRAT I
Chair Schaub felt the site plan Mr. Fryer was proposing would not work because there is no
way to draw the setbacks according to current requirements. Mr. Fryer thought the details of
how the setback requirement is defined will be important.
Chair Schaub felt it would be confusing to draw setbacks for irregular lots or a house that wraps
around and still meet the City Council's preference.
Mr. Fryer stated this site plan shows the largest rear yard he has seen of a product for a medium
density. He stated they would most likely place the product along the open space edge of the
property and then run the pedestrian trail along that edge instead of hiding the trail behind
someone's yard. He continued it would be an inviting feature with front doors where the
pedestrian access is.
Chair Schaub asked how large the rear yards are. Mr. Fryer answered the average minimum
yard size 20'X24'. He felt this product is within the spirit of what the City Council is trying to
provide. He was concerned the product could fail because by this example the private yard
area is not in the rear yard area.
Cm. Tomlinson asked the size of the lots. Mr. Fryer answered they are approximately 4,000
square foot lots.
Chair Schaub asked what percentage of the land is usable. Mr. Fryer answered 70% usable on
the flat site. He felt the concern is the northern portion of the medium density section of the
property has 3.4 acres of totally unusable hillside. He stated on a map it appears to be part of
the 23.4 acres of medium density, but in reality it is over 30 % sloped hill. He continued that if
they bifurcate medium density and create amedium-low area that is 11.5 acres, there are 3.4
acres which are totally unusable and that leaves 8.3 acres and they must deliver 94 units to
reach that density. He stated it is the topography of the property that is making it difficult to
deliver the product. He stated the developers are in support of the lower unit count and alright
with the large private yards within the medium-low density area and felt this was the product
that they will bring forward. He stated the product does not currently meet the low end of the
medium-low density range and felt that netting out the 3.4 acres of unusable land would help
them.
Chair Schaub asked how many units they would be short. Mr. Fryer answered they anticipated
to be short by 38 units.
Chair Schaub mentioned- the plans are written at midpoint and if they come in below midpoint
the City will loose potential fees and tax income.
Mr. Fryer stated because of the 3.4 acres of unusable land and its topography, to get to the
midpoint on the, site there would have to be a very dense product and that product would not
provide the minimum yard required within medium-low. He suggested putting something in
the language that excludes those 3.4 acres from the density calculation for the Jordan site. He
felt that if they could exclude those unusable acres they could come forward with this product
on the medium-low area and have 20'X24' yards on all these units.
106
/~o -~~
DRAFT DRAF
Chair Schaub stated that if the City wanted this type of product they would have to change the
way setbacks are drawn now which is 16 feet from the back of the house to the lot line.
Cm. Tomlinson suggested the Commission could leave the rules in tact.
Chair Schaub commented there should be flexibility in the Zoning Ordinance for edge
properties where you cannot draw a rectangle lot.
Ms. Wilson stated there are provisions in the Zoning Ordinance for a wide variety of lot shapes
that can be designed and if there is a triangular lot that comes to a point at the rear yard there is
a process for calculating the setback as defined in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Fryer felt with a real plan and knowing the spirit of what is trying to be achieved it may
impact the Council regarding the stringent nature of the language and suggested building some
flexibility into the code so the Council can allow for the spirit of the requirements.
There was a discussion regarding side setbacks, zero lot lines and the property lines for alley
loaded units, and how to define front setbacks.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the layout of the houses on the streets and the width of the streets
would impact emergency vehicle access.
Mr. Fryer answered the streets will comply with City standards as drawn.
Pat Croak, property owner and Dublin resident spoke regarding the project. He felt the
amendment was not a good idea. Mr. Croak stated there will be the same problems on his
property that Mr. Fryer spoke of for the Jordan property. He felt the unintended consequences
which would result from trying to meet rigid requirements without flexibility would make it
harder for him to develop his property. He agreed with Ms. Wilson that the stage 2 PD process
would handle most issues and asked for the maximum amount of flexibility while still meeting
the spirit of the requirements.
