Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.2 Vlg Parkway Pilot Parkingor 19 82 /ii � 111 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL May 15, 2012 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Joni Pattillo, City Manager""' Village Parkway Pilot Parking Program Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: CITY CLERK File #570 -20 Since the adoption of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan in February 2011, City Staff have been working to implement the goals and policies of both the Specific Plan and the subsequent recommendations of the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Technical Assistance Panel report. One of the recommendations from the ULI report was to incentivize more commercial businesses in the downtown by having greater flexibility in regulatory standards such as the City's parking requirements. The City Council will provide direction to Staff on testing a parking reduction pilot program in a portion of the Village Parkway District for a period of three years. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council provide Staff with direction on whether or not to amend the Zoning Ordinance to temporarily suspend the parking standards in a portion of the Village Parkway District for a limited term of three years. r �?14 Submitted By Reviewed By Director of Community Development Assistant City Manager DESCRIPTION: The overarching goal of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) is "to create a vibrant, dynamic commercial and mixed -use center that provides a wide array of opportunities for shopping, services, dining, working, living, and entertainment in a pedestrian - friendly and aesthetically pleasing setting that attracts both local and regional residents." The DDSP established three distinct districts, each including its own set of design standards tailored to the envisioned uses. The Transit - Oriented District embraces the West Dublin Page 1 of 4 ITEM NO. 8.2 BART station and is the district where a vast majority of the new residential development in Dublin is envisioned to take place. The Retail District includes much of the existing retail core and aims to stimulate infill development and redevelopment of aging buildings and large parking areas. The Village Parkway District embraces the existing successful service and retail uses along a "Main Street" corridor, and this district has the most potential to reutilize and re- tenant existing buildings with more intense uses such as restaurants, service retail, and other local - serving businesses. Background Since before Dublin's incorporation in 1982, the Village Parkway District has been home to many locally -owned businesses. Several of the property owners along Village Parkway have owned their properties for many years. Through the years, these owners have expressed an interest in being able to utilize the existing buildings more intensely. In many cases, more intense uses are restricted by the amount of parking available on the subject parcel and whether or not the new user can meet the parking requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Some property owners have suggested that the Village Parkway District cannot achieve greater vibrancy and intensity with the City's current parking standards. This suggestion is supported by the reality that those uses which add vitality to an area — restaurants, bars, entertainment, retail establishments — would not have sufficient parking on most parcels along Village Parkway due to the existing building and development patterns in place. In accordance with Section 8.72 (Off Street Parking and Loading), the parking requirements for these uses are as follows: Sit Down Restaurant: 1 parking space per 100 square feet of floor area accessible to customers plus 1 parking space per 300 square feet of floor area not accessible to customers. Specialty Restaurant: 1 per 200 square feet Bar: 1 per 100 square feet General Retail: 1 per 300 square feet Entertainment Uses: Parking requirements vary from 1 per 100 square feet for comedy or night clubs to parking based on a per seat basis for theaters. Existing Conditions A parking analysis completed in 2010 in conjunction with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan identified 1,395 off - street parking spaces in the entire Village Parkway District. This district contains approximately 373,652 square feet of building area, which equates to roughly 1 parking space for every 268 square feet of building area. This average includes uses that require less parking, such as warehouse (1 space per 1,000 square feet) as well as uses that require more parking, such as commercial schools (1 space per 50 square feet of instructional area). Parking in downtown commercial districts In downtown areas throughout the Bay Area, cities have taken varying approaches to deal with the requirement to provide off - street parking. On- street parking is also commonplace. Some cities, including Pleasanton, have moved to a market -based approach that allows buildings in the downtown to change uses and complete small additions without requiring additional parking. Dublin has traditionally had sufficient