HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachmt 9 CCouncl Rept 10/5/04
CITY CLERK
File # Dg][l;i]-L21a
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 5, 2004
SUBJECT:
STUDY SESSION: PA 02-028 Dublin Ranch West (formerly
Wallis Ranch)
Report Prepared by: Michael Porto, Planning Consultant
ATTACHMENTS:
1. East Dublin Specific Plan Tassajara Village Center IJIustrative
with Tassajara Creek/Tassajara Road Constraints;
2. East Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Plan with Road & Creek
Constraints;
3. East Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Plan with Constraints
(Blow-Up);
4. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Plan with Constraints
(more detailed Blow-Up);
5. East Dublin Land Use Plan with Impacted Land Use Areas;
6. Proposed Stage 1 Planned Development Plan with Corridor and
Setback Impacts;
7. List of Property Owners;
8. Neighborhood Commercial "White Paper";
9. Public/Semi Public Calculation Dublin Ranch;
10. Public/Semi Public Calculati0J.1- Dublin Ranch West (Wallis);
11. Letter from Martin Inderbitzen with a specific parkland proposal;
12. Letter From Martin Inderbitzen regarding the prov.ision of Public
and Semi Public Lands;
13. Commercial Access Diagram; and
14. DUSD Resolution Releasing Wallis School Site.
15. City of Dublin Village Policy'
16. Figure 7.28 - Tassajara Village Concept Plan
17. Northern Section Parks and Dwelling Units
18. City of Dublin Semi Public Facilities Policy
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide Staff direction in the following areas:
A,,~.
/VV, r 2.
3.
Application of Village Policy;
Provision of parks in the northern section of the City;
Neighborhood commerciaJ site in the northern section of the
City; and
Application of Public/Semi Public Policy.
4.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IÐb~
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO.-8.l
A'tTACHMENT q
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
No financial impact.
DESCRIPTION:
In 1993, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) established land use areas for Tassajara Village Center
with 142 acres of mixed use including 8.6 acres of neighborhood commercial, 1 neighborhood park, 1
neighborhood square and 1 elementary school. (See Attachment 1; EDSP Tassajara Village Center, and
Attachment 2; EDSP Existing Land Use Plan).
In June of 2002, the Community Development Department received a formal application from Jim Tong
for "Dublin Ranch West". The application was for an Annexation, General Plan/Specific Plan
Amendments, Stage 1 Planned Development Plan and an Environmental Impact Report for Dublin Ranch
West. The lands associated with the application include a portion ofthe Tassajara Village Center.
During the time period in which this project has been under review, the City has adopted new policies that
need City Council direction in relation to this project. These policies include the Semi Public and Village
Policies. In addition, DUSD has voted to eliminate the elementary school site on Wallis, freeing up 9.7
gross acres for possible development (see Attachment 14).
As a result of this new information, Staff is requesting City Council direction on several issues as follows:
1. Application of Village Policy;
2. Provision of parks in the northern section of the City;
3. Neighborhood commercial site in the northern section of the City; and
4. Application of Publici Semi Public Policy.
An analysis of these issues and a request for policy direction follows below:
ANAL YSIS:
1. AUDlication ofVillae:e Policv:
Village Policy:
The City of Dublin's Village Policy (Attachment 15) states a desire of the City Council to create new
villages that would encourage compact development of an area, integrating a variety of housing types and
densities with community facilities, civic, educational uses, commercial and industrial uses with an
emphasis on pedestrian friendliness.
Tassajara Village Center:
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as originally conceived clearly envisioned the development of a village
to be located at the Tassajara entrance to the City from Contra Costa County. As a result of the
identification of endangered species, refined engineering, limited allowable creek crossings, land
otherwise planned for development within the Tassajara Village Center needs to be reprogrammed while
still meeting the goals of the Specific Plan to respect the local setting and maintain a strong sense of place
(p. 139 EDSP).
21J&t
,.
The characteristics of a village include:
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 of the Village together;
5 Street and Pedestrian linkages should link to transportation spines including buses and transit
serv1ces;
6 The Village should have a strong "edge" defining the boundaries. This could include major
streets, architectural or landscaped areas;
7 Village size should reflect development that promotes pedestrian walk ability, permits a sufficient
mixture of residential and public/private uses and convenient commercial areas; and,
8 Specific identity should be fostered for the Village areas (special signage, unique design elements,
public plazas etc.)
The Tassajara Village concept as conceived in the EDSP (Attachment 16 - Figure 7.28 of EDSP) is
different than the newly adopted Village Concept Policy (Attachment 15). The Tassajara Village Concept
Plan shows a village that is interrupted by a 6 lane arterial and creates a portion of the project across
Tassajara Creek which at some points is 500 feet wide. The Tassajara Village Concept was not the
walkable village currently envisioned by the City Council - it was more of a commercial node concept in
the northern area of the City.
A modified Tassajara Village Concept can be created, but due to constraints would have to be smaller in
size and scale and located away from the intersection of Fallon and Tassajara Roads. Rather than
spanning Tassajara Road, the Village could be based on the westerly side of the Road. All other
characteristics of the Tassajara Village Concept and the City Council's new policy could then be
implemented on a smaller scale. The project could contain a smaller neighborhood commercial site,
parks, a Semi-Public site and a mix of residential uses.
City Council Direction:
The decisions the City Council makes in the following sections and the direction that is given to Staff and
the Applicant on the locations of the neighborhood commercial site, parks and semi-public land uses will
determine whether a portion of the Wallis Project implements the EDSP's Tassajara Village Concept as
modified by the City Council's Village Concept Policy.
2. Provision of Parks in the Northern Section of the City:
In accordance with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update recently approved, Wal1is Ranch is
required to provide 10.5 net acres of parkland. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan identified a
neighborhood park and neighborhood square in the Tassajara Village Center and a neighborhood park
internal to the subject property (Attachment No.2). The neighborhood park and neighborhood square in
the Tassajara Village Center are both unbuildable because in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan these uses
are at the bottom of the Tassajara Creek bed and this area has been removed from development as a result
of mitigation tradeoffs for Dublin Ranch on Wallis Ranch and the widening of Tassajara Road.
3'bq
Since adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, 1.8 acres of the 10.5 acres of parkhind
identified for Wallis Ranch has been provided for on other Dublin Ranch holdings leaving a balance
needed of8.7 acres.
In addition to reviewing the park needs for the Wallis Ranch Development, Staff has also evaluated the
park needs for the neighborhoods east of Tassajara (pinn Brothers, Mission Peak and Moller Ranch see
Attachment 7). As shown in Attachment No. 17, there are no parks currently planned east of Tassajara
Road with the exception of Ted Fairfield Park, which was built as part of Dublin Ranch Phase I. Pinn
Brothers is approved and under development. Mission Peak and Moller Ranch have both been discussing
annexation and development potential with the City. As discussed, Mission Peak will be required and has
shown a vehicular connection to the Pinn Brothers Development. Because there are no parks within safe
walking distances to the Pinn Brothers, Mission Peak: and Moller Ranch properties; it might be
appropriate to look for some parkland east of Tassajara Road to serve these neighborhoods.
In calculating the potential population on the Mission Peak and Moller Ranch properties, the required
parkland would be approximately 1.34 acres, however the minimum standard for a neighborhood square
in the recent update of Parks and Recreation Master Plan is 2.0 acres. Therefore, it might be appropriate
to consider a 2.0 acre neighborhood square to be placed somewhere on the Mission Peak and Moller
Ranch properties if they develop. This would leave a requirement of 6.7 acres of parkland to be provided
on Wallis Ranch. However, if Mission Peak: and Moller Ranch do not move forward as proposed and two
acres is removed from the Wallis Ranch required acreage, there would be a shortfall of .66 acres (based on
the parkland needed for Mission Peak: and Moller Ranch).
The original submittal for the Wallis Ranch project included a 5.0 acre site for a Neighborhood Park
internal to the development (See Attachment 6). Subsequently, the Applicant has made an alternate
proposal (see Attachment No.l1) to group parkland on two sites together for a combined total of 7.66
acres with a remaining land area of 1.27 acres to be available for either Neighborhood Commercial or
Semi-Public land uses (see discussion below). The tota11and to be provided would be 8.93 acres.
Staff has reviewed the alternate proposal and based on the standards for Neighborhood Parks contained in
the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, a Neighborhood Park internal to the development is preferred to
better serve the Wallis Ranch neighborhood. Regarding the alternate proposal, Staff's main concerns are
with the 4.16 acre parcel fronting Tassajara Road as follows:
1) This parcel fronts Tassajara Road which is planned as a six-lane arterial. The standards for
neighborhood parks suggest that parks be sited on collector or residential streets; no major arterials.
2) The parking lot on the northern end of the parcel is separated from the main park area by a street.
Crossing the street to access the park poses safety concerns. Additionally, entrance into this parking
lot from Tassajara Road can only be accomplished by southbound traffic.
3) In order to accommodate active park uses such as softball and soccer as shown in the plan, a tall
perimeter fence would be required in order to keep balls from entering Tassajara Road. This may
prove to be unsightly and may not stop all balls.
4) The long linear nature of the park may preclude some park uses. While the Applicant's preliminary
park plan shows softbalJ, soccer and tennis courts, further study is needed in order to determine if the
site can actually accommodate these uses.
5) While the proximity of the park to the conservation zone and creek appear to give the park a pastoral
quality, this will be compromised by the traffic noise generated from Tassajara Road.
6) Increased maintenance costs associated with two separated parcels as opposed to one large park.
4 fI[) '1
Staff would also point out that this option does not provide for any active open space internal to the
development. In addition to the 5.0 acre neighborhood park being eliminated, the elementary school site,
which would have provided play fields, also has been eliminated.
Staff has developed the following potential alternatives for the provision of 8.7 net acres of parkland in
the northern Tassajara area.
Options
Option 1
Locations Type of park Acreage
Wallis Ranch 1 Neighborhood Park 8.7 acres
Wallis Ranch 1 Neighborhood Park 6.7 acres
1 Neighborhood Square 2.0 acres
8.7 acres
Wallis Ranch 1 Neighborhood Park 6.7 acres
Mission Peak or Moller 1 Neighborhood Square 2.0 acres
Ranch 8.7 acres
Wallis Ranch (Dev. Alt) 2 Neighborhood Parks 7.66 acres
Mission Peak or Moller I Neighborhood Square 1.04 acres
Ranch 8.7 acres
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Direction from City Council on Park Locations:
Consider the discussion and options provided above and provide direction to Staff and the Applicant
regarding the provision of parkland type and acreage of parkland.