Jeff Lawrence, Braddock and Logan spoke regarding the project. Mr. Lawrence gave a brief
history of his project. He stated that through the process of approving the EDPO properties the
result was approximately 3,100 residential units with range of densities and a variety of product
types. He stated that by reducing the lot sizes they will loose density, the lots and fees are
expensive and the fees could go up. He asked that -the Planning Commission review the
original entitlements for these properties which show that a range of densities already exists.
He was also concerned about the topography of the Croak and Jordan properties.
Chair Schaub presented slides to the Planning Commission, Staff and attendees. He felt that
under the proposed amendment, at medium-low 6-10du/acre, the setback/yard requirement
would be possible. He felt the realities of the two densities under the proposed amendment are;
the medium-low density designation at 6-10du/acre where a 16 foot rear yard setback is
possible; but the medium-mid density designation at 10-14du/acre it would not be possible to
107
i~li~
DRAFT DRA
meet the required setbacks. He stated that if the medium-mid can only be built at 10du/acre
the developer would loose 34 units. He stated if the developers build at the new density
designation, they could loose 100 units. He also expressed concerns related to the potential loss
of infrastructure funds and City fees and the annual tax base.
Chair Schaub also stated concern with achieving well designed product types. He felt the idea
was to increase the variety of product but felt that Dublin has a huge variety of products
currently. He was concerned about the kinds of developments that could be built with the new
restrictions and that some of the current projects could not have been built. He stated that if the
Commission recommends the amendment they will remove the medium-medium out of the
medium density designation because it would be unbuildable. He felt the developers would
build at the maximum of the medium-low at 10du/acre and they can t build at 11du/acre
because the house cannot be built with the standard requirements. He stated they would be
basically building at the midpoint, which is okay. He felt that by approving the amendment
they have effectively made the midpoint 10du/acre and they cannot build above the midpoint
and didri t think anyone would build below the midpoint.
Chair Schaub was concerned with the outcome if the amendment is approved.
Jeff Lawrence stated if the intent of the Council is to have larger rear yards he suggested instead
of dealing with a specific density area, during the PD or SDR process require a percentage of
yards to have a minimum usable rear yard area or impose a percentage within the development.
Chair Schaub asked if Mr. Lawrence was proposing that the City leave the current regulations
in tact and require a certain percentage of the development for the medium density area.
Mr. Lawrence responded yes.
Chair Schaub closed the public hearing.
Cm. Biddle felt there were still a lot of flexibility in the area with the placement of the house,
side and front setbacks, as well as flexibility in storage and parking. He felt the proposed
amendment has enough flexibility.
Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Mr. Lawrence regarding why not just improvise with what is
now required in the medium density designation. She stated she is okay with what is proposed,
but she also wants to know what kind of flexibility we will give the developers when reviewing
the unusable portions and felt that not every house will meet every requirement. She continued
there might be too much specificity in the new zoning which could put too much restriction on
the developers. She understood the Planning Commission does not look at economics, but only
findings and felt the Commission could make the findings. She stated she would approve the
amendment but would want the City Council to be aware of the information Chair Schaub
has brought forth at this meeting.
Chair Schaub stated the Commission has never looked at fiscal implications of a project but it is
within the Commission's responsibility.
108
DRAFT
~~~~ ~6~
Cm. Wehrenberg felt it was not the Planning Commission's role and responsibility but is the
City Council's responsibility.