parking in the downtown to meet the parking requirements outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. As properties in the downtown districts intensify, the ULI Page 2 of 4 study (Attachment 1) recommended examining whether the traditional parking requirements should continue to apply in all cases. There appear to be property owners in Downtown who support a market -based approach to parking instead of a regulatory approach. Under a market -based approach, the DDSP would continue to regulate the use types, but parking requirements of the use types would not be a consideration. Under this approach, parking supply and demand would be managed by the property owners and tenants, and not regulated by the City. It would become the responsibility of the property owners, property managers, and businesses to lease tenant spaces to the right combination of users to ensure that there is sufficient parking to serve the businesses and their customers. Proposed Pilot Program A pilot program to test a market -based approach for parking is one way of testing the concept to see if it could be successful in Downtown Dublin as a whole. Staff has discussed the pilot program concept with two property owners on Village Parkway who have experienced limitations on their ability to lease their property due to the City's parking requirements. The area to test a proposed market -based parking reduction pilot program is shown on Figure 1 below. Figure 1 The address range of the proposed study area is all of the even numbers between 7016 and 7150 Village Parkway. The 4.3 -acre area consists of four properties owned by two owners. Each building has multiple tenant spaces that house a variety of uses including retail, indoor recreation, bar /restaurant, auto repair and service, warehouse, and personal service. There is a total of 76,160 square feet of building area and 160 parking spaces spread throughout the properties. Staff believes that this section of Village Parkway would be an interesting location to test a pilot market -based parking program for several reasons: i . i ne bumaings on these properties are located close to the street, which makes them good candidates for more active uses. 2. There is on- street parking in front of these buildings that could be utilized by customers. 3. The four parcels are fairly self- contained. If the pilot program leads to more intensive parking demands, it is expected that there would be limited spillover parking onto other Village Parkway properties. Qage a 0F4 4. The property owners have expressed a willingness to try a market -based approach. If the City Council would like Staff to pursue a pilot market -based parking program for these four parcels on Village Parkway, Staff would: 1. Prepare amendments to Chapter 8.72 (Off Street Parking and Loading) of the Zoning Ordinance to temporarily waive the parking requirements on the parcels noted above during the pilot program; 2. Meet with the two property owners to review the proposed amendments and program details; 3. Send a notice to all property owners and businesses within the Village Parkway District notifying them of the pilot program and seeking their input on the concept; 4. Prepare the appropriate environmental review; 5. Send out Public Hearing Notices to all property owners and businesses within the Village Parkway District and within 300 feet of the District; and 6. Prepare Staff Reports for the Planning Commission and City Council. It is estimated that Staff would spend approximately 40 hours on research, meetings, and preparing the necessary documents and outreach materials. The City Attorney is estimated to spend approximately 8 hours on the project. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH: Public notices are not required on items where the City Council is providing feedback or direction. Staff met with the two affected property owners and they expressed support for the pilot program described in this Staff Report. Notification of the meeting and a copy of the Staff Report was provided to the two subject property owners. Future public hearings on this topic will be noticed in accordance with State Law. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Urban Land Institute Technical Assistance Panel Report, July 2011 Page 4 of 4 Urban Land I nsfif ufe MT(IWN D U L I Technical Assistance Panel Ally 2011 About ULI's Technical Assistance Panels ULI San Francisco Technical Assistance Panel Program (known as "TAP ") is an extension of the national Urban Land Institute (ULI) Advisory Services Panel Program. ULI's Advisory Services Panels provide strategic advice to clients (public agencies and nonprofit organizations) on complex land use and real estate development issues. The program links clients to the knowledge and experience of ULI and its membership. Established in 1947, the Advisory Services Program has completed over 500 panels in 47 states, 12 countries, and on 4 continents. The Advisory Services Program has been successful due to its comprehensive, pragmatic approach to solving land use challenges. Each panel team is composed of highly qualified professionals who volunteer their time to ULI. They are chosen for their