Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.2 PubSemiPubFacGPEDSPA CI'TY CLERK File # 4 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCTL PlEETTNG DATE: Plarch 2003 SUBJECT: PA 02-017, Public/Semi-Public Facilities General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Task Force c~{/' Report Prepared by: Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner ATTACHMENT: 1. Agenda Statement, City Council Meeting of February 18, 2003 2. Minutes, City Council Meeting of February 18, 2003 RECOMMENDATION: ~ ,-,/1. Receive Staff Report; 2. Deliberate; and 3. Authorize formation of Public/Semi-Public Facilities Task Force, as described below. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No financial impacts. DESCRIPTION: On May 21, 2002, City Council approved the initiation of a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Study to examine the need for Public/Semi-Public Facilities and, if appropriate, to increase the areas available for Public/Semi-Public Facilities in new development. At the City Council meeting of February 18, 2003, the Council heard the results of Staff's Amendment Study and voted to support the formation of a Public/Semi-Public Facilities Task Force (Facilities Task Force). The purpose of the Facilities Task Force would be to bring together people in the community who may have need for community services and facilities, those groups who provide community services, and interested property owners. The Facilities Task Force would review the Amendment Study and make a recommendation to the City Council as to the level of need in the community and/or possible changes to City policy or plans. Time Period Staff is recommending that the Task Force be appointed for a period of one year. A one-year time period is felt to be necessary due in part to the addition of new projects that have been identified as high priorities by the City Council. City Staff will return to City Council with a status report no later than six (6) months after the formation of the Task Force. Composition of the Task Force Based on City Council deliberations on February 18, 2003, Staff will advertise the formation of the Task Force in the local newspaper and accept applications from interested residents, community group representatives and property owners. The ultimate make-up of the Task Force would depend on the level COPIES TO: In-House Distribution ITEM NO. ~Z of response to the advertisement. Staff recommends that the following persons be included in the Task Force: - One or more members of the City Council - One of more members of the Planning Commission - A representative of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce - Interested Dublin Residents - Interested Community Groups - Interested Property Owners - City Staff Number of Members of the Task Force Staff recommends that a minimum of seven (7) members be appointed to the Task Force. Staff does not recommend a maximum limit. The size of the Task Force may be large due to the different types of community facilities possible under the PSPF designation and the diversity of the Dublin community. This number of appointees will allow for interested members of the community to participate. Selection of a Task Force Staff recommends that an advertisement listing the types of members who should apply be placed in the newspaper. Interested persons would be asked to complete an application and the applications would be forwarded to the Mayor. The Mayor would then appoint the Task Force from those who applied and the City Council would confirm the appointments. It is anticipated that the Task Force will meet five (5) to ten (10) times on the Public/Semi-Public Facilities Amendment Study. The first meeting would take place shortly after the Task Force is appointed. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive the Staff report, deliberate, and authorize the formation of the Public/Semi-Public Facility Task Force, as described in this Agenda Statement. CTTY CLERK AG'ENDA STATEMENT. CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 18t 200 SUBJECT: PA 02-017, Public/Semi-Public Facilities General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Study Status Report Report prepared by': Jeri Ram, Planning Manager and Pierce ~ Macdonald, Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS' t. Public/semi-Public Facilities General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Study RECOIVIMENDATION: 1. Receive staff report and public testimony A %F'~ 2. Question Staff and the public 3. Give Staff direction on: a. Whether any of the akemat/ves (Alternatives 1 - 5) listed in the Study should be refined and implemented; b. V~rhether Alternative 6.