3. Neighborhood Commercial Site in the Northern Section of the City:
Circulation:
The Tassajara Village Concept Plan (Attachment 16) references 8.6 acres of Neighborhood Commercial
Land Use Designation (NC) to be located at the intersection of Tassajara and Fallon Roads. The
Neighborhood Commercial node spanned two major arterials, Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. The
Neighborhood Commercial node was also located on several properties including Friedrich, Bragg and
Mission Peak, (located easterly of the intersection see Attachment 5 and 7). As noted in the Section
above regarding Villages, the Tassajara Village Concept was not a walkable village as is currently
envisioned in the City Council's Village Concept Plan.
If the City Council detennines that the Wallis Project should be developed as a Village as envisioned by
the Village Concept Policy, then it necessary to direct the Applicant and Staff to locate a Neighborhood
Commercial site on the Wallis site. However, the City Council, in thealtemative, could determine that
the neighborhood commercial site should be in a different location, perhaps on the eastern side of
Tassajara Road. Either location would be consistent with the intent of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan's
concept of the Tassajara Village Concept Plan; however, the City Council's Village Concept Policy
indicates that in order for the Village to be walkable, the commercial site should not be separated by a 6
lane arterial.
In making this decision, the City Council should be aware that there are many factors that affect site
access and circulation to a commercial site in this portion of Dublin. In many instances, traffic design has
sVD1
dictated solutions that constrain site access and circulation. The Nielsen property east of Tassajara Road
can be accessed through the Pinn Brothers signalized intersection on Tassajara Road with Wallis Ranch.
Additionally, Wallis Ranch has two signalized intersections, one across from the Pinn Project and another
at Tassajara Road and Quarry Lane School (see Attachment 13).
Staff has evaluated both of the Wallis intersections in relation to the developability of a neighborhood
convenience center. The northerly intersection, shared with Pinn, provides little developable land on the
Wallis property due to the proximity of Tassajara Creek and the conservation easement. The only
available land at the northerly intersection would be the Nielsen property to the east of Tassajara Road.
The southerly intersection at the Wallis property, shared with Quarry Lane School, provides a flat area of
sufficient size to develop a neighborhood convenience center.
It should be noted that all of these locations, existing and proposed, have barriers to walkability. The
Nielsen property has Tassajara Road and the width of Tassajara Creek as a possible barrier to walkability
for Wallis residents. The Wallis sites have the width of Tassajara Creek as a possible barrier for Wallis
residents and Tassajara Road as a barrier for residents to the east (Attachment 13).
A third alternative would be to consider an interior-oriented village core on the Wallis site, comprised of a
neighborhood convenience center, public semi-public site and park somewhere west of Tassajara Creek.
While this would eliminate the walkability barrier of the other two alternatives; convenient access for
those projects east of Tassajara Road (Moller, Mission Peak and Pinn), would be difficult, if not
impossible.
The Nielsen property is located on the eastern side of Tassajara Road and is designated as Rural
Residential in the EDSP. It is presently developed with an agricultural operation. Developing this
property with a Neighborhood Commercial project would require extensive grading and would have to be
sensitively accomplished as Tassajara Road is a scenic corridor. However, adequate access ITom
Tassajara Road could be provided through the Pinn project (See Attachment 13) enabling a full left turn in
and out through the Pinn property. This site is centrally located and is on the side of the road most suitable
for convenience shoppers returning ITom work.
Staff suggests that both of these signalized intersections provide the circulation needed to support a
neighborhood commercial center. However, the southern Wallis Ranch property location would be more
consistent with the City's Village Concept Policy, while still having a possible barrier to walkability
(Tassajara Creek).
Staff also analyzed locating a commercial center on one of the other remaining properties without
approved development plans (besides Wallis Ranch), include Moller, Mission Peak, Tipper, Friedrich,
Vargas, Nielsen and Kobold (see Attachment 7). Tipper is at the far reaches of the City and as such would
require residents to drive to access this site for Neighborhood Commercial uses. Fredrich and Vargas have
constraints with the Creek, onsite topography and access because of the proximity to the FallonlTassajara
Road intersection which would make access a problem. Mission Peak has a similar constraint with a very
limited frontage. The developable area of the Kobold property is too small and their frontage on Tassajara
Road is also too narrow to safely provide for vehicular access.
Wallis Ranch White Paper (see Attachment 8):
The EDSP addressed the need for 8.6 acres of Neighborhood Commercial. However, the ultimate need of
Neighborhood Commercial acreage is detennined by the market. The Applicant has prepared a "White
Paper" which addresses the need for neighborhood commercial land uses in this portion of Dublin. This
document specifically lists a series of constraints (see pages 3 thru 7) which the Applicant contends that
6~q
development of the Neighborhood Commercial property in the location originally envisioned is
impractical if not impossible. The Paper further goes on to discuss definitions of the various levels of
commercial center and concludes that either a Neighborhood Convenience or Neighborhood Center would
be most appropriate for the northern portion of the Tassajara corridor. Lastly, the Paper discusses
"Alternative Town Center Location" and "Challenges to Planning a Village Center at Dublin Ranch
West" (page 17).
The Applicant's "White Paper" addresses many of the constraints to developing the Neighborhood
Commercial site and specifically references that based on the remoteness from the larger population base
the site would rely heavily on the residents in the vicinity or by vehicles passing by. The White Paper
recommends, therefore, that a neighborhood convenience center would be the most appropriate type of
center. The size of site necessary to support a neighborhood convenience center using a . 30 FAR figure as
referenced in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for Tassajara Village would indicate a site no greater than
90,000 square feet (2.07 acres) would be appropriate.
The Lin "White Paper" describes the factors guiding location of a neighborhood commercial site on the
Lin property. Locating the proposed Neighborhood Commercial site at one of the two signalized access
points on the Wallis Ranch property (the southerly access point would provide the most land area at a
proper grade and with proper maneuvering room) would make a safe transition from the various
surrounding neighborhoods and Tassajara Road and would locate the neighborhood commercial land use
in a more centralized location.
Staff has reviewed the White Paper and finds that many of the points are well-taken in relation to access
and circulation. However, the City has not had an opportunity to retain a consultant to do a "peer review"
of this Paper in the areas of market accessibility and viability.
City Councü Direction:
1. Should a neighborhood commercial site be located on the Wallis or Nielsen property? and
2. If the City Council determines the site should be on the westerly side of Tassajara Road (Wallis
Ranch), should the site be at the southerly intersection or internal to the project in a village core?
4. Application of Semi Public Facilities Policy:
In accordance with City Council policy direction when considering a General Plan Amendment,
provisions for Semi-Public Land Uses should be considered (Attachment 18). The Applicant is requesting
a General Plan Amendment and an Amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for the
reconfiguration of land uses on their property. As such, Staff has considered the appropriateness of Semi-
Public land uses on this site.
Recently, with General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments for Area F (North) and Area B, the Applicant
provided additional Dublin Ranch Public/Semi-Public acreage adjacent to the proposed Middle School
currently under construction to comply with the new Semi-Public Facilities Policy of the City.
The Applicant has provided a letter (See Attachment 12), which addresses the Applicant's request that the
City Council detennine that they have provided all of the Semi-Public land they are required to for all of
71ß'1
Dublin Ranch including Dublin Ranch West (Wallis). The Table below provides a summary of the
acreage requirements for both projects as follows:
Project
Estimated Semi-Public Net
Acreage Requirement
0.64
0.85
1.26
0.89
3.64
Area F North
Area F West
Area FEast
Area B
Total Acreage Required for
Dublin Ranch Areas F & B
Wallis Ranch
Total Acreage Required for
both Dublin Ranch and Wallis
Ranch
2.23
5.87 net acres
The Table above illustrates that the Lin's have an estimated cumulative requirement of 5.87 acres of
Semi-Public acreage required under the Semi-Public Policy for both the recent Area F & B amendments to
Dublin Ranch and Wallis Ranch. In the Area F & B Amendments the Un's provided 5.8 net acres of
Public/Semi-Public land which is 2.23 acres over what was required by that Amendment pursuant to the
City's Semi-Public Facilities Policy.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Applicant contends that they have provided all of the required Semi-
Public land for all of their holdings within in Area F on Dublin Ranch, the City Council may determine
that each General Plan Amendment Application stands alone. Therefore, the City Council could require
that additional Semi-Public acreage be provided on Wallis Ranch.
If the City Council detennines that each General Plan Amendment should stand on its own in relation to
the Semi-Public Facilities Policy, then 2.23 acres or an amount to be detennined by the City Council
would need to be provided on the Wallis Ranch Project. Staff would work with the Applicant to
incorporate a Semi-Public Site into their Plan.
City Council Direction:
The Applicant is requesting that the City Council make a detennination that the acreage beyond what was
required in the Semi-Public Facilities Policy (2.23 acres) be applied towards the Wallis Ranch
requirement. The Semi-Public Facilities Policy is silent on this issue; therefore, Staff requests direction
from the City Council on this issue.
CONCLUSION:
This Study Session Staff Report requests direction from the City Council in the area of village
development, park sites, neighborhood commercial sites and semi-public facilities sites. The Wallis
Project has several issues that require direction from the City Council. These issues have resulted from
new policies adopted by the City Council, refined engineering, identification of endangered species,
limited allowable creek crossings, and the reprogramming of the elementary school site.
8 ~O
Although DUSD has released the elementary school site (Attachment 14), it is up to the City Council on
what amendment(s) to the General Plan and EDSP Land Use Designation should be applied to the 9.7 acre
property. The City Council could determine that the acreage be included in the Applicant's residential
yield. Or, the City Council could direct Staff to work with the Applicant to use this 9.7 acre additional
land to create the neighborhood commercial, semi-public and park sites in a configuration as desired by
the City Council.
The Applicant and Staff are finishing up the design work on the Wallis Project prior to completion of the
environmental document and public hearings. The purpose of this Study Session has been to focus on the
City Council issues that need direction to allow completion of the Wallis entitlements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide Staff direction in the following areas: (1) Application of Village Policy; (2) Provision of parks in
the northern section of the City; (3) Neighborhood commercial site in the northern section of the City;
and, (4) Application of the Semi-Public Policy.