knowledge of the panel topic and screened to ensure their objectivity. ULI's interdisciplinary panel teams provide a holistic look at development problems. A respected ULI member who has previous panel experience chairs each panel. Local San Francisco Bay Area TAPs are held over the course of two days in the client's community. A detailed briefing book is given to each TAP participant prior to the day of the TAP. The TAP begins with a tour of the study area either by bus and on foot.. is followed by a briefing by the client and others, and then transitions into private interviews and panel discussion regarding the client's issues and questions. At the end of the TAP, the panel provides a Power Point presentation to the client and invited guests summarizing the panel's observations and recommendations. Within ten weeks, a final written report is delivered to the client. The final report presents highlights of the panel's independent review and contains a diverse set of ideas and suggestions that may or may not ultimately make sense for the community for which it was prepared. About ULI The Urban Land Institute's mission is to provide leadership in the responsible use of land and in creating and sustaining thriving communities worldwide. Founded in 1936, the ULl is a non- profit organization of land -use professionals with 27,000 members in 95 countries (www.uli.org), including 1.800 in the greater San Francisco District Council (www.ulisf.org). ULI San Francisco serves the greater Bay Area with pragmatic land use expertise and education. Team Assignment and Process The City of Dublin, using their recently passed Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (Specific Plan) as a guide, aims to improve the vitality of their downtown. The panel was asked how to prioritize the execution of the Specific Plan. The TAP process consisted of a day of site tours, stakeholder interviews, a panel discussion, and a presentation the foliowing morning. Site Context The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area is bounded generally by Village Parkway on the east, Amador Valley Boulevard on the north, San Ramon Road on the west, and Interstate 580 on the south. The Specific Plan is an aggregate of all or a major portion of five existing plans: San Ramon Road Specific Plan, Dublin Downtown Plan, Downtown Core Specific Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and the Village Parkway Specific Plan. Collectively, these plans are zoned for the additional development of nearly 3.2 million square feet of non - residential development. 740 dwelling units, and 150 hotel rooms. Since 2000, when a majority of these plans were adopted, 258,734 square feet of non - residential development and 54 residential units have been constructed. In addition, 617 mufti- family residential units have been entitled and 309 of the units are currently under construction. This Specific Plan focuses on strengthening the development standards and design guidelines and providing greater direction as to future land uses, creating three distinct districts in the Plan — Transit - Oriented District, Retail District and Village Parkway District. Most of the attention has been directed to the Transit - Oriented District south of Dublin Boulevard. Specifically, transit - oriented developments are encouraged within walking distance of the recently opened West Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station.. At present, Downtown Dublin largely functions as a regional retail area comprised of a number of large- forrnat "power centers" with ancillary smaller specialty retail sales and services. These retailers (such as Target, Ross, and Marshalls) represent a unique niche in the regional marketplace and attract patrons from the entire Tri- Valley region which includes the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, San Ramon, and Danville. The Specific Plan encourages new development and improvements to existing developments to create a more walkable, urban environment and to enhance the City's tax base. Proposed New Development Several new projects are either under construction or have been entitled in the Specific Plan Area. The most significant development is the opening of the West Dublin /Pleasanton BART Station. The station is located within the median of Interstate 580, with pedestrian access north and south over both sections of the freeway. By 2013, the project is projected to accommodate 8,600 users per day. Within the City of Dublin, a 713 -space parking garage has been constructed at the southern terminus of Golden Gate Drive for BART commuters. As part of the BART project, a joint development project with a 150 -room hotel and 7.500 square feet of retail space has been planned (Stage I Development Plan), in addition to the 309 multi - family residential units (Essex) which are under construction west of Golden Gate Drive. Adjacent to and west of the BART station project is an existing 225,500 square feet one -story warehouse facility (the Prologis site, formerly AMB). This property has been entitled for development of 308 multi - family residential dwelling units and a 150,000 square feet office building. Associated with