- the formation ora Task Force to make a recommendation on a new policy 'should be implemented; or -. c. Whether the City Council has other direction they would like Staff to pursue FINANCIAL sTATEMENT: None at this time. .DESCRIPTION: · Backgroun& In March 2002 the City Council adopted the FY2002-2003 Goals and Objectives. The Goals and Objectives contained a new higtx priority goal to develop a policy and/or Ordinance to a~commodate more community facilities in the City. On May 21, 2002, City Council approved the initiation ora General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Study to exam/ne the need for Public/Semi-Public Facilities (PSPF) and, if appropriate, to increase the areas available for ?SPF in new development. In general, PSPF are public buildings, such as schooIs', government buildings and libraries, and semi- public buildings, such as reli~ous institutions, clubhouses and meeting hails. In developing the attached Public/Semi Public Facil/ties General Plan and Specific Plan Study (the Study), Staff identified uses, such COPIES TO: · in-House Distribution as religious institutions, clubhouses, and meeting halls, that were not studied in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) and Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (EDGPA). The Study [Attachment' 1'] describes these uses in greater detail than other land uses. The Study is summarized below. The Stud),: The work program for preparing the Study included: Review existing documents and policies to document what were the existing regulations relating to the issue. Consultation with experts in the field of Urban Planning, including academic institutions and 'research foundations. , Research of the policies for Public/Semi-Public Facilities in other jurisdictions in Cal_/fornia. · Review of Dublin's existing pattern of development, furore trends, and the regulatory and market conditions of current development. Existing Documents and Policies Pubhc/Senu-Public The City's current policies.on the provision of Community Facilities, of which" ' ' Facilities" is one type, are hnplemented through the General Plan, specific plans, zoning ordinance and planned development (PD) zoning districts in the City. While the General Plan and specific plans provide a vision for the City, the zoning ordinance and PD zoning districts provide the regulations on whether a use is a permitted, conditionally permitted or prohibited. The Study describes how public and semi-public land uses are implemented at the present time in the City w/thin the context of all Community Facilities. General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan The General Plan provides specific Policies for the Primary Planning Area and the Eastern Extended Planning Area, which were generally div/ded~by D0ugherty Road. The Community Facilities Land Use. Designation in the General Plan includes land uses such- as government.buildings, religious institutions and schools and Parks/Recreation facilities. In general, the Land Use Classification for Public/Semi- Public sites in.central Dublin (referred to as the Primary Planning Area in the Study - the area west of- Dougherty Road) identifies existing facilities, not planned facilities. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan currently designates 97.8 acres of land for Public/Semi-Public Facilities. in the Spec/fie Plan, there are provisions for public uses, such as police stations, fire stations, utilities, post offices, and a library. Although there are no written goals, policies or action programs for semi-public uses, the Summary for COmmunity Services and Fac/tities, Section 3~7, states the intent of the Specific Plan as follows: "Planning for community services is informed by three general objectives: 1) the provision of communSty services will proceed concurrently with development; 2) development w/Il not lead to an overburdening of existing services or municipal finances; and 3) current service standards Will be maintained or improved." Zoning Ordinance and PD Zoning Districts The City of Dubtin Zoning Ordinance provides for public and semi-public uses through the category of "Community Facility". Community Facilities are allowed in all zoning districts in central Dublin with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. 2 In the area of Dublin covered by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Community Facilities are allowed with Conditional Use Permits in most planned development districts (ail development in the Specific Plan Area are developed through planned development districts). Consultation with Ex£erts in Field of Urban Planning Staff found that the need for Public Facilities, such as City office buildings, County facilities, fire stations and post offices, may be anticipated as a population grows. The experts contacted by Staffdid not have a standard or rule that could be used to anticipate the future needs for Semi-Public Facilities. The consensus of opinion was that the need for non-governmental services was dependent on the character of an individual community. Consultation with Other Jurisdictions in California In addition, Staff found that most cities in California did not have policies to plan for the need for Public/Semi-Public Facilities. However, one city, Chula Vista, had established "Community Purpose Facility" zoning regulations for their planned community districts. Under Chula Vista's regulations, a total of 1.39 acres of net usable land per population of 1,000 must be designated Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) in any planned community. Community Purpose Facility is described below: "Community Purpose Facility" means a structure or site for childcare, certain nonprofit assembly or recreation purposes, as well as ancillary uses such as a parking lot, within a planned community. Typical uses include Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and other similar organizations; social and human services such as Alcoholics Anonymous, services for homeless, services for military personnel during the holidays, senior or childcare and recreation, and worship, spiritual growth and development and teaching of traditional family values; and recreational ball fields." The Chula Vista CPF regulations have since changed to include some interim uses and some HOA facilities subject to specific standards, as of January 28, 2003. Methodology Based on the policy direction in relation to the provision of Community Services and Facilities in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, quoted above, Staff determined that the best way to begin a discussion about Dublin's future needs was to review Dublin's existing services. Staff prepared an inventory of the existing Semi-Public Facilities, as defined in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, in central Dublin. Staff categorized the predominant type of non-governmental, Semi-Public Facility in central Dublin (the Primary Planning Area) as "Places of Assembly." Religious institutions, meeting halls, a performing arts theatre, and similar uses were included in the Places of Assembly category. Staff's research indicated that based on the City's population as of January 1, 2002, the City of Dublin had 1.19 acres of land for Semi-Public Facilities per population of 1,000. Under this possible benchmark, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area would need 32.24 additional useable acres 'of land designated Public/Semi-Public Facilities to serve semi-public uses. Lastly, the Study found that the discussion of the City's needs for Semi-Public Facilities should acknowledge the different regulatory and market conditions under which property owners currently must build, as compared to the historic growth of the City of Dublin. 3 Alternatives for Policy Development: The Study reviewed five different directions that the City could take. The advantages and disadvantages of the different alternatives are described in a chart included in the Study [Technical Appendix 4]. The alternatives are summarized below: 1. No Change Alternative. This alternative would result in no changes to the EDSP and General Plan at this point in time. This would allow the development of Community Facilities similar to the method that they developed in central Dublin. As noted above, in central Dublin, these uses are generally allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in all zoning districts. In the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area, within the planned development zoning districts they are generally allowed in all areas with a Conditional Use Permit. This alternative would not require any action by City Council or any Staff time to implement. 2. Add Places of Assembly as a Land Use Category. This alternative would result in amending the EDSP and General Plan to define Places of Assembly within Public/Semi-Public Facilities designation and describe the qualities of Places of Assembly uses and facilities. These could include parcel sizes, use types, appropriate locations, and other features. This alternative would include adding a policy to encourage Places of Assembly in buffer areas between residential and commercial districts, in commercial districts and in mixed-use districts. The policy could function in a manner similar to the City's public art policy. The Dublin Public Art Policy, Resolution 121- 97, states "City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City of Dublin to encourage the design of development projects to include creative visual artwork into public buildings and public spaces of the community." In a similar manner, Staff would work with each developer to implement the provisions of the Places of Assembly Policy to locate sites within proposed projects. A list of proposed Places of Assembly types is included in the Study [Technical Appendix 5]. Staff estimates that this alternative wouM require between four and six months of additional staff time and public input. 3. Re-Designate School Sites. The Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) has indicated that there may be an excess of 81.6 acres of School land in the EDSP/GPA area based on current student projections. This alternative wOuld amend the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to provide policies so that a School site would have underlying Public/Semi-Public Facilities land use, if it is determined to be unnecessary for use by DUSD. Th/s alternative would also clarify the intent of the Schools classification regarding private schools. Staff estimates that this alternative would require between six and eight months of additional staff time and public input. 