The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7.2 SB 343 - Item 7.1 Public Comment1 of 2 October 3, 2018 City of Dublin Planning Commission 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 SUBJECT: PLPA-2017-00061 At Dublin Project Study Session Public Comment Dear Planning Commissioners, I regretfully am unable to attend the October 3, 2018 Planning Commission Study Session in-person due to prior commitments; however, I would like to voice my thoughts on the At Dublin project. The application of Shea Properties in partnership with SCS Development Company is both admirable and exciting while also aggressive and underwhelming. I understand the limitations of Planning Commission and City Council when it comes to approving or denying development proposals and therefore hope you can find a middle ground between residents concerns and developers plans during the study session. Dublin residents have been clamoring for a halt on development and a focus on infrastructure improvements. In June of this year Mayor Haubert called for a halt on housing growth. Yet somehow, we have before us an application for General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments to increase the number of residential units from the anticipated 261 residential units and 902,563 square feet of retail space to 665 residential units and 364,406 square feet of commercial uses. Moreover, the previously circulated Draft Supplemental EIR (Draft SEIR) which examined potential environmental impacts concluded the proposed project will have significant environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated. Rather than striving for the no project alternative of the Draft SEIR, or the Existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Alternative (both which were unsupported by the Draft SEIR), I propose the Planning Commission work with the developer to find mitigations which satisfy both the property owner and residents. My suggestions are as follows: 1. Reduce the number of residential units to some number between the Draft SEIR analyzed 680 units and the currently zoned 261 units. The units themselves could be increased in size, leading to increased property values and increased property tax revenue, while likely reducing traffic and school impacts. 2. Increase the size of the parking garage to accommodate more guest and retail customer parking. The established residential developments on the adjacent parcels were approved with fewer than appropriate parking spaces (minimum required per parking ordinance). This miscalculation has led to neighbors on the adjacent parcels parking illegally on the vacant parcels both on the proposed At Dublin development site and on the vacant Promenade site (future high school). Calculating the parking ratio for the new development at the same rate as the existing developments would be negligent. Additional parking is not only necessary for residents’ quality of life, but also to drive retail business (sales tax revenue), and to support the potential future high school on the Promenade site. Consider underground parking and tandem parking to allow for additional spaces without restricting developable land. 7.2 Packet Pg. 255 Communication: SB 343 - Item 7.1 Public Comment (New Business) 2 of 2 3. Require additional park space, specifically an off-leash dog park within the development. Sheet L0.2 of the project plans demonstrates the need for additional park space. The City of Dublin is under scrutiny for over-developing open space and causing undo congestion in a once quaint town. Providing adequate open space when approving medium- and high-density housing is vital to receiving community buy-in and paramount to providing a comfortable quality of life to future residents. Medium- and high-density residential projects are beneficial to the City and the community for numerous reasons; and while tenants are typically satisfied with the aesthetics and amenities of those developments, there is one shared concern: open space. I’m an owner and resident of a medium-density residential unit in the adjacent Cottages at Dublin Ranch development, and I can express to you the need for open space. My husband and I have a one-year-old Doberman Pinscher pup who we walk multiple times per day. On every walk we encounter no less than 5 other dogs, sometimes upward of 15. Of our immediate neighbors in this medium-density residential development, only one does not have a dog, and several units have two dogs. The nearest park to us is Bray Commons Park (0.5 miles away) which unfortunately is discriminatory towards dogs over 20 pounds, leaving only Dougherty Hills Dog Park which is over four miles away, requiring us to get in a car and clog up the roads to get to. We often meet up with neighbors for supervised off-leash play dates in public places; however, it presents a danger not only for our four-legged family members, but also for other citizens in the area. Recent studies1 have shown 60% of households own dogs. In a development of 665 units, at 60%, the city could be inviting nearly 400 new dogs to town. And in medium-density residential developments with no backyards for those dogs to romp around, that means an additional few hundred dogs playing off-leash in undesignated areas due to lack of designated space. I suggest you work with the developer to meet the required 8.57 acres of public and private parks, and to dedicate some portion of that park space to an off-leash dog park for both big and small dogs. In conclusion, I beg the Planning Commission to consider the unmitigated negative impacts the development would cause, as addressed in the Draft SEIR, along with the public outcry for reduced development and increased infrastructure improvements, and to weigh those negatives against whatever benefits the developer is proposing. Stand your ground, support your community, and push the developers to bring forth an improved plan for the vacant parcels. With great appreciation, Kendall Granucci c: Mayor and City Council Amy Million, Project Planner Luke Sims, Community Development Director 1 https://www.americanpetproducts.org/press_industrytrends.asp 7.2 Packet Pg. 256 Communication: SB 343 - Item 7.1 Public Comment (New Business)