these developments, St. Patrick Way will be extended, providing a vehicular .and pedestrian connection between Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street. Other various residential, office and mixed -use developments have been conceptually discussed with the City of Dublin, but no formal applications have been submitted. The Vision The goal of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan is: Downtown Dublin will be a vibrant and dynamic commercial and mixed -use center that provides a wide array of opportunities for shopping, services, dining, working, living and entertainment in a pedestrian - friendly and aesthetically pleasing setting that attracts both local and regional residents. r ltiGENo SpatllG PIQn 8oundory Oty Limit Line It 3lW of PWCA (ACM) ,rt r 0.01.0.25 0.26-0.50 0.51 - 1.U0 y 1.01 _100 'r:. .`, fx• ^; - 201 - 5.00 5.01. 10.50 Parcel Size and Building Footprint — Downtown Dublin Specific Plan TAP City of Meaaanion Stakeholder Interviews The immediate area has a number of institutional stakeholders and individual property owners. Due to the time constraints of this process, individual resident stakeholders were not consulted by the TAP, but local retail experts and property owners were interviewed. Stakeholders engaged by the TAP: • Councilmember Don Biddle • Mike Costa, Terranomics • John Eudy, Essex Development • Mayor Tim Sbranti, City of Dublin • Michael Schafer, Burlington Coat Factory • Felicia Studstill, Mayfield Gentry, Dublin Place • Sandra Weck, Colliers Issues to Be Explored The panel was asked a series of questions by the City of Dublin during the process that helped to guide the analysis and final recommendations. The City posed four specific issues for the panel to address: 1. Identify ways to spend Community Benefit Program in -lieu funds to attract business and customers. 2. Prioritize physical improvements necessary to make Downtown Dublin vibrant (attract business and retail) and pedestrian friendly. 3. Evaluate the current mix of retailers in Downtown Dublin and provide suggestions on retail categories that will improve the vitality of the downtown. 4, Evaluate emerging technology trends to determine whether the use of technology will further enhance the Downtown Dublin area (eg WiFi, apps, etc) 1. Identify ways to spend Community Benefit Program (CBP) in -lieu funds to attract business and customers. g Currently, the CBP is structured to apply to development that is in excess of the permitted amount. The panel suggested the City consider application of the program to all development, including development in East Dublin. The funds could be best invested on catalytic projects preferably within the TOD subarea first. While a movie theater would be a good nighttime use, it is very expensive to construct, and the panel suggested that the funds could help incentivize a theater or other entertainment venue perhaps through the subsidy of development costs. Another good use of funds would be a downtown park or outdoor event space located on or adjacent to Golden Gate Drive as it leads to BART. Funds could also be used to subsidize small tenant improvement through grants or loans. Lastly, CBP funds could help clean up store fronts and facade improvements. ilk .. �a TAP on site 2. Prioritize physical improvements necessary to make Downtown Dublin vibrant (attract business and retail) and pedestrian friendly. The City should explore how to create a community activation point downtown in addition to the existing senior center, preferably in partnership with Chabot -Las Positas College, a major downtown Rand owner. The community center could be funded using park and recreation fees and may be a joint venture opportunity with Chabot -Las Positas College. i 41[ b 'F (9 -'�; 12 Z.s Z S too F_.Q . Potential Configurations for Dublin Blvd. Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Friendly Design 1 A06 r —O.w Ic' nkE-U t� I Cr is b.V tis o 2- 7C t2' • Tr-i� L. 4P�rlk�S �2, • DtiR CTl4tJ o � X l0� T�1,1C'C` �� Stil4- 'C��F2.�TCCAJ a 3. Evaluate the current mix of retailers in Downtown Dublin and provide suggestions on retail categories that will improve the vitality of the downtown. The panel recognizes that the current big box retailers are valuable to the City. At the same time there are a lot of opportunities to create variety with regards to the size of retailers. Similar to what was done with the REI, Sprouts and Elephant Bar parcels, integration of large format and smaller scale retail would provide more variation. The panel recommends bringing in an economic firm or retail broker to conduct a detailed gap analysis or, at minimum, explore potential entertainment and dining uses. 4. Evaluate emerging technology trends to determine whether the use of technology will further enhance the Downtown Dublin area (eg WiFit apps, etc). The panel supports implementing free WiFi in the downtown. The panel also feels that the City should introduce a requirement that developers of new projects implement a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) reducing minimum parking requirements and traffic congestion. Aspects of the TDMP should include City Carshare or Zipcar (with