4. City-Initiated Land Use Map Amendment. This alternative would increase the acreage of land designated for Public/Semi-Public Facilities at appropriate locations in the EDSP/GPA with a City-initiated General Plan Amendment. Some lands are currently subject to development agreements. A map of properties under existing and expired development agreements is included in the appendix of the Study [Technical Appendix 3]. With City Council direction, City Staff would convene a task force to determine the appropriate amount of land needed for PSPF to serve new development, the best locations for the facilities, and the equitable share of PSPF designated land among the involved property owners. City Staffwould facilitate meetings with interested members of the public and property owners. City Staffwould conduct the appropriate level of environmental review. Staff estimates that this alternative would require between twelve and eighteen months of additional staff time and public input. 5. Developer-Initiated Land Use Map Amendment. This alternative would establish a policy to provide for increased acreage designated for Public/Semi-Public Facilities use whenever a developer-initiated General Plan Amendment application is submitted to the City. Staffwould assist City Council to develop criteria for total acreage, location requirements, types of uses, design standards and performance standards. Acreage could be allotted by the property owner's percentage share of the projected population growth. According to the Study, central Dublin provides 1.19 acres of land per 1,000 residents. The City Council may determine that a different proportion of land to population is more appropriate to new development based on the different regulatory and market conditions in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Staff estimates that this alternative would require approximately 6 months to develop the policy and implementation would require additional staff time and public input on an ongoing, case-by-case basis. Public Review: Staff notified interested parties of the availability of this Study and encouraged their comments. Additionally, Staffmet with several members of the development community to discuss the Study, findings and alternatives. Comments from the development community concentrated primarily on the assumptions that were made in the Study. The assumptions are important in that they form the basis for the data collection of the Study as well as the ultimate basis for the findings. Unfortunately, since there are no industry standards on how to measure need for this type of use, one could modify the assumptions in many ways that would ultimately change the data in the needs analysis. Members of the development community also expressed the following additional concerns (Staff's comments, if appropriate, follow in italics): · The Study's review of central Dublin's public semi-public acreages and the assumption that the same per capita acreages could be applied to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area are unsubstantiated. As discussed above, the calculations of central Dublin's public and semi-public uses are intended to provide base information that can be used to begin a dialog on the issue. If the City Council desires to choose one of the alternatives that utilize an acreage per population basis, the Council has the ability to determine any standard that they find is appropriate. o It is possible that the need for these types of uses could be met by existing City and existing regional facilities, and this Study did not provide a way of measuring this possibility. Staff does not believe that there is a way of measuring this possibility. There is no industry standard for the various uses. Staff's decision to apply existing conditions to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area was based on the policy in the Specific Plan noted above, and the assumption that the City culture would continue to develop in a similar fashion if sites are provided. · That there was no survey conducted of public/semi-public types of uses to see if those organizations believed there was a need for more locations. Staff did not believe that this type of survey would be a measure of demand. It is likely that there are organizations that wouM like to locate in Dublin. Therefore, the survey wouM not measure those who cannot locate in Dublin due to lack of space available or other reasons. · Pre-existing requirements and/or goals of various governmental agencies have already restricted the net usable acreage for many landowners. Staff agrees this is an issue and discusses it in the Study. · Many public and semi-public uses are not necessarily compatible with residential uses. For this reason most zoning districts subject these types of uses to conditional use permits. This traditional approach to the implementation of public/semi-public uses seems to balance market demand/conditions with public need and public sensitivity to certain public/semi-public facilities. No response. · If the City determines to rezone sites for Public/Semi-Public Facilities it should also perform a fiscal analysis to ensure that the rezoning of the sites will not compromise the fiscal feasibility of the Specific Plan Area. The alternatives identified do not include how the final policy will be developed. Staff would have a fiscal analysis performed if this were an issue with the selected alternative. Various concems were expressed regarding the alternatives. It was suggested that the alternatives were not fully described or analyzed as to how policies would be written and/or implemented. No response. New Alternative (Alternative No. 6): While meeting with the various members of the development