Cm. Tomlinson stated he had been concerned about this amendment since it was first proposed
and with the. information Chair Schaub presented today he was even more concerned. He felt
whenever zoning is divided into smaller and smaller areas it reduces the flexibility of the
overall project. He stated Chair Schaub's presentation showed how the amendment would take
away from the flexibility that the Planning Commission is trying to achieve. He felt the
proposed amendment would achieve the opposite of what the Council wanted which was a
variety of housing types and homes with larger private rear yards. He felt it would not provide
a variety of housing types but provide similar housing types. He liked the product type that
Mr. Fryer presented but felt it would not fit on the property. He stated also the property is not
flat and has 3.4 acres of unusable land. He continued that looking at the overall scale of Dublin
Ranch with its 1,000 acres and then creating new zoning designations for two small properties
who unfortunately do not have their entitlements in place, thereby reducing their zoning of the
property, and a lot of the costs of infrastructure, etc. would increase those fees that the
developer would normally try to keep down. He felt there were problems with the
fundamental fairness of the amendment. He stated there were comments at the Study Session
that housing within the east area of Dublin is very similar. He felt that was not true, that there
is a variety of product types, i.e., apartments, single family homes, and condominiums in that
area. He felt the difference between the east and west side of Dublin is that the east side does
not have mature trees yet so you can see all the housing but it will look different in a few years.
He felt the site plan that was presented would create more usable yard space than a 15 foot flat
rear yard. Cm. Tomlinson stated he will not support the amendment. He felt there are plenty
of rules that allow for flexibility already in place.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked why they wouldri t look at the simple approach, requiring a certain
number of lots to be larger with rear yards instead of changing the zoning.
Mr. Baker answered that the Council, at the Study Session, included direction to have 1 in 5
homes achieve a 20 ft rear yard as opposed to a 15 ft rear yard which requires 20% of the
development to have 20 ft rear yards.
Chair Schaub stated he does not support the amendment. He felt the amendment reduces the
type of product that can be built and the flexibility of design. He understood what the Council
is trying to do and suggested allowing some flexibility with the higher medium-mid density.
He felt that as the zoning areas are divided into smaller and smaller areas the product ends up
being a box. He felt the City did not want 3 story houses with a small footprint. He felt what
the Council wants to do is good but does not think more restrictions is the way to accomplish it.
Cm. Biddle commented they are very early in the process and have only seen one example if
what could be done.
Cm. Tomlinson felt the key part of the rule is the rear yard setback to achieve usable rear yards,
the Council felt that if the setback was 15'-20' and the problem is the unintended consequences
109
_~ r
DRAFT DRAF 16
various other product types that dori t meet the definition and but have a better solution for a
larger yard. He stated the Commission could make the direction submit your project under the
current rules but we'll be looking for some kind of usable rear yard.
Chair Schaub stated the Commission and Staff have put many hours and work into this project
and suggested the Comrnission defer the decision to the Council and not vote on it.
Cm. Tomlinson did not agree and felt the proposal deserves a vote.
Cm. Biddle agreed with Cm. Tomlinson and was not in favor of deferring the decision.
Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Tomlinson but looking at the findings she would approve
the amendment as proposed.
On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 2-2-1 with Cm.
King absent, the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council to adopt the
proposed modifications to the General Plan and Stage 1 PD of Fallon Village:
Ms. Wilson stated if their vote results in a tie it ultimately defeats the motion and unless there is
a subsequent motion that passes the item, the result is to not recommend the proposed
modification to the General Plan and Stage 1 PD for Fallon Village to the City Council for
adoption.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Commission recommends the amendment to the City Council
could the information that was received at this meeting, which was compelling information to
deny it, be included for their decision.
Cm. Tomlinson mentioned that the City Council will still hear the motion even though the
Planning Commission denied it.
Chair Schaub stated the information that he brought to the meeting would be included in the
minutes of this meeting.
Ms. Wilson stated the information will be given to the City Council as an attachment to the Staff
Report.
Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned that the Chair Schaub's information should be included in the
presentation to the City Council not just included in the minutes as an attachment.
Chair Schaub stated he would like to review the minutes of this meeting before they went to the
City Council. Ms. Wilson explained that the minutes are prepared for the City Council by
Friday following the meeting.
Chair Schaub stated that the Planning Commission is not recommending the amendment
unless there is a motion to change something in the amendment that would change the
Planning Commission vote and that would need to be a revision.