development incentives or reduced parking requirements granted to projects incorporating such car - sharing programs ), electronic vehicle preferred parking and charging stations, and potentially BART ticket and Clipper card validation at the point of sale at various local retailers. Mobile smart phone applications similar to "DashMob" or "Punchd" could also help drive traffic to local retailers. These mobile technologies will help supplement and could be synced with the existing upgraded electronic signage for Tri- Valley Transit bus and BART services that shows real time transit information. West Oubfin /Pleasanton BART Strengths, 'Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats Strengths The Specific Plan demonstrates the City's awareness of the implementation issues that need to be tackled. The panel was particularly encouraged by the fact that the City recognizes that accommodating traffic should not drive the planning exercise. A willingness to tolerate congestion is key to being able to realize the vision of a vibrant downtown. The Specific Plan area is conveniently located immediately adjacent to the intersection of two major freeways, 1.580 and 1 -680. The planning area also benefits from proximity to the newly built West Dublin / Pleasanton BART Station. The planning area benefits from strong demographics both from an income and education standpoint. Furthermore, the City's budget is in relatively good shape and there is a strong set of existing tenants in the downtown area. The re- tenanting that has come out of the recession further demonstrates that the area has retail strength. The panel did not perceive resistance from citizens in the immediate area to what the City is trying to accomplish. Opportunities Opportunities abound in response to these challenges. The City benefits from a fairly open landscape with a lot of property owners and few buildings. While the abundance of parking is part of the retail area's success, some of this "sea of parking" has the potential for development into new structures (some of which may contain parking as mentioned in the Specific Plan). Several opportunities for public- private partnerships with various principals are currently at play. The panel suggests that the area near the West Dublin BART Station has the most immediate potential for development, in contrast to the rest of downtown, such as the Village Parkway area. Weaknesses One of the major implementation challenges of the Specific Plan is that it includes multiple property owners with different motivations. Furthermore, the Specific Plan covers a large and more diverse area than a traditional downtown, meaning a single set of strategies cannot be applied to the entire area. The creation of districts within the downtown that have their distinct character will be beneficial in the long run. While there may be a desire to see transformative change in the area, garnering city -wide buy -in to the notion of public investment as a catalyst may be challenging. The challenge of the Community Benefit Program is timing. If the program is relied on to fund some of the key improvements that need to take place it may take too long or never happen because the money won't come in until development is well underway. The challenge remains: How can desired new development get underway without the required infrastructure? If there is a sincere city -wide desire to see transformative change it requires utilizing public resources to get it going, including consideration of the appropriate use of debt to finance up -front infrastructure. Lastly, this is an infill area and how it is approached from a development standpoint is very different from the greenfield development that has occurred on the east side of Dublin. Threats The Specific Plan calls for fiscal self - sufficiency„ requiring a different approach to public finance, specifically one that includes up -front public investment and a closer look at some of the available tools including debt financing, which the City has historically been averse too. The panel also believes that there is a need for more collaborative engagement with developers. City -wide support to invest in the Downtown may be problematic given the perceived east and west division. Finally, real estate capital markets are currently fragile. While there is financing for multifamily and other projects, that window of opportunity may close soon so there is an impetus to act now. Strengths ^ PiuQ1esiwe Specific Plan ~ NaouQnihun that traffic should not Uouconstraint on market opportunities ~ city awu|enA implementation issues ~ Great location "A1 the intersection of two freeways ~ Two BART stations ~ Krundimnte conditions in downtown are conducive tn recreation and nuldnaractivities " City m strong financial condition ~ High'imcomm area: sales tax mvenmmand highnieUian konmwhqu�o�nda ~Strong, diverse and long-standing tenants ~ Perceived xo being businems'kend|y ~ Low vacancy ^ No or little resistance to development in the Downtown area Opportunities ^ Low density and oom&opavNoy creates development opportunity sites ^ ManypubUc'pr|vate partnership opportunities ^Accx|emte the 0otentim/fn^TOD District asamapte/m