9ð/)q
A
Dublin Ranch West Land Use Area 'I I
Dubr
m Ranch West Land Use Designah' P /SF,
TOO \
op of Bank Area \
100' Setback Area from Top of Bunk and \ ~
Conservation Areas \ ~
I!!
I;;;
, ..
\ !
Ii\.
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
\
,
I
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
2 EX . -91.~
RRA
NIELSEN
D
.
........"..----.....----.--.....-.-
QUARRY LANE
SCHOOL
~--~-------'--..
. ~--- /...---"--
KO~~____~~
,/"..- -"-
05
KOBOLD
Eastern Dublin Specific PI
Overlaid Onto Stage 1 PD an Land Uses
Land Uses
ortb Tassajara Area
.
NØR1H
18:08:30
dlolo
0'
o
300'
600'
1200'
,
ATTACHMENT I
.
RRA
MOLLER
/
,
I
I
I
,
I
!
I
M
05
::zp~ r-
RRA
NIELSEN
Key
D Top of Bank Area
QUARRY LANE
SCHOOL
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Uses
With Creek Corridor Impacts
.
N D It T H
\ \
North Tassajara Area \ _~:~
.9-[)6-Z004 17:[)1:12 dloto P:\ 160J4-40\p40nnir19\ZOOlwams\SIO\Ie z\E:XH-AjodM
O' 300' 600'
.
1200'
,
ATTACHMENT 2
e
Agriculture
.
RRA
AofOUBR
M
05
RRA
NIELSEN
Key
D Top of Bank Area
. 100' Setback Area from Top of Bank and
Conservation Areas
.. --.---.-,.',.'--
QUARRY LANE
SCHOOL
~astern Dublin Specific Plan Land Uses
~ith Creek Corridor and Setback Impacts
\
I.
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
9-011-2004 16:52:46 dlOto P:\I6034-.4{I\plonning\200lwollíg\stoge 2\EXH-A4.dwg y
.
NOR1H
N ortb Tassajara Area
O' 300' 600' 1200'
'ATTACHMENT 3 I
M
BRAGG
Key
D Top of Bank Area
· 100' Setback Area from Top of Bank and
Conservation Areas
· Road Right of Way Impacts
· Lands Undevelopable due to small size of parcel remainder
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
With Impacted Land Uses
orth Tassajara Area
.
WO.TW
O' JOO' 600'
,
1200'
,
4- n"
SEP 15 2004 ATTACHMENT if-
/"'IIID. ..... DI A"'MIt.J~
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Uses
With Impacted Land Uses
forth Tassajara Area
Agrlculturc
RRA
NOUER
)
. Key
- EDSP Land Use Areas
A EDSP Land Use Designation
D Open Space
D Low Density Residential
_ Medium Density Residential
_ Medium High Residential
_ Elementary School
_ Neighborhood Park
_ Neighborhood Square
_ Neighborhood Commercial
_ PublicfSemi-Public
I
I
I
PI5P
l
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
M~
(I J
-~~- Acreage Lost
L 5.7 ac
M 12.0 ac
MH 5.5 ac
NP 5.0 ac
NS 2.7 ac
QUARRY LANE NC 7.9 ac
SCHOOL ES 2.1 ac
ROW 13.1 ac
RRA
NIELSEN
TOTAL 54.0 ac
.
NQoftt,..
9-10-2004 11 ;45;47 dlata
O' 300' 600'
.
1200'
,
ATTACHMENT
RRA
MOLLER
05
Key
- EDSP Land Use Designation
A Dublin Ranch West Land Use Areas
Top of Bank Area
. 100' Setback Area from Top of Bank and
Conservation Areas
M
05
RRA
NIELSEN
",..- ~
I
I
1
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
QUARRY LANE
SCHOOL
Stage 1 PD Land Uses with Creek
Corridor and Setback Impacts
orth Tassajara Area
\
\
\
\
\
05
KOBOLD
.
NUJlTH
O'
,
300'
600'
1200'
.
ATTACHMENT 6
Property Owners SPERFSLAGE
.orth Tassajara Area
.
.
PARKS
RFTA
.
NORTH
O' :300' 600'
,
1200'
I
.
ATTACHMENT 7
MARTIN W. INDERBITZEN
Attor:ney at Law
September 14, 2004
Mike Porto
Planning Department
City ofDubIin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, California 94568
Re: Dublin Ranch West (Wallis)
Vülage Policy Statement
Dear Mike:
On September 7, 2004, the City Council adopted a Village Policy Statement and
directed Staff to proceed with the implementation of that policy. In an effort to assist the
Staff in its analysis of the land use proposal for Dublin Ranch· West I have requested that
EDA W and Bil1 Clarke prepare an analysis of the Tassajara ViiIage area of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan in an effort to detennine whether or not the Tassajara Village plan
ever was feasible and, if so, remains feasible and if possible to detennine the most
appropriate size and type of VillagelRetail uses that wowd be appropriate in this area of
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
Our conclusion is that the viability of the Village Center proposed in the Specific
Plan was probably marginal at best at the time of its conception but no longer viable
under current circumstances. We would conclude that convenience oriented retail may
be appropriate somewhere in the Tassajara Fallon Road area. We leave it to Staff to
recommend the most appropriate location.
Very truly yours,
ITZEN
MWIIlmh
Pono914a
DR- w~ KoI C.nt.. P."",.,. S",. 120. PI.....lon. CelifomIa 94566 Phon. 925 485-'Ã fj iëHM EN T 8
Village Center at Tassajara
Opportunity Analysis
Study Paper: Village Center at Tassajara: Opportunity Analysis
Prepared for: Martin Inderbitzen
Prepared by: EDA W, Inc., & Bill Clarke
Introduction, Findings, and Recommendations
This study explores several types of town centers in order to determine which type and
size could be most appropriate for development at or near the intersection of Fallon
Road and Tassajara Road. It investigates widely accepted definitions of town and
village centers, reviews successes and problems faced in developing village centers, and
makes recommendations for an appropriate definition of a "center" at Dublin Ranch
West.
In order to determine the most appropriate size and type of town or village center at this
location, this study includes two sections. The first provides a summary of the existing
policy and physical conditions at Dublin Ranch West. The second section provides a
review of the elements that make up successful town and village centers.
Upon analysis, this study finds convenience oriented retail to be the most appropriate
type of center for this location. As discussed in greater detail in this study, this type of
center is actually the smallest of the centers investigated. The village center that
emphasizes convenience typically includes a modest collection of small neighborhood
serving shops, services and restaurants would be most appropriate at or near the
FaIlonjTassajara intersection.
This conclusion is based on the following considerations:
· The consumer market in Dublin and adjacent communities is already wen served
by larger scaled centers wruch include full service grocery and drug stores,
including those found at Waterford¡ the Dublin Ranch Town Center and
Wallis Ranch DRAFT
1
9.13.2004
EDA W Inc.
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
,
,
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
~
~
~
~
~
I
~
~
~
Village Center at Tassajara
Opportunity Analysis
Blackhawk Plaza. With this reality, it is unlikely that a larger center would be
feasible, and consequently is not recommended.
. As a result of refined planning it has been determined that Dublin Ranch West is
not well suited to accommodate a larger center. This constraint is defined by the
relatively small portion of the site which would be considered appropriate for
the creation of a center. This is influenced by two primary factors.
First, the area necessary for protecting Tassajara Creek is considerably larger
than was initially expected and planned for, greatly limiting the amount of
"developable" land in the area initially proposed for a village center. Second, the
actual potential development area is relatively small, narrow, and has limited
access to Tassajara Road.
Nonetheless, a more modest village center may be a viable recommendation for the
Dublin Ranch West. All of these findings and recommendations are discussed in greater
detail in the body of this study.
A. Site and Context
I. Overview
The land use plan of the East Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), as adopted in 1994, is
structured around a Town Center. This Town Center is to be the social and cultural hub
of eastern Dublin, composed of both a commercial core and residential neighborhoods.
Away from the Town Center, two Village Centers - Fallon Village and Tassajara VilIage-
are to provide a focus for residential development in the outlying foothill areas. The
EDSP sets the following goals for these two villages:
The villages combine residential and commercial land uses at an intimate scale.
Guidelines for the Village Centers are geared toward creating compact, well-defined
urban districts with a unique sense of place, and establishing a lively street environment
with a mix of land uses.
Wallis Ranch DRAFT
2
9.13.2004
EDA W Inc.
Village Center at Tassajara
Opportunity Analysis
It is now ten years later. This study reviews the goals and guidelines for these Village
Centers against the events of this intervening time period and presents a re~evaluation of
the Village Center concept in light of these new realities. Secondly, it presents an
analysis of developed vi11age centers of a size similar to that of the land available at the
Tassajara Village Center site and makes recommendations for an updated definition of
the village at this location.
II. Planning Context - Physical and Regulatory
A. EDSP Goals for the Tassajara Village Center
The EDSP presents the goals, policies and design standards for Village Centers in
general and the Tassajara Village Center in particular. Many of these policies and
standards would still be applicable today. Events and decisions made over the last
decade have however made some of these standards difficult to implement today.
Further, the physical properties of the site, environmental concerns and land ownership
patterns present obstacles to the implementation of the Tassajara Village. Some of the
more important differences between the situation in 1994 and in 2004 are discussed
below.
B. Existing Conditions - Physical and Planning-Context as Compared with the
Situation in 1994
Many things, both physical and economic, have changed since the EDSP was adopted in
1994. These changes will affect the possibilities of developing a viable village center on
the site. The following paragraphs itemize some of these changes and then point out
what kind of an influence the situation will have on the prospects for this proposed
village center.
Wal1is Ranch DRAFT
3
9.13.2004
EDA W Inc.
~
·
·
þ
·
·
þ
þ
þ
·
þ
þ
·
þ
·
·
·
þ
·
·
·
þ
·
þ
þ
·
·
þ
þ
·
·
þ
þ
þ
þ
·
·
þ
þ
þ
·
·
·
~
Village Center at Tassajara
Opportunity Analysis
· Ownership of the land where the Neighborhood Commercial is proposed
This is a situation that was known in 1994. Looking at the EDSP, it is clear that the
proposed Village Center Neighborhood Commercial, the heart of the village, was
to be located on properties held in several ownerships (EDSP identifies Vargas,
Herrera, and Lin).