110
DRAFT
/DR~AFT~~~ ~I~
Cm. Biddle felt it was broad enough language and would not change it.
Ms. Wilson stated that the Council will receive the minutes of this meeting and can take the
discussion into consideration.
RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 22
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY
OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN TO CHANGE THE
EXISTING MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE CROAK AND JORDAN
PROPERTIES TO MEDIUM-LOW AND MEDIUM-MID DENSITY DESIGNATIONS
(APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002)
PA 07-056
RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 23
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PD-
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH AMENDED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
THE MEDIUM-LOW AND MEDIUM-MID DENSITY DESIGNATIONS
ON THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES
(APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002)
PA 07-056
NEW OR UNFINIS D BUSINESS -NONE
OTHER BUSINESS - NO
10.1 Brief INFORMATION LY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff,
including Committee Repor and Reports by the Planning Commission related to
meetings attended at City Expen (AB 1234).
111
~65~~~~
RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 22
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN TO CHANGE
THE EXISTING MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE CROAK AND
JORDAN PROPERTIES TO MEDIUM-LOW AND MEDIUM-MID DENSITY DESIGNATIONS
(APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002)
PA 07-056
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2007, the City Council initiated a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (EDSPA) Study to create Medium-Low and Medium-Mid
Density land use designations for the existing Medium-Density portion of the Croak and Jordan
properties, which are generally located north of the future Central Parkway extension, east of Croak Road
and within the 1,134-acre Fallon Village project area (APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-
0002-002); and
WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan was originally adopted on February 11, 1985, and has been
amended a number of times since that date; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report for the original General Plan was prepared and
adopted in 1984 and subsequent environmental reviews have been undertaken in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the various General Plan Amendments which have
been approved over the years; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan on
January 7, 1994 and, both plans have been amended a number of times since that date, to provide a
comprehensive planning framework for future development of the eastern Dublin area; and
WHEREAS, in connection with the adoption of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168, the City certified a Program
Environmental Impact Report ("Program EIR") (SCH No. 91103064) which was integral to the planning
process and examined the direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts, broad policy alternatives and
area-wide mitigation measures for development within eastern Dublin and is incorporated herein by
reference; and
WHEREAS, in connection with the annexation and prezoning of the East Dublin Property
Owners (EDPO) Area, which includes the Croak and Jordan properties, into the City of Dublin, the City
Council certified a Supplemental EIR (SCH No. 2001052114) by Resolution No. 40-02 which adopted
supplemental mitigation measures, mitigation findings, a statement of overriding consideration and a
mitigation monitoring program, all of which continue to apply to the project area; and
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005 the City Council adopted a General Plan Amendment and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for the Fallon Village project area, which includes the Croak
and Jordan properties by Resolution No. 223-05, which is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005, the City Council also adopted Resolution No. 222-OS
certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH #2005062010) to the Eastern
Attachment 7
~~6 ~ ~6g
Dublin EIR .and the Supplemental EIR for the Eastern Dublin Property Owners (EDPO) which is
incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan identifies land use designations, densities, policies related to
density calculations, and includes a General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 1-la) which shows the location
of land uses within the City of Dublin and the Sphere of Influence; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use section of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan currently includes text
related to Specific Plan Land Use Designations and the "Land Use Map" map (Figure 4.1) indicates the
location of land uses within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the California CEQA
Guidelines require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental
documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, because the project does not result in an increased number of units or density
beyond what was previously studied for the Croak and Jordan properties the proposed project is within
the scope of the Fallon Village SEIR and no additional environmental review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public
hearing on said project on September 9, 2008; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted, and incorporated herein by reference, recommending
that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of a General Plan Amendment
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations
and testimony herein above set forth, including prior EIRs, and used its independent judgment to evaluate
the project; and
WHEREAS, a motion was put forth recommending that the City Council approve the proposed