uwsit vIUegawi\h hurizonN[o6xed'uva " BART-oriented moiUantialdavo|upment Interested owners in district Weaknesses • Multiple proper y owners with different motivations • Lack of public funding/investment • Commonity Benefit Program issues • T|muiO� funds build over ��me but mvextmontomneeded uphomi • NoiedovelopmrntaQvnoy • Potential concerns over deploying public resources city- vvide specifically to the downtown area • Multiple and fragmented ownership could pose challenges 10 developing pub|ic-p/ivoto partner ships. inlill development and revitalization of the area Threats ~ City's eUuuanco to issue debt for puNiuimpvovemenm can inhibit redevelopment —o revision Uoth/s policy may Ua required to achieve the visioo ^ City'midn buy-in and financial Support (e.g. fans) may be required to achieve Jmvntonnvision ^ Division between East and West Dublin reflected |n planning effort ~S|mxm capture current mark*topportunities ~Fragi|byofenonomic conditions can impact development opportunities Recommendations After the consideration of the stakeholder questions, SWOT analysis, site tour and interviews, the team identified what they felt were the most pressing issues and resulting recommendations. Many of the panel's ten recommendations focus on improvements needed in the transit - oriented district and uniting the City's vision with the property owners'. Focus on TOD District, especially 4 -5 key parcels as a catalyst The City should take a step further than specific planning and actually bring together the property owners and interested parties to try and generate a coordinated plan for key catalytic properties. These owners include Essex, BART, Chabot -Las Positas and Safeway. The City should play a proactive role in creating a unified' design vision by funding the design plans for these blocks and by helping address how financial implementation will occur. The City will need to go beyond what is spelled out in the Specific Plan to create successful projects that advance the vision for downtown. The panel suggests the City sit down and have some design exercises with the owners of the key parcels to try and paint a shared vision. As part of that, the City may have to think about public investment that goes along with private investment, as well as flexibility from a regulatory standpoint in order to stimulate the private sector's desire to invest. 2. Leverage current opportunities for Public - Private Partnerships The City should continue to work with BART to explore alternative near term uses for the BART hotel /restaurant site as part of a shared vision. BART's focus on a hotel for that site does not match near -term market potential; it would benefit both parties to explore how that parcel can be developed sooner rather than later. The panel also suggests discussing with BART shared use of their parking garage with nighttime uses that activiate the area focused on the upgraded Golden Gate Drive / St. Patrick Way TOD, for example a movie theater. 3. Simultaneously work on redevelopment of Dublin Place The TAP spoke with the manager of the Dublin Place and believe that they have a sincere interest in redeveloping their property. The City should simultaneously be talking with them and offering the same type of collaborative planning effort as would occur elsewhere in the TOD District (see Recommendation #1). -t -74— Q v,.ac$ TOD District Essentials S TOD Distract ESsentaais g Downtown Dublin BART Downtown Dublin Entrance to Dublin Place 4. Explore opportunities for entertainment and civic center to animate public realm and activate night -time activity in TOD District The City should investigate future opportunities to activate the area with additional civic (City, County, other agencies, etc.) and entertainment options. Evaluate partnership options with Chabot -Las Positas College District on the Crown Chevrolet site to create a public plaza /gathering space which could be jointly used. Additionally, if and when the City needs to expand its own footprint, it should consider the downtown first. 5. Focus first on residential and horizontal mixed -use developments, then retail and office The City should focus on residential and horizontal mixed use on Golden Gate Drive and St. Patrick Way to provide more residents to support diversified retail. Current limits on the allowable number of housing units within the TOD area should be removed. The Prologis (formerly AMB) site should be allowed to increase its residential count, with office development, given the surplus of office space along the 680 corridor, being optional or driven by market needs. In the panel's experience, vertical mixed use can be problematic, particularly in the early phases of transforming an area through TOD. Too often 'A-over-l" (4 levels of residential over 1 level of retail or commercial) scenarios maintain their for - lease signs in the windows of the ground floor retail for years. 6. Undertake streetscape redesign for Golden Gate Drive to enhance the pedestrian experience and for calming traffic On Golden Gate Drive allow for one 12' travel lane and bike lanes in each direction, add on- street parallel parking and increase the 4' sidewalks to a 10' minimum. Village Parkway can serve as a pilot project by reducing travel lanes to one -way in each direction and simply re- striping to allow for diagonal parking. 