Impact on Development of Village Center Here: Split ownersmps within town or
village centers usually lead to multiple planning approval submittals and often
work against the development of the center. Here, however, this situation is made
difficult because property boundaries are functionally divided by the EDSP¡ while
the Lins own most of the property, they do not own the property on which the
village center is proposed.
. Character of the Neighborhood Commercial land
The topography and location adjacent to Tassajara Creek were known to the
planners in 1994. Even so much of the Neighborhood Commercial land was
designated for a large hilI existing on the Herrera (Fredrich) I Vargas property.
Further, the EDSP anticipated that a relatively large area here would be available
for the development of the Neighborhood Commercial. This is not the case today.
Impact on Development of Village Center Here: In order to build the Neighborhood
Commercial core of the Village Center as proposed in the EDSP, it would be
necessary to completely remove the large hilI on the Herrera (Fredrich) / Vargas
property. Further, the two property owners would have to work in concert to
make this happen. Even if that cooperation were to occur today, the small amount
of land available east of the creek will make such a development here particularly
difficult.
Wallis Ranch DRAFT
4
9.13.2004
EDA W Inc.
Village Center at Tassajara
Opportunity Analysis
· Tassajara Road I Fal10n Roa.d intersection wiII not be constructed as envisioned
in EDSP
The Tassajara Village Concept Plan (EDSP Figure 7.28) envisions the Fallon Road
extension as a straight-through road with Fallon Road given priority, and
Tassajara Road perpendicularly intersecting FaBon Road. In doing this, it
apparently has been hoped that a more generous Village Center parcel would be
created east of Tassajara Creek and west of the proposed intersection. While the
planning for the Tassajara Road I Fallon Road intersection does roughly follow
this concept a very small remainder parcel will apparently be created at this
location.
Impact on Development of Village Center Here: The planned ultimate alignment of
Tassajara Road will be much closer to the creek than is envisioned in the Village
Concept Plan, reducing the amount of available land even further. A much
smaller area wiH now be available to accommodate a village center.
· Tassajara Creek open space dedications will be much larger than anticipated in
the EDSP
The EDSP, especially the Tassajara ViII age Concept Plan (EDSP Figure 7.28), set
aside a generous corridor for the existing Tassajara Creek to pass through the
proposed village center. Recent discussions and agreements with the City and
Resource Agencies indicate that a creek buffer dedication will be required that is
much larger than originally envisioned in the EDSP. Where the concept indicated
an approximately 400' -wide corridor, current planning shows the need for a
corridor with a minimum width of approximately 500' and a width at the
proposed village center of almost 800'. Also, contrary to the EDSP land use
diagrams, such uses as parks and commercial development will not be allowed in
this corridor.
Impact on Development of Village Center Here: The increased creek corridor width,
particularly when taken in concert with the limitation created by the final
Wallis Ranch DRAFT
5
9.13.2004
EDA W Inc.
·
þ
þ
·
þ
·
þ
þ
·
·
þ
·
þ
þ
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
þ
·
·
þ
þ
·
·
·
·
·
þ
þ
þ
·
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
VilIage Center at Tassajara
Opportunity Analysis
alignment of Tassajara Road at the Fallon Road intersection, will all but eliminate
land for a víl1age center east of Tassajara Creek at this location. Also precluded
will be many of the complementary adjacent land uses critical for the success of a
retail component. Lastly this, along with recent geotechnical findings, will make
the provision of creek crossings at the locations shown in the EDSP impossible.
· Demise of the TVPOA development
When the plan was adopted, a development plan had been proposed for the
properties of the Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association (TVPOA). This
development would have flanked Tassajara Road to the north of the Wallis
property and continued to the western boundary of Blackhawk. Subsequent to the
adoption of the EDSP, Contra Costa County has removed the development
potential of the TVPOA project area.
Impact on Develvpment of Village Center Here: In 1994, there was an expectation that
residential development would continue from the Contra Costa County line north
along Tassajara Road. Were this property to develop, there would be demand for
the kind of services provided in a village center from these new homeowners.
With the demise of TVPOA, the commercial service area of a potential village
center on the Wallis property has been considerably reduced.
C. Summary of factors that affect the village center possibilities on the Dublin
Ranch West property.
1. Fractured ownership at the site places much of the village center on
property not owned by the Lins'.
2. The proposed Neighborhood Commercial area has topography not suited
to the development of a commercial center.
3. The final alignment of Tassajara Hoad has considerably reduced the
potential size of the village center at this location.
WaJlis Ranch DRAFT
6
9.13.2004
EDA W Inc.
Village Center at Tassajara
Opportunity Analysis
4. Set-asides for environmental considerations are taking over much of the
land proposed for the village center and other important complementary
land uses. They wi11 also eliminate the possibility of a central village center
access road at this location.
5. The commercial market area for this Village has been considerably reduced
by the demise of the TVPOA project in Contra Costa County.
B. Review and Discussion of Centers, and Recommendations
I. Village Center Feasibility
The characteristics of the site, market considerations, along with events which have
occurred since 1994, (see above) will have a significant impact on the ability to create a
village center near the Tassajara Road / Fallon Road intersection, as initially envisioned.
Instead, it will be necessary to reevaluate what type and size of village center might be
appropriate and physically possible on the property.
The first step in such an evaluation is to consider the types of vi11age centers that have
been created in recent years on sites with similar opportunities and limitations. The
following sections investigate several definitions of vi11age centers, review successes and
problems faced in other village centers, and make recommendations for an appropriate
definition of a" center" for this area.
A. General Definition of Town and Village Centers
Traditionally, a town center has been the hub of commercial and residential activity; a
locus of economic, social, and political life of a commWlity, representing the "heart" of
the community. They grew and evolved as an area experienced economic success and
as populations swelled, so too did commerciat social, and administrative demands.
However, as populations migrated away from urban centers during the late 2()th century
into new suburban residential communities, the notion of creating new town centers as
part of new development began to emerge.
Wallis Ranch DRAFT
7
9.13.2004
EDAW Inc.
VilIage Center at Tassajara
Opportunity Analysis
During this newer period, town centers came to playa different role in communities.
The first "new" town center projects were little more than large retail shopping centers
built in conjunction with larger planned communities whose purpose was largely to fill
a utilitarian role - a place to buy basic goods and services. These new interpretations of
"town centers" generally lacked residential and civic uses, and other community
amenities traditionally found /I downtown".
In recent years, a rising awareness of the civic role of town centers and a redefinition of
them as formative community elements has led developers and planners to rethink the
role of town centers in new communities, to include a mix of uses and to consider ways
that incorporate social activities into physical space.
In addition tp good;; aná ;;crvices; people can gather and socialize in the town center
Town centers have thus become instrumental in place making, establishing community
character, and improving livability for residents. In addition to commercial activities
like shopping and dining, the "complete" town center now generally includes housing,
civic institutions, and public spaces. These town centers invoke many of the traditional
elements of older small towns in the United States; critically, that they are easily
Wallis Ranch DRAFT
8
9.13.2004
EDA W Inc.
~
.
þ
~
þ
~
~
þ
~
þ
þ
~
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
~
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
~
þ
þ
þ
.
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
~
þ
þ
.
Village Center at Tassajara
Opportunity Analysis
accessible, highly walkable, and inviting to area residents, further contributing to their
role as a formative community element, rather than as simply an adjunct land use.
Consequently, town centers are nodal points that both foster and provide access into the
social, culturat political, and economic life in the town. Woven into and attuned to the
fabric of the larger community, town centers now provide a central location to
concentrate a mix of activities and uses, and thus, can be a primary community
destination in and of themselves.
Although the town center is generally oriented to the population it serves, it can also
serve as an access point for interaction with an external community. Oftentimes, town
centers are the main gateway into and outside of the community, generally located
along, or with a direct connection to, main access roads.
B. General Typology
Upon review of literature on town centers, site visits, and experience, five major
categories of centers that differ with regard to an orientation of scale and market
demographic are defined: super-regional, regional, community, neighborhood, and
convenience centers. The following briefly outlines each of these five prototypes:
1. The super-regional center - draws from the regional, as well as outside the
regional, trade area. Typically, the super-regional center contains large, one- to
three-story, stand-alone buildings that focus on providing and servicing volume
rather than niche markets. They tend to be auto-oriented and commercial
functions, rather than residential functions, dominate. Major Bay Area examples
include: Sun Valley Mall (Concord, CA¡ with 4 major department stores and over
1.4 million square feet); Stoneridge Mall (Pleasanton, CA; with 5 department
stores and nearly 1.3 million square feet); and the Stanford Shopping Center
(Palo Alto, CA¡ with 5 major department stores and 1.4 million square feet of
commercial).
Wallis Ranch DRAFT
9
9.13.2004
EDA W Inc.
Village Center at Tassajara
Opportunity Analysis
2. The regional center - similar to the super-regional center in focus, but primarily
draws its customer base from inside the regional trade area. It generally hosts a
wide vaIiety of national tenants and offers a good deal of comparison shopping
opportunities. Major Bay Area examples include: Bay Street (Emeryville, CA;
with no anchor tenants but nearly 400,000 square feet of retail and entertainment
space); the San Francisco Shopping Centre (San Francisco, CA; with one
department store but over 500,000 square feet); and The Village at Corte
Madera (Corte Madera, CA; an open-air mall with 2 department stores and
428,000 square feet in size).
3. The community center - draws from a smaller radius that the regional center, and
provides a vaIiety of goods and services. Typically, the community center is
anchored by a couple of convenience-oriented goods, such as a supermarket and
a drugstore. It may incorporate a residential component, although usually not.
Bay Area examples include: Willow Shopping Center (Concord, CA)¡ Rivermark
Village (Santa Clara, CA); and El Cerrito Plaza (E1 Cerrito, CA).
Watetford Place it! Dublin includes a mix of shaps and housing
Wallis Ranch DRAFT
10
9.13.2004
EDAW Inc.
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
Village Center at Tassajara
Opportunity Analysis
4. The neighborhood center - generally anchored by a supermarket or a drug store
and geared towards the neighborhood trade area. The neighborhood center
offers a variety of convenience goods, but each good or service is generally
provided by only one store. It is usually in relatively close proximity to larger
regional centers. A local example would be Waterford Place in Dublin, which
includes a major grocery, a variety of smaller retail stores and restaurants.