community it was suggested that it might be appropriate to form a task force comprised of members of the development community, Staff and two'City Council members to work on solutions or a policy that would accomplish City Council goals, as well as consider the development community's concerns. Therefore, Staffis proposing that this alternative be added as Alternative No. 6. This Alternative would extend the time period before a policy could be developed; however, it would provide an opportunity to explore other development issues that may not have been identified in the Study and work out a solution that would be acceptable to the City and the development community. Conclusion: The attached Study methodology was based on policies in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan under Community Facilities. There are no industry standards for preparing such a Study. The Study suggests that one way of determining need in the Specific Plan Area is to use base information from central Dublin. If the City Council desires to select an alternative that uses an acreage to population ratio for development of a policy, the Council may develop any standard that they find is appropriate. Staffhas suggested several alternatives within the Study. Additionally, as a result of meetings with the · development community, a new alternative is also suggested. While this new alternative may extend the period of time before a policy is implemented, the resulting policy may be more acceptable to the City and the development community. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive the staff report and public testimony, question staff and the public and give Staff direction on: (1) Whether any of the alternatives (Alternatives 1 - 5) listed in the Study should be refined and implemented; (2) Whether Alternative 6 - the formation of a Task Force to make a recommendation on a new policy should be implemented; or (3) Whether the City Council has other direction they would like Staff to pursue. ACCEPTANCE OF WORK - MURRAY SCHOOL BELL TOWER 7:29 p.m. 7.1 (600-30) Parks & Facilities Development Coordinator Rosemary Alex advised that information on this project had been brought forward Friday afternoon and Staff therefore requested that the item be continued to the next City Council meeting. PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC FACILITIES GENERAL PLAN AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY STATUS REPORT PA 02 ~0 t 7 7:$0 p.m. 7.2 (420-30) Planning Manager Jeri Ram presented the Staff Report. This item is for the City Council to review the Public/Semi-Public Facilities (PSPD General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Study and review possible alternatives for implementation of a new policy. In general PSPF are public buildings, such as schools, government buildings and libraries, and semi-public buildings, such as religious institutions, clubhouses and meeting hails. The Study reviewed 5 different directions that the City could take. Alternatives include: 1) No Change Alternative; 2) Add Places of Assembly as a Land Use Category; 3) Re-Designate School Sites; 4) City-Initiated Land Use Map Amendment; and 5) Developer-Initiated Land Use Map Amendment. Alternative 6 - while meeting with the various members of the development community, it was suggested that it might be appropriate to form a task force comprised of members of the development community, Staff and two Councilmembers to work on solutions or a policy that would accomplish City Council goals, as well as consider the development community's concerns. This alternative would extend the time period before a policy could be developed; however, it would provide an opportunity to explore other development issues that may not have been identified in the Study and work out a solution that would be acceptable to the City and the development community. The Dublin Unified School District has advised that there may be excess land in eastern Dublin of 81 acres. Mayor Lockhart stated she appreciated the study, which was very helpful in looking at the entire issue. Cm. Zika asked if we are using Chula Vista's definition or the one listed on page 2. Chula Vista seems to include school sites, but ours do ~sn't. Ms. Ram stated schools have been excluded. We are aot using Chula Vista's definition. Cm. Zika asked where the 81 acres are specifically le 'ated? Ms. Ram stated part of a high school site, which turn, d into a middle school, and 2 elementary school sites, all in eastern Dublin. Mayor Lockhart stated she felt there is a lot of inner-' ~lay between the School District and developers on School District properties. Cm. Zika asked if anybody went out and talked to th~ religious leaders in the community and asked if they plan to expand or about their futur, plans. Ms. Ram stated no, but mentioned that Staff is workia g with Valley Christian Center on an expansion plan in the near future. It varies from religion to religion or sect to sect, plus there are new groups forming all the time opening up in industrial areas. This is very difficult to track. / Mayor Lockhart stated she likes alternative ¢ (task force) to bring together people in the community who have needs, those providing the service, and those who have land. We may find