7. Assess downtown public improvement financing strategies More public improvements and public investment are needed on the front end. To do so the City needs to identify and weave together a multiple range of funding sources. Some of these sources may include Assessment Districts or Infrastructure Financing Districts, which may evolve under California law to replace redevelopment project areas. The City has had discussions in the past about Business Improvement Districts but should also explore how to restructure the Community Benefits Plans so those funds are more targeted into the downtown area, including potentially capturing funds from the larger City and then focusing them into downtown. 8. Further reduce fees for targeted uses, especially restaurants, in downtown The City has done a great job reducing fees in the downtown area as an incentive, however even at reduced levels they can be too high and create an impediment for some uses especially restaurants and dining uses. The City should further reduce fees to attract restaurants. q--n- (�) I I Y f tiS � �,� Iti 5111 i l.g h 4 G.oIFSl� �yt6_Y]rzt�C 41l $,mE. Lhr.'�� 1 1t ,2� - z�N.Y�ti_ 1,17i.)i 1�,9+ AiRAtC�ty 7 • 1 �t L➢ �' �,'KL� lJsa€ � ota�°c,.Ztgt, • � - Ltz�+S ,.t+rV -i t bS' Stcet"rrrk+S � 6tiyL 9. Dedicate staff to manage Capital Improvement Plan Redevelopment agencies often implement capital improvements in a very efficient way by identifying capital needs for an entire downtown area and assigning a dedicated project manager to implement the various capital improvements (CI's) within their individual project area. Improvements include streetscape improvements, . undergrounding of utilities, extending trolley lines, !building pedestrian bridges and upgrading infrastructure, making way for future development. The panel recommends the City create a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area and dedicate time and resources, i.e. a project manager potentially housed within the Economic Development Department, to implement the CIP. Once a CIP is approved, this person would function independently from the City's Building and Public Works Department to implement the capital improvement projects within the Specific Plan area. 10. Exempt residential development from CPP payments Exempting residential development downtown from the CBP payments could help further incentivize housing where it is needed most, thereby providing more retail customers within walking distance. �xn3 mv�.>�nd "W�muwws 5 f l 4 I ViIiAC'� t"'u�Y 1C0' Ka.w ti � V.XWFtIC %% - Strap Y Y.. V °1:; $ \K$ t-� grit. tAwq u,n,q .1 a tft�kl t- a Qbl 4 -TwTm ir58t5.3 * lf� stoA Relevant Case Studies Mili,pitas Transit Area Specific Plan The City of Milipitas, CA's Transit Area Specific Plan, adopted in June 2008, is a 437 -acre mixed -use plan area that calls for up to 7,100 new dwelling units and approximately 1 AM square feet of commercial space built over four phases. Phasing will depend on residential market factors. The City staff and their consultant worked extensively with property owners, public agencies, community members and other stakeholders in the area to develop a long -term plan that is visionary and yet grounded in market reality. Two rounds of interviews were held with property owners to ascertain each owner's goals and constraints. Contentious issues, about the allocation of parks and streets across property lines, and the distribution of land uses and densities, were resolved through ongoing discussions. Piper /Montague Subarea The 'Milpitas Transit Area Specific Plan includes an implementation chapter that outlines every capital improvement, the department responsible, the timeframe and the geographic area that benefits from the improvement. Studies were completed to identify all road and utility improvements and public services. Detailed infrastructure plans for sewer, wastewater, storm- water, recycled water and utilities allowed for the preparation of a detailed financing and phasing plan and determination of appropriate impact fees. This implementation strategy ensures funding for capital improvements will be available and provides confidence to the City and property owners that the Specific Plan will be fully implemented. Property owners began to implement the Specific Plan even before it was adopted, suggesting that they had enough confidence to submit project applications. Together, the City and project sponsors were able to identify issues and propose refinements to the Specific Plan. Applicability to Downtown Dublin • Transit - Oriented Development • Property owner buy -in McCdudiess Drive Before and After—Milpitas Transit Area Specific Plan Stati�nn Park Green, San Mateo Adjacent to the hayward Park rail station, Station Park Green is a 12 -acre transit - oriented development with open space, 590 units, 10,000 square feet of office space and 60,000 square feet of commercial/retail. A pedestrian - friendly street grid connects the different uses, much the same way that the intersection of Golden Gate and St. Patrick's could be at the Dublin TDD district. Stakeholders worked closely with the City staff and San Mateo community through public workshops and meetings, ensuring community consensus and timely approvals of the master plan. Applicability to Downtown Dublin Similiar area to site Mixed -use "green" transit- oriented development Participants Panel Chair Ron Golem of BAE Urban Economics specializes in project rttanagemeni for complex assigninenis. 