5. Finally, the convenience center is the smallest of retail center classifications and
maintains definitively local functions. It is usually supported by relatively
nearby neighborhood or regional centers. The convenience center may be
comprised of a single or grouping of small businesses (e.g. dry cleaning, bakery,
and convenience store) that offer day-to-day convenience goods for the
immediate trade area. They tend to operate on a pedestrian scale. A local
example would be the general store at Redbridge in Tracy, CA.
The following table provides a general summary of the characteristics associated with
each type of /I center" .
Type Commercial (sq. ft.) Stores
Super-regional 1,000,000+ > 100
Regional 300,000 to 1,000,000 30 to 100
Community 100,000 to 300,000 10 to 30
Typical anchor stores
Typical market area
3+ large department
stores
2+ department stores
6O-mile radius or
larger
30-mile radius
3 to 6-mile radius /
within 10-minute
dríve
Within a 1S-minute
walk
Sources; International Coundl of Shopping Research, American Studies at Eastern Connecticut State University, Urban
Land Institute, EDAW
30,000 to 100,000
<10
2+ supermarket,
drugstore, haIdware
1+ supermarket
lO-mile radius
Neighborhood
Convenience
< 30,000
3 to 6
convenience store
In reality, each of these types of town centers differ not only by scale, they also differ by
overarchìng function. Each center prioritizes different relationships between retail,
office, residential, civic, and open spaces; not all are easily adaptable to specific
community conditions and contexts. The general expectation is that smaller town
centers (heretofore referred to as "village centers") tend to be more flexible and
Wallis Ranch DRAFT
11
9.13.2004
EDA W Inc.
Village Center at Tassajara
Opportunity Analysis
conducive to master-planned communities; larger master-planned communities may
have a series of smaller town centers rather than one larger town center of a comparable
aggregate size.
Moreover, super-regional and regional centers tend to be auto-oriented and
commercially-focused whereas convenience, neighborhood, and community centers are
more pedestrian-friendly and community focused. In recent years, community focus
has translated into compact, multi-story, mixed-use destinations rather than functionally
segregated places.
The following section describes in greater detail the qualities that are common across
successful town centers, expounding on those qualities that may be most appropriate for
a location near the Tassajara Road / Fallon Road intersection.
II. What Does It Take To Make A Village Center Viable?
Of the various town / village center prototypes described) neighborhood¡ and
convenience centers are the most appropriate scales for considering a village center near
the Tassajara Road / Fallon Road intersection.
Typical benefits that can be derived from town centers are facilitated organization -
town centers can help facilitate a mix of densities, as well as, neighborhood
development, within the project; increased property values - like other public spaces,
village centers can increase the value of surrounding property if planned well; and an
enhanced status and faster absorption - concurrently developed town centers, or the
promise of a future town center can raise the project profile and attract potential buyers.
However, simply having a town or village center does not guarantee the succession of
these potential benefits; many town centers have failed to meet expectations,
demonstrating lackluster financial and social results. Often these shortcomings are due
to the lack of a II critical mass" of nearby homes and businesses necessary to support a
cornmerdal success.
Wallis Ranch DRAFT
12
9.13.2004
EDA W Inc.
Village Center at: Tassajara
Opportunity Analysis
Nevertheless, studies have indicated common elements across successful town centers
and core districts (Main Street Study, 1997). These elements all concern place-making-
that is, the cultivation of a unique identity and a coherent sense of place. Due to
heightened competition, we might generally expect that the smaller the town center, the
more important these place-making qualities become in ensuring its success.
".. -
-
-t \.,
.' \
Public places, mix of uses, public art, and interestirlg building details add to dlaracter
More specifically, these centers can all be identified by their ability to:
· fiI1 a market for niche goods and/ or services;
· provide a synergistic mix of goods and services;
· complement the mix of uses in the areas proximal to the main street / village
square, particularly within walking distance;
· offer more intimate scales of activity, including boutiques and other small shops;
· be easily accessible;
· create a human-scaled design;
· highlight the experience of pedestrians relative to automobiles and other
vehicular traffic;
Wallis Ranch DRAFT
13
9.13.2004
EDA W Inc.
Village Center at Tassajara
Opportunity Analysis
· provide II experiential" functions and shared experiences, like entertainment,
theaters, and themed restaurants;
· produce "destinations" that draw "passers-bys" and visitors from the various
surrounding scales: the neighborhood, the community, and the larger region.
In view of the considerable role village centers can play in community formation, careful
attention should be paid to context. To be sure, village centers are not appropriate
everywhere and anywhere; and wherever possible, they must be adapted to suit
geographic, demographic, and socio-economic context. Although this context is relevant
to place-making, it is also, however, relevant to the economic viability of town and
village centers.
TOUJn homes over shops in San lose
The economic viability of these village centers largely depends upon market
characteristics, potential market volume, and economic outlook. The economic
challenges in creating new town centers, however, are primarily defined by two
overarching needs:
1. The need to have a population that can support it. The larger the town center,
the larger the population base must be to absorb it. Traditionally, village and
Wallis Ranch DRAFT
14
9.13.2004
EDA W Inc.
Village Center at Tassajara
Opportunity Analysis
town centers have lagged behind the development of master planned
communities in order to ensure a strong population base that will support the
commercial success of the center. Slow or limited absorption can doom not only
the village center but the ultimate financial success of the project.
2. The ability to attract investors and a synergistic mix of tenants. Financing town
center projects can be expensive and risky. Due to the importance of social
experience in town centers and the incorporation of zero-profit generating spaces
like parks and plazas, the commercial and financial viability of town centers has
become more challenging. Improper phasing of the town center can leave
businesses vulnerable to insufficient market demand or slow absorption.
Moreover, finding the right mix of tenants can also be a challenge; the wrong mix
can deter return visits or serve too few businesses.
3. A desirable location with good access. Needless to say, neither the shoppers
nor the investors / store owners, will come if the village center is not located in a
location convenient to the population with good vehicular and pedestrian access.
Other considerations like physical design elements (such as streetscape), place-making
techniques (such as intimate scales), and community engagement (such as offering
preference to local entrepreneurs) facilitate the successful orientation of these two needs
within the village center.
III. Village Center Prospects Near the Tassajara Road/
Fallon Road Intersection
A. The Site
A goal of the EDSP is to focus the outlying foothill residential areas on developed village
centers. Tassajara Village is to offer a mix of auto and pedestrian oriented commercial
services, higher density housing, park space, public facilities and schools. The ViIIage
Center would combine commercial and residential elements, such as to be found in the
Wallis Ranch DRAFT
15
9.13.2004
BDA W Inc.
Village Center at Tassajara
Opportunity Analysis
Dublin Ranch Town Center, at a more intimate scale, creating an environment that is, as
the name implies, more "village-like" in character than the more urban town center.
The goals of the EDSP Village Center Guidelines are: to maintain each center's unique
sense of place; to create compact, well-defined commercial districts to serve hiIlside area
residents; to encourage a lively pedestrian environment with a mix of land uses; and to
make services, parks and natural areas accessible by foot and transit.
The guidelines for the Tassajara Village Center are expressed in the following land use
program and in EDSP Figure 7.28, Tassajara Village Concept Plan.
Tassajara Village Center Development Program
TABLE 4.8
T ASSAJARA VILLAGE CENTER
SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
Development
Potential
Designation
Neighborhood Commercial
Medium High Density
Residential
Medium Density Residential
Single Family Residential
Residential Subtotal
Open Space
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood Square
Park/Open Space Subtotal
Elementary School
TOTAL
Acres
8.6
27.1
52.0
17.6
105.3
17.1
5.3
2.8
25.2
11.8
Density
.30 FAR
20 duj ac
112 msf
542 du
10 duj ac
4 dujac
520 du
70du
1,132 du
1 park
1 park
2 parks
1 school
.112 fisf
commercial
1,132 du
2 parks
1 elementary
school
Wa1lís Ranch DRAFT
9.13.2004
EDA W Inc.
16
Village Center at Tassajara
Opportunity Analysis
B. Alternative Town Center Location
Due to the considerable challenges posed by the original village center location denoted
in the EDSP, this report asks if there is a viable village center site and considers an
alternative village center site on the southeastern portion of Dublin Ranch West
property. Designated in the EDSP for medium density residential use, this 5.2± acre site
is located between Tassajara Road and Tassajara Creek. This site is located within the
Lin property boundaries, reducing some of the issues that arise form multiple
ownership.
C. Challenges to Planning a Village Center at Dublin Ranch West
Constraints: The viability of a village center is reliant on site-specific market and
geographical opportunities. Several characteristics of the 5.2± acre alternative site
suggest that there wil1 be significant challenges in planning a neighborhood or
convenience vilIage center on Dublin Ranch West.
· The small size and narrow shape of the village center area limits opportunities
in design and scale on the site.
· The village center site is bounded by a hibutary creek and borders the open
space corridor buffer area, raising potential environmental concerns and
possibly raising the cost of developing this as a village center.
· The site has relatively limited access¡ there is 1 direct point of access to the main
thoroughfare, Tassajara Road. There may also be an additional southbound
right-in, right-out access from Tassajara Road.
· Residential uses on Wallis Ranch lay mainly to the opposite side of the open
space corridor area, inhibiting direct access to the designated village center from
the nearby residential development.
· Tassajara Road is to be a six-lane arterial and will limit / discourage vehicular or
pedestrian access from adjacent residential areas.
· There is a small market; investing in commercial space may require investment
that should be leveraged by higher densities and more residential households.
Wallis Ranch DRAFT
17
9.13.2004
EDA W Inc.
Village Center at Tassajara
Opportunity Analysis
Strengths: There are some potential strengths in planning for a village center at this
alternative site exist.
. Although access is somewhat limited, the village center site is in dose proximity
to a major thoroughfares, open space, and neighborhoods.
. There exists no other opportunity for basic shopping between the DubJin Ranch
Town Center and Waterford to the south, and Blackhawk Plaza (a large
shopping center in Danville) to the north.
IV. Applying These Considerations to the Tassajara Road/ Fallon Road
Intersection Area
Although town centers come in many different forms, they provide people with an
opportunity to actively engage in their communities. For that reason, they are
sometimes regarded as the functional "heart" of a community. Vi1lage centers, because
of their smaller size, are more conducive to the intimate cultivation of community.