GPA and EDSPA and said motion received a 2-2-1 vote; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure and Section
2.12.040 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Chairman-Rules-Records-Meetings), a tie vote ultimately
defeats the motion and results in its denial unless a subsequent motion is passed, and
WHEREAS, a subsequent motion was not presented and therefore the Planning Commission
does not recommend that the City Council approve the proposed GPA and EDSPA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and
made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, based on the findings listed in
the attached draft City Council Resolution, could not recommend that the City Council adopt the
Resolution attached as Exhibit A, which Resolution would approve a General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment for the existing Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties
which includes the following as described in the attached Resolution:
1) Define the proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density land use designations;
2
~~? ~. /~~
2) Amend the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 1-la) and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Land Use Map (Figure 4.1); and
3) Amend other text and tables in the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of September 2008 by the following vote:
AYES: Wehrenberg, Biddle
NOES: Schaub, Tomlinson
ABSENT: King
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
Planning Commission Chair
G:\PA#\2007\07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density\Planning Commission\9.9.08\PC Reso MD GPA SPA Denial.DOC
3
i6~(~~~g
RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 23
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PD-
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH AMENDED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE MEDIUM-LOW AND MEDIUM-MID DENSITY DESIGNATIONS
ON THE CROAK AND 30RDAN PROPERTIES
(APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002)
PA 07-056
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2007, the City Council initiated a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) Study to create Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density
land use designations for the existing Medium-Density portion of the Croak and 3ordan properties which
are generally located north of the future Central Parkway extension, east of Croak Road and within the
1,134-acre Fallon Village project area (APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002); and
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2005, the City Council approved a PD rezoning and related Stage
1 Development Plan for the Fallon Village project area, which includes the Croak and Jordan properties
(PA 04-040) (Ordinance 32-OS) and which is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, PD Zoning districts are required to be consistent with all elements of the General
Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State CEQA
Guidelines require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental
documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 222-OS certifying a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH #2005062010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR, a
program EIR, initially certified by the City of Dublin in 1993 (SCH#91103064) and the Eastern Dublin
Property Owners SEIR (SCH # 2001052114) certified in 2002 by Resolution 40-02 for the Fallon Village
project; and
WHEREAS, the prior EIRs are available for review in the Community Development Department
and herein incorporated by reference. The proposed project is within the scope of the SEIR for the Fallon
Village project area because the project does not result in increased units or density beyond what was
previously studied for the subject properties, and therefore no additional environmental review is
required; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public
hearing on said project on September 9, 2008; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
and
ATTACHMENT 8
~6`~ /~,9
..
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations
and testimony herein above set forth, including the prior EIRs, and used its independent judgment to
evaluate the project.
WHEREAS, a motion was put forth recommending that the City Council approve the proposed
PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and said motion received a 2-2-1 vote; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure and Section
2.12.040 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Chairman-Rules-Records-Meetings), a tie vote ultimately
defeats the motion and results in its denial unless a subsequent motion is passed, and
WHEREAS, a subsequent motion was not presented and therefore the Planning Commission
does not recommend that the City Council approve the proposed PD Stage 1 Development Plan
Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and
made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, could not recommend the
findings in the attached draft Ordinance, and therefore recommends that the City Council not approve the
Ordinance attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, which Ordinance would approve a
PD rezoning including the following related amendments to the Stage 1 Development Plan for the Croak
and Jordan properties as described in the attached Ordinance:
1) A revised Stage 1 Site Plan with the Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density
designations for the Croak and Jordan properties; and
2) Development standards for rear yard setbacks to create flat usable private rear yards in the
Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of September 2008 by the following vote:
AYES: Wehrenberg, Biddle
NOES: Schaub, Tomlinson
ABSENT: King
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Community Development Director
Planning Commission Chair
G:\PA#\2007\07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density\Planning Commission\9.9.08\PC Reso MD Stage 1 PD Amd Denial.DOC
2