'inciudfnq real estate transaction snppoi t. transit- oriented development. strategic business planning, ;rrrd progran7 development for public purposes. Prior to joining BAE, Ron served as Heal Estate Specialist for the National Park Service, formulating strategies for public /private partnerships and negotiating numerous agreements in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area Ron has also worked for private real estate development companies as an Asset Manager. completing successful negotiations for over 150 commercial leases. He has managed diverse portfolios of all types of commercial properties . totaling in excess of two million square feet. David Cropper. Managing Director. joined TMG Partners in 2000 He has 25 years of direct real estate experience in finance, construction.. and entitlements. He is responsible for TMG Par Inei s' finance and development activities in the greater Bay At ea and is a member of the Inni's Investment Committee. He roost recently directed The Crossing I San Bruno. an award - winning $250 million dollar mixed -use transit- oriented development, as well as 650 Townsend, TMG's mixed -use office and retail project in San Francisco. He has financed over $1 billion of real estate including construction loans, permanent loans. CMBS facilities as well as tax- exempt bond and tax credit structured financings. David Johnson formed Christiana Johnson Architects vjith Richard D. Christiana in 1994 and has been the lead designer for many of the firm's residential and mixed -use projects. including Bridgeview. Oceanview Village. The Potrero. 555 Bartlett. 4th and U, Bryant Place and University Village for the University of California Berkeley. He has developed particular expertise in planning high - density urban infill development featuring housing over retail. Keri Lung Senior Development Consultant for MidPen Housing Corporation, has over 20 years of experience rri the fields of affordable housing. economic development. and Luban planning. Kern has been responsible for strategic acqu srtons and 'business development at MidPen Housing Corporation over the past five years, initiating nine transit - oriented urban infill ;projects vJth over 800 units in construction in San Mateo, Sunnyvale. San Jose. South San Francisco and Alameda County. Keri ':,,as instrumental in helping MidPen win highly competitive tax credits and other scarce public funds, resulting in record grovith for MidPen at a time v4ien most developers are struggling, Patrick O'Keefe is the City Manager for the City of Emeryville. and Executive Director of the Emeryville Redevelopment Agency. He is responsible for the oversight of eight departments including Police. Fire. Public Works, Community Services. Economic Development & Housing. Administrative Services. Planning & Building and City Clerk. Prior to the 2006 appointment as City Manager. he served as the Director of the Emeryville Economic Development and Housing Department since 1995. Mr. O'Keeffe currently oversees a staff of 185 and a 564.4 million annual operating budget, including a $34.4 million annual Redevelopment Agency budget that funds Economic Development and Capital Improvement Plograms. Gerry Tierney. Senior Associate with Perkins + Will. has 30 years of experience in architecture have been focused primarily on housing and other institutional projects that have requried deep expertise in and understanding of regulatory processes and procedures as well as code and entitlement issues, His portfolio features a range of projects that demonstrate innovative. client - focused solutions across varying project types. Gerry brings tlexibility and experience to each new project, creating individual designs tailored to the specific needs of the client. user and site. [man Novin Assistant Project Manager /Sr Project Analyst. joined BRIDGE/BUILD in 2007 and works on both investment and nevi, construction projects, ccndurcting project due diligence and providing ongoing support for the redevelopment of file MacArthur Transit Village in Oakland CA. Prior to loinirg BUILD. Iman assisted the Reaf Estate and Planning 'Divisions of CCDC downtovin San Diego's iedevelopmentami, with numerous redevelopment and affordable housing projects. Including the management of CCDC's AicGIS operations. He also has previous �:ork experience v :ith Keyser Marston Associates Safi Diego office. [man holds a Bachelor of Science degree in 'Structural Engineering and a Bachelor cf Arts degree in Urban Studies and Planning from the University of California. San Diego DLI Safi Francisco District CcrjnLd Chair Michael Jameson. Managing Director of Prudential Mortgage Capital Company DLi San Francisco Panel Staff Xiomara Cisneros Flirector Kate White ti cuLve Director