Nevertheless, developing village centers create some logistical challenges; they require a
large enough market to make commercial retail businesses viable, proper financing and
phasing in of a commercial component, a synergistic mix of tenants that meets market
demands} good design, and accessibility.
Considering the proximity of the Dublin Ranch Town Center and Waterford to the
south, and Blackhawk Plaza (Danville) 10 miles to the north, as well as size and site
constraints, a viHage center site at or near the Tassajara Road / Fallon Road intersection
would best lend itself to a convenience or neighborhood center. This is further
supported by the small size of the potential population which might be served by the
center. A larger center would be both impractical and inadvisable.
Relocating the village center or a larger center inward toward the geographic center of
the Dublin Ranch West plan area would also be inadvisable. While this location would
be slightly more convenient to Dublin Ranch West residents, it is unlikely that this
community would be able to support the village center on its own. This II central"
location would also draw the center away from Tassajara and Fallon Roads, reducing its
18
9.13.2004
EDA W Inc.
Wallis Ranch DRAFT
Village Center at Tassajara
Opportunity Analysis
attractiveness to potential visitors from nearby neighborhoods and those driving by on
Tassajara Road.
Maintaining the village center along Tassajara Road wiIl not only be convenient for
Dublin Ranch West resident commuters during weekdays, but also convenient for other
people who might Iive to the north in Contra Costa County.
A. Issues that Need Resolution
There are several issues that would need to be resolved before a convenience center /
village center could be viable near the Tassajara Road / Fallon Road intersection. Of the
common elements of successful centers identified in this report, the most pronounced
challenges faced in establishing a village center here would be in facilitating access from
Tassajara Road, as well as insuring convenient access from new nearby residential
developments. Successful centers are easily accessible from nearby neighborhoods
(from a pedestrian and automobile perspective). It will be important to establish safe,
direct and convenient pedestrian and auto access. Street design, landscaping, or
integrating retail with residential functions in compact, mixed-use buiIdings could help
resolve some accessibility concerns.
A village center / convenience center here might also face a challenge in finding
investors to finance a retaiVcommerdal component. Although an economic feasibility
study would better inform the extent to which it is financial1y beneficial to establish a
village center near the Tassajara Road / Fallon Road intersection, typical financial
challenges might be met with creative visioning and strong integration of commercial
opportunities with community values and characteristics. In other words, in finding
niche markets or else incentivizing the success of the commercial center by engaging the
community in its operation, either directly (as is the case in Redbridge, Tracy, CA) or by
drawing in local entrepreneurs (as in the case in Town Village Green, Windsor, CA).
Another approach includes incorporation of mixed~use buildings with both commercial
and residential uses, as is also found in the Town Village Green. Although some
Wallis Ranch DRAFT
19
9.13.2004
EDA W Inc.
Village Center at Tassajara
Opportunity Analysis
challenges do exist with this type of building, developers are finding ways to
successfully fund and sell these projects.
In Windsor, California, town houses are built over ground floor shops, across from a town green
The relative remoteness of the development site from larger population bases suggests
that the viUage center (neighborhood or convenience oriented) would have to be
supported primarily and heavily from the residents ofthe neighborhood and some
motorists passing by.
Both these constraints suggest that the village center near the Tassajara Road / Fallon
Road intersection will need to either cultivate a unique experience that could attract
outside visitors, or to focus solely on neighborhood convenience needs. It would face
extraordinary challenges in competing with larger town centers, and it should not try to
do so.
Wallis Ranch DRAFT
20
9.13.2004
EDA W Inc.
.
.
.
'.
~ARTIN W. IN'DERBITZt:t.J
Attomeyat Law
March 10, 2004
Via Facsimil£: 833-6628
Mike Porto
Planning Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, caiifomia 94-568
Re: PubUc/Semi-Public Sties
Dear .Mike:
Pursuant to our telephone conv~rsation this morning, enclosed please .find a short
memorandum and :ttJ.atrix prepared by Dave Chadbourne comparing the Dublin' Ranch
obligation to provide public/sexni-pubIic acreage under the City's recently approved
pQlicy with the public/sen1i-public acreage provided as Part of the F-North Genera.!. Plan
Specific Plan. Amendment. .
As you can see, there is almost an exact match between what wo are providing
and what our total obligation would be 8$suming maximum build~out on Dublin Ranch
We~. .
I would expect St~ff conClIITence on this issue.
Very truly yours,
\
!y/d.A;fi~ {¡tJ,rJn~~~
MARTIN w. ll'IDERBITZEN /?If
MWI/hnh
EncJosure
Porto3.IQa . ,
DS-1"!ar7 KoII Co".. P"kway, S,," 120, PI......,,,,o, "-mi...... Phon. S25 ....'''''0 eo><... 485-1065 . 9
09/1312004 .ON ~!!~~~~~~!] ~j
\...-.1
i .
'-.-'
18034-0
2123/04
D.C.
LAND USE P/SP ACREAGE PROJECTED
GROSS UNITS DEDICATION ACREAGE
ACRES DESIGNATION FACTOR REQUIREMENT
AREA F:
Area F North PI Low DensIty 121 .~ aeli5D Units 0.40
Med. Density 119 .5 acl250 Units 0.24
Area F West (2) 42.3 Med. Density 423 ,S acl250 Units 0.85
Area FEast \"1 62.9 Mad. Density 629 .5 acl250 Units 1.26
¡
AREA B: (;))
27.2 Mad. Density 272 .5 acJ250 Units 0.65
8.6 Med. High Density 172 .5 ec1250 Units 0.34
DUBLIN RANCH WEST: (4) Low Density 75 .5801150 Units 0.25
Mad. Density 557 .5 acl250 Units 1.11
Moo. High Density 222 .5 a0/250 Units 0.45 I
Mad. Hich/ES 210 .5 acl250 Unlta 0.42
5.87 Be.
ttJ
Notes;
(1) Per Area F North PD/Tentative Map Submittal Package - Februa!l" 2004: F1/F2 Tentative Maps
(2) Per Area F North GpA/SPÁ Submittal~aC:kage - February 2004; Units based on mld·polnt of density range
(3) Per current Dublin Ranch Land Use De$ìgnation' Units based on mld-polnt of densIty range
(4) Per Dublin Rench West Stage I PD Submittal Package - January 2004; Units based on mid point densities; Actual
fotted dwellings per Stage 2 PD are less.
e 11!034-Ddc2-23-04A/'e&aF-B-W_
09/13/2004 NON 10: 33 [TX/RX NO 8728] 1m 002
1
.
.
e
\...-.I
~.
IDACKAY. SOIlPS
eNGIN~I!RS
¡>\..ANNE~S
SUAVEVORS
. TRANSMITTAL LETTER
To: Marty Inderbitzen
PR,OJECT No.:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
16034-0
February 23, 2Q04
Dublin Ranch
Public/Semi-Public Sites
SHIP VIA: FAX
DESCRIPTION OF ENCLOSED:
. Public/Semi-Public Acreage Dedication Exhibit
. Memo re: Public/Semi-Public Facilities Policy (dated 2/5/04)
MeSSAGE:
Marty:
Enclosed for your review is a table I prepared with projected P/SP acreage
requirements for remaining Dublin Ranch neighborhD~s (Area F North, West and
East; Area Band Du blin Ranch West) per your memo of February 5. Based on my
tabulations as well as m5' understanding of the City's requirements in their new
policy, it appears we would have to provide 5.87 acres of P/SF land for the balance
of the remaining Dublin Ranch residential development. Please nofe that this
number is based on converting the elementary school site in Dublin Ranch West
(Wallis) to Medium High Density Housing. Based on our F'D development plan for
Area F North, we have provided.a ÞJSP site with B.3 gross acres and 5.8 net acres.
Let me know if we need to discuss any of this information further.
MACKAY & SOMPS
BY:~~
Dave Chadbourne
Cc: J. Tong w/enclosures
R. Andrade . II
C. Goldade ..
- SINCE 1053 -
5142 FRANKl-IN DRIV!;, SUITE B PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94568-3355 PHONE {925) 225-0690 FAX (925) 225-0098
OFFICES~ PLEASANTON RENO I SPARKS RO$EVILLE SACRAME:NTO SAN JOSE SAN RAMON
1 OO:H-09ç2-eS-o4rr;r\4erb1IUn-p-..pla¡'ula1 iOn.doc WWW.msc8.COm
08/13/2004 MON 10: 33 [TX/RX NO 8728] ~ 003
.
.
e
WaDis Ranch/DubUn Ranch West
Semi-Public Facilities Component
Property Acres Density Mid- Mid-point Max Max Semi-
point Semi-Public Units Public Acres
Units Acres
Lin
Low Residential 18.8 0-6 d.u./acre 15 .25 acres 113 .38 acres
Medium 55.7 6.1-14 d.u./acre 557 1.11 acres 780 1.56 acres
Medium HiJth 1l.1 14.1-25 d.u./acre 222 .44 acres 278 .56 acres
(MediumHigb/ (11.2) (l4.1-25 d.u./acre) (210) (.42 acres) (280) (.56 acres)
Elementary School)
Lin Subtotal 1.8 acres 2.5 acres
(2.22 acres) (3.06 acres)
BrlU!: [1Ii 0 0
Sperfsla!e* 0 0
09/10/04
* Units are less than threshold for applicability under Semi-Public Facilities Policy.
ATTACHMENT /Ø
.
.
-
, ,
MARTIN W. INDERBITZEN
Atto~ney at Law
September 14, 2004
Mike Porto
Pla.nn.IDg Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, California 94568
Re: Dublin Ranch West
Park Acreage Requirements and Land Use Altern.atives
Dear Mike:
The purpose of this coITe5pondence is to outline the remaining neighborhood park
requirements for the entirety of Dublin Ranch (including Dublin Ranch West) and
propose a neighborhood park solution for Dublin Ranch West which I believe will result
in an oveyall land use and development pattern that is the optimum solution for Dublin
Ranch West and the northern Tas5~ara corridor,
First, I draw your attention to cOITeSpondence dated March 18, 2004 addressed to
me from Diane Lowartt Parks and Community Services Director. In this letter, Diane
summarizes the park acreage requirements for Dublin Ranch properties outlined in the
City's Master Plan Update. Adjacent to the acreage requirements outlined by Diane, I
have added a column identifYing' the proposed and existing park acreages for
neighborhood parks and neighborhood squares (along with the sports park) which results
in a 3.7-acre deficit. This deficit assumes a 5 net acre neighborhood park on the Dublin
Ranch West property.