it is not needed, but there will be an opportunity to learn about the various services. She hates to overburden Staff, but if we tackle this, we need to have all the players involved. The report opens up the thinkkng process on PSPF uses and their value in our community. Cm. McCormick stated she also likes alternative ¢. We are lacking community input and we are feeling this right now. She asked if it will really take a year? Ms. Ram stated Staff can bring it back and get it going as soon as they can and then bring a progress report back in 4~¢ months. Cm. Sbranti stated he felt we need to make sure we do it right and talk to non-profits, religious groups, boys and girls clubs, etc. This is a high priority as the east develops. He stated he supports alternative 6. City Manager Ambrose suggested the City COuncil provide more direction on what the committee will look like. Getting the players identified will be a substantial task. CiTY C©'UNC~L MINUTES VOLiJME 22 REGULAR MEETING Mayor Lockhart suggested the Council provide information to Staff, so it can be agendized at the next meeting. Mr. Ambrose questioned where this will fit in the priority list. Martin Inderbitzen, Koll Center Parkway, Pleasanton stated what he is hearing is that there is no really easily identified standard On how to approach this issue. This has been before the City Council before and he stated he did not feel there is a problem that needs to be fixed, but how do we define a mechanism to deal with this in land use. Most of the uses are dealt with through the CUP process. His first choice would be alternative 1. They recognize this is not where the City wants to go. In the context of Dublin Ranch when they did the GPA and major revisions to town center, they addressed this by putting in a $ acre PSPF use and in addition, they've added a public site with the fire station. They're also working on area F north to identify a site appropriate for PSPF uses. If direction is to go with task force, he can support this, but east Dublin will never get built if they have to defer to more task forces. Request Staff to bring pending applications before the City Council to identify if uses are appropriate. They need ability to continue to move projects forward. He stated he hopes we can do both at the same time. Mayor Lockhart stated we have been doing this. She felt the task force would find out if it is or isn't meeting the needs. This will protect both sides of the issue to determine needs. We shouldn't use this issue to slow a project down. Cm. Sbranti agreed. If a project is moving forward, we don't want to hinder it for 6 months. He asked if we go with alternative I, understanding CUPs are allowed, how much are planned right now within the eastern plans? Ms. Ram most of the PD zones allow it with CUPs, but you have to have appropriate sites. Cm. Zika commented we currently have a lot of churches right in the middle of residential zones. We don't know whether or not there is the need right now. Cm. Oravetz stated with doing alternative 6, we are still doing alternative 1. We don't want the task force to go on forever. He would like to see the task force meet 'twice in the next month and come back with a decision. It doesn't have to be a big list of people. Mayor Lockhart stated she wouldn't want to box Staff into one month. We're probably talking about people who aren't even here yet. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 22 REGULAR MEETING Febrm~~' ~.8~ 20~3 PAGE 7~. Cm. Zika relayed a saying, "decide in haste, repent at leisure" and stated he would not want to see this happen. Mayor Lockhart suggested they look to putting the task force together and go ahead with alternative 1. Advertise for task force and they can meet on a regular basis. Mayor Lockhart then suggested direction be given to Staff to come back with how we might implement a task force at some time in the future. On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Cm. Oravetz, and by unanimous vote, the Council supported alternative 6. Mr. Ambrose clarified that this is with the understanding that Staff will continue to process and bring applications forward, and the developer takes the risk of whether the PSPF may be enlarged by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council. REPORT ON GRAND OPENING ACTIVITIES FOR NEW DUBLIN PUBLIC LIBRARY 8:05 p.m. 7.3 (940-50) Heritage & Cultural Arts Supervisor Theresa Yvonne presented the Staff Report. The City Council reviewed detailed plans for two grand opening events for the new Dublin Library. The first is the preview party and fundraiser planned by the Alameda County Library Foundation and the second is the Grand Opening Celebration planned by the City of Dublin and the Alameda County Library Staff. The City allocated $10,000 for opening day ceremonies. Lara White, with the Library Foundation, discussed the preview party to be held the Thursday evening before the grand opening. Staff will return to the City Council on March 4th with possible dates for completion of construction and suggested possible dates for both events. Cm. McCormick stated she serves on the committee, and they are doing a fine job. This will be a good party. CiTY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING Februa~; ~$~ 2@8.3