We have proposed a 5 net acre park :fur tbe following reasons:
1. The Wallis property is a highly constrained site. You will note from the
project submittal1ha.t substantial portions of the property have been or are dedicated to
wildlife and resource agencies for open space management.
2. The Dublin Ranch properties have been required to increase their
community park dedication in order to accommodate ~ sjngle, 60-acre community park to
the benefit of the citizens of Dublin.
3. We have increased the size of neighborhood parks and neighborhood
squares in the remainder of Dublin Ranch in ordEtl' to put park acreage where it will be
best utilized.
,"orto9!4b
DR - wiAtIV KoIl CentQr Parkway, Sutte 120, PIQasQnton, CQUfomla 94566 Pt'lono:. 925 485-106D Fax Q25 4B5-1065
"11./200. rUE 14:" [r~~~<:~~~~;r ~
.
.
.
MikePorlo
September 14, 2004
Page Two
4. The northern Tassajara conidor contains land uses on lands that are highly
. constrained and thus questionable with regard to their ultimate build out (i.e., substantial
portions of the property are in environmentally sensitive areas and wíIl very likely not
yield the anticipated build out as shown on the Eastem Dublin Specific Plan). Thus, to
require the full 8.7 acres of remaining park acreage on the Dublin Ranch West property
may result in the City being "over parked" in this area.
S. 2 acres of the Dublin Ranch West requirement is associated with the
Tassajara Village Center (the neighborhood square) and we believe the Village Center is
no longer viable and thus this associated park acreage would no longer be required.
6. Assuming the maximum build out of Dublin Ranch West as proposed in
our land use submittal the ØluUntUn acreage: I'Cquired by the project for neighborhood
park would be approxnnately 3.5 acres.
7. To require a neighborhood park of larger acreage "internal" to the project
(off of Tassa.j àta Road across the creek Imd abridge) would make it inconvenient to any
citizens other than those residing in Dublin Ranch West and therefore while a benefit to
that neighborhood it would not be serving a. benefit to the entire community as projected
in the Master Plan.
N otwi thstanding the foregoing, we are proposing an. aJtemati ve land USe
arrangement that will address the neighborhood park needs of the Dublin Ranch West
residents and also provide neighborhood park opportunities for the entire Northern
Tassajara corridor. In addition, because of the configuration of the land and its
convenient location a small portion of the property (approximately one acre) can be made
available for publicfsemi-public Or neighborhood commercial uses (or both), as the staff
deems appropriate. The total park acreage in this proposal would be 7.66 acres (merely
1.04 acres short of the entire requirement outlined in Diane's letter - as adjusted by our
enlarged parks) and because of its unique location associated with dedicated open space
and linlœd by a bridge crossing will have ihe look and feel of a park much larger in size.
We believe this wiU provide a unique opportunity for Dublin Ranch West and for the
community by bringing together an improved park, a regional trail, open space and semi-
public opportunities. We hope that you will consider this alternative favorably.
Very truly yours~
MWJIlmh
Enclosure
PortQ914b
DR - Wallie
08(14/2004 rUE 14: 44 [TX/RX NO 8788] iJ 003
.,'
,
¡
CrlY OF DUBLIN
.
100 Olvic PJsu, DublIn, Californja 94566,
Website; http://www,oi.dublfn.oa.u-B
March 18þ 2004
M:a.rt:i:r:l W. mdcrbitzen
7077 KoU Center ParkwaŸ. S'Ui~ 12Q
PleltSanton, CA 9456(5
Dear Marty:
At the March 16,2004 :ro.eeting of the Dt.1blin City Council, the Council adopted the·Parks and RMl:oa:tion Master
Plan - Ma:rch 2004 Updat~. ~ Master Plàn win become effective whm the: General Pla:n and Ea.ste:rn. Dublin
Sp'~çific Plan are amended to conf~ seve¡;-al cl1tm.ges proposed by th~ Mast~ Plan tJpdate. r ø.nti~ipé.te that the
ElI1eD.dtc~ts w-ï.J1 b~ ~~mplfjœ 'by ~~ 2-00:4. . .
The MasterPlan Update calls for '!;he aoquisitioD. of an a.ddÌtÎona1149.5 a.crcs of parkland :in the eastem and westero
p!anÏ1..mg a!e.aB. This .includeS the follawing' park acreage ~Q:(' tho Dublin FJ!!lch properties:' ...
~"f>øJJ....-c:. / ¿,;>-~ rr,""'¿:
DubIm,Ranch, Area G Ndghborhood SqtÏare 1'.9 io.~t ac.ree . (..or
Dublin Ranch Area. F Neighborhood Park 4..2. ']¡¡et acres ~. ç
Dublin Rancb AroaF Neighbornood Square l.~,~et a.ores ~ p 1.
Dublin Ra;c,cb Aiea F ' s.ports Park ' 60 ,~et acres ,é, o. ¡$
DuJ;j1ìri Rant:h' AI'ea B. ' Neighbor'hoód Square . l.~ ~eta:cres . 2... 0
Í5ùhÜ:rÎ Ranch Wèst (Waui$). . . Neighborhood Pi!Tk . 4.4.;:f:1et acreS $'. r,;a ,~.
a>ubIin Ranch West (Wallis) Neighborhood Park 4,Q:b~ a.crc~ 0
. WDublin Ratiëh West'("Wal1iB} , N6íghborhood S$1àI'e 2.1 het a.cre~ 0
. . . '11: " . 'J..r, "t < ::r. ~ > .
Where the(c was not au approved devclopment plan, acn:s'were bued.on the park sites and. a.cres icienti:fied in the
Eastern. Dubli:ö.'Sp~~~.c p~~ and gross acre~ Shown å;1 the pla.n were: reduced by 25%.to dc'tornrino net acre5.
I· t ~ ~ : .: , .# I . I ...' :. .
AS'ÿon '±nove tbtoiig-h/t'liep'lamring proc~ss·.wïth iü~'~VeIopinc::nt proposals, Dublin Rimch will be reqUired to
abide'by these acl-ea.ge amounts. However:;I wowèl.'6Ò!lSÍder :mmor shifts o:t!icreage'betwe~ deve.lopmt';D,t areas if
i~'1na~os$etise froin 'a planning 8.1ld servio.epetspë:ctive. . . .. '
.
Please contact me if you have questioris òr wou1d like to discuss your ~ park plms in the Dublin Rànch
development. '
Smcere1y,
Dii::::: ch0~
Parks & Community Services Director
cc:
Eddie Peabody. Co~ty DevelOpIDeJJt Dire~
..
Ars", COOl: (r¡I~5) . City Mang,r;¡Qr 833-6650 - City Counofl'833-¡)ô50 . pg~Onn9r 833-5805 . 'Eoonom ¢ Development S3.S-6650·
Rnånoa B33-SS40 - PLmlir. W()rkslEn"l~rinS' 83:;1-6530' . Parks & CommuJ1t:y Ser"'ÓAE e::¡3-6f>~5 . Police S$3-6ô70
"'J~nnlng/<":oáø 5l1ft¡rçemenr 833-66'10 . 8ulldfilg Ins:pectton 833-õ&20 . FIre Prsvsnticn BUreau 633-6605 .
Printer:! on Re(:JC'tJd Papar
08/1412004 rUE 14:44 [TX/RX NO 8766] ~004
~
----------
.'
--
,/",Itf?"!;J
, I1f1fA-1 hu" 1/ !l tL
------. ..
----..
",,;/t:;IoN
..-
':J~lAf tH ~~1::t
. ¡,tJfJ "'~td- t./.-
j .)
J~'~
,
, ~t:i1)~ I'JJ~..J"J
..:te.t¡;1.-~ T"""-
~
.,
I
-/.rØJ(YI "'~
Wp¡;¡ if../y
..
11'<.4V-- -iwe, J4'dlL
'"'1
~"''2- útJ¡.;".JU~'HV~-
{ µ >1:'"'11 ')lItJip
1 -- --....:. ----....-:
~
..,
..
C J,.,'P ~;n,
?~.A ~.J"..)
L. ~ Ø'j¡f - Jiïlji:r "
~
.....
.,
-=t'~ 1)~ ~~~J
-;Þ)..Q kJJJ.$$V~-
(.J~.?ow;¡.¡;i)T!~ Odðea
~"Þy- QJ.' lAtJ_}#l4ij
. '1 j.'''-4.H~~~''¡{l'I~
"'I
.9
!
:M:
'6
D
R
~
rï;:
~
ø
--
-,
'"
,
\
\
I
I
I
,
I
\
I
'I
I
,
I
,
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
,
, I
\\
J
fI
r
,
/
,
I
I
,
/
t
'I
I I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
, I
, \
I
I
I I
/ I
/ I
/ I
I \
\ \ I
\ \ ~l/\
~, \ jl I
\, \
\
\
\
" '
, \
, \
\ \
,I
"
f ,
,
I
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
}
"
ð
1:1;
i
fooì
rJ:)
~
~
-H
(0
-
..".
II
~
~
\
I
I
I
I
,
I
\
\
\
I
I
,
\
,
I
\
\,
'\
\
\
\
\
\
\
M
I
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
,
,
I
I
1
1
I
I
,
,
,
,
,
I
r
/
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
\
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
,
I
I
~
5
I
i
L
..
"
',\
\
\
I
\
\
I
I
,
,
I
,
\
,
)
I
I
,
,
I
,
,
,
,
, .
I
f \
\ \
\ I
\ I
I ~
\. .".--
r'\:\
\
, \
I \
\ \
\ \
\ ...
... \
\ \
'.... "
\ \
\. -.
\ /I "", t
\ I " ,
~ II 1-
~I., I
I I
' \
' \
~\ \
\ \
, \
m \ \
\ I
\ I
' I
t-' .-" I
I \
' ,
I ,\ \
: ~ ~ \
\ ) I
''-!, J
"
, ,1
1/1
J.J
W
IN
I
\ I
,'"
/
...'\
J '.....-1
-------=:.=.::-.:==-~-
,~ ....- ---
\ -----'~.:::=:-- i
\\ -....,.- ...-;:,::::'.. 1
...>i: .-::;;.'
, '\~,
, #' \ ------------- --------
x'"
,
,..
~
D::
~
~
:J
f'Ir.I!
I ~
en
ë1
<
-H
o
~
C':I
II
MARTIN W. INDERBITZEN
Attorney at Law
.
Septernber14,2004
Mike Porto
Planning Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, California 94568
Re: Dublin Ranch West (Wallis)
Public/Semi-Publie Uses
Dear Mike:
e
Enclosed please find a copy of the recently adopted Semi-Public Fac11ities Policy
adopted by the City of Dublin in February of this year together with a matrix which I
have had prepared identifYing the maximum potential acreage requirement for
public/semi-public land uses on all Dublin Ranch properties for which the Semi-Public
Facilities Policy could be considered applicable (including Dublin Ranch West). The
matrix assumes that the policy would be triggered by a General Plan Specific Plan
Amendment which of course is not the case for portions of Dublin Ranch. You will
recall that the Area F North General Plan Specific Plan Amendment was occasioned in
part by the City of Dublin in an effort to modify land uses to accommodate a larger
community park entirely on the Dublin Ranch property and no General Plan Specific
Plan Amendment is anticipated for the areas between Central Parkway, Dublin
Boulevard, Lockhart Street and Fallon Road.
As the matrix indicates, the. maximum potential requirement for all of the
remaining properties, including Dublin Ranch West, would be 5.87 acres. I have
enclosed fOf your reference as well a memorandum prepared by David Chadbourne dated
February 23, 2004 indicating that in Area F North we have provided 6.3 gross acres and
5.8 net acres for public/semi-public uses thus it could easily be concluded by the staff that
Dublin Ranch (including Dublin Ranch West) has already met its entire obligation under
the Semi-Public Facilities Policy and no further requirement should be imposed on
Dublin Ranch West.
, In addition, I wish to point out that the standards used in applying the Semi-Public
Facilities Policy allow for the modification of the standards or the exemption of projects
that provide affordable housing in excess of the City of Dublin Inclusionary Zoning
Regulations. I am sure you will recall that with the Fairway Ranch project Dublin Ranch.
has substantially exceeded the affordable housing requirements for the entirety of the
Dublin Ranch properties including Dublin Ranch West. Accordingly, we have not
e
Porto914c
DR· 'W1tf¡r;; KolI Center Parkway, Suite 120, Pleasanton. California 94566
Phone 925485-1OS0 ÄTtÄêifMENT 1:2--
.
.
.
Mike Porto
September 14, 2004
Page Two
proposed and we hereby request staff support of an exemption from the requirement to
provide public/semi-public uses in the Dublin Ranch West project.
Very truly yours, ~
~
MARTIN W. INDERBITZEN
MWIIlmh
Enclosures
Porto914c
DR - Wallis
16034-0
2123/04
D.C.
. 'I GROSS LAND USE P/SP ACREAGE PROJECTED
UNITS DEDICATION ACREAGE
ACRES DESIGNATION FACTOR REQUIREMENT
AREA F:
Area F North (1) Low Density 121 .5 acl150 Units 0.40
Med. Density 119 .5 ad250 Units 0.24
Area F West (2) 42.3 Med. Density 423 .5 ac/250 Units 0.85
Area FEast (2) 62.9 Med. Density 629 .5 acl250 Units 1.26
AREA B: (3)
27.2 Med. Density 272 .5 ac/250 Units 0.55
8.6 Med. High Density 172 .5 ac/250 Units 0.34
"
DUBLIN RANCH WEST: (4) Low Density 75 .5 acl150 Units 0.25
Med. Density 557 .5 acl250 Units 1.11
Med. High Density 222 .5 acl250 Units 0.45
Med. High/ES 210 .5 ac/250 Units 0.42
. 5.87 ae.
Notes:
(1 ) Per Area F North PDrrentative Map Submittal Package - February 2004; F1/F2 Tentative Maps
(2) Per Area F North GPAfSPA Submittal Package - February 2004; Units based on mid-point of density ranQe
(3) Per current Dublin Ranch Land Use Designation; Units based on mid-point of density range
(4) Per Dublin Ranch West Stage I PD Submittal Package - January 2004; Units based on mid point densities: Actual
lotted dwellings per Stage 2 PD are less.
.
16034-odc2-23-04AreasF· B-Westxl&
.
mlCKAY.5amps
ENGINEERS
PLANNERS
SURvEYORS
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
To: Marty Inderbitzen
PROJECT No.:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
16034-0
February 23, 2004
Dublin Ranch
Public/Semi-Public Sites
SHIP VIA: FAX
DeSCRIPTION OF ENCLOSED;
· Publîc/Semi-Public Acreage Dedication Exhibit
· Memo re: Public/Semi-Public Facilities Policy (dated 2/5/04)
MeSSAGE:
Marty:
. Enclosed for your review is a table.· I prepared with projected P/SP acreage
requirements for remaining DubHn Ranch neighborhoods (Area F North, West and
East; Area B and Dublin Ranch West) per your memo of February 5. Based on my
tabulations as well as my understanding of the City's requirements in their new
policy, it appears we would have to provide 5.87 acres of P/SP land for the balance
of the remaining Dublin Ranch residential development. Please note that this
number is based on converting the elementary school site in Dublin Ranch West
(Wallis) to Medium High Density Housing. Based on our PD development plan for
Area F North, we have provided a P/SP site with 6.3 gross acres and 5.8 net acres.
Let me know if we need to discuss any of this information further.
.
MACKAY & SOMPS
BY:~~
Dave Chadbourne
Cc: J. Tong w/enclosures
R. Andrade If
C. Goldade ..
- SINC ;; 1E1S3 -
5142 FRANKLIN DRIVE, SUITE B PL, EASANTON CALIFORNIA 94588-3355 PHONE (925)225-0690 FAX (925) 225-0698
OFFICES: PLEASANTON RENO I SPARKS ROSEVILLE SACRAMENTO SAN JOSE SAN RAMON
'6034-0dc2-23-D4rrincerbi1zen-p-sptabulalicn.dcc
www.msce.CCim
Final Task Force Recommendation
.
It is the policy of the City Council of the City of Dublin that in reviewing amendments to the land us~
map of the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin 'SpecIfic Plan, the City shall also review the
provision of opportunities for cultural, educational and other community services. Semi-Public
Facilities, such as child care centers, religious institutions and others defined below, deliver important
community services. It is the inteµt ofllie Policy to increase thè opportunities for Semi-Public
Facilities by increasing the locations oflands designated Public/Semi·Public Facilities on the General
Plan land use map. Tothat effect, all land use amendments may be reviewed for designation of Semi-
Public Facilities lands according to the guidelines below:
Purpose of Semi-Public Facilities Policy
The purpose of the Semi-Public Facìlities Policy is to: .
Create a greater sense of community in Dublin neighborhoods and commercial éenters;
Enrich co~unity identity and foster a sense of civic pride; .
Recognize and anticipate the different needs of Dublin residents who represent diverse ages,
. interests, national backgrounds, and cultural. social and creative pursuits; .
- . Leave future generations a cultû.rallegacy which can change and develop as the City grows and
changes; and
Increase public access to cultural, educational and community services, citywide.
Definitions
Semi-Pnblic Facilities. Semi-Public Facilities will include uses such as child care centers, youth
centers, senior centers, special needs program facilities, religious institutions, clubhouses,
cm:nmunity centers, community tb~atres, hospitals, and other facilities that provide cultural,
educational, or other community services. A semi-public facility may be used for more than one
semi~public use. Semi·Public Facilities are generally part ófilie Public/Semi-Public Facilities
land use category. .
Transportation and Circulation Systems. Adequate transportation and circulation systems
criteria is defined as a site located on a class 1 collector street with two points of access and
egress and provision of public transit service within a ~ mile distance.
-.--. .
Applicability
This Policy shall be applicable to all General Plan and Specific Plan Am~ndment applications. This
Policy shall apply to residential amendments involving 150 or more Single-Family Density housing
units and/or 250 or more Medium Density or greater density housing units, or increments and
combinations thereof
.
Final Task Force Recommendation
Procedure
City Staff shall work with project applicants to meet the goals and intent of the Semi-Public Facility
Policy according to the following procodure:
. The location(s) of the Semi-Public Facility site(s) as part of a Public/Semi-Public Facility land
use category will be determined as a part of the amendment project review by the City.
Identification of Semi-Public Facilities sites will begin at the early stages ofllie amendment
app Ii cation.
The City Council shall have final approval' of the Public/Semi-Public Facility site identified for
Semi·Public Facility land uses.
.
, Standards
When reviewing the sufficiency of the sites proposed as part of an amendment application
pUtsuaDt to the Semi-Public Facility Policy. the City will consider the following future
modiñcations of deSign requirements for Semi-Public Facility projects: parking reductions;
design modifiCations; use of nearby public facilities to meet over-flow parking demand;
partnering of Semi-Public FacilitÙ~~s with City facilities where feasible; and transfer of Semi-
Public Facility land use sites to other locatioDS in the City ofDub1.Ú1 that meet the location
criteria described below. '
When reviewing the sufficiency of sites proposed as a part of an amendment application pursuant
to the Semi-Public Facility Policy, the City will consider modification of these standards for, or
exempt, projects that provide affordable housmg in excess of the City of Dublin Inclusionary
Zoning Regulations.
New residential development subject to thi~ Policy shall strive to provide sites for Semi-Public
Facilities land us.es at a rate of 1 acre (net) per 1,000 residents. In practice, General Plan and
Specific Plan Amendment applications shall strive to provide .5 acres of land designated for,
Public/Semi-Public Pacilities per 150 units of. Single-Family Density (.9 --6.0 units per acre)
andJor.5 acres ofland designated Public/Serrii-Public Facilities per 250 units of Medium Density
or greater density (6.1 or more units per acre), or increments and combinations thereof.
Private residential facilities to be used to satisfy this Policy may not be restricted to proj ect
rèsidents and emplayees.
Future, Îacilities will have an identifying archit~ctura1 style tha.t is att:ractive and that is '
recognizable fr:om the public right-of-way.
Sites for future Semi-Public Facilities will be reviewed per the location guidelines below.
Location of Semi-Public Facility Sites
'In considering the potentia110catioÌl of Semi-Public Fa.cilities, the City Council will consider
locations in all parts of-the City. In addition, it is encouraged that Semi-Public Facilities be located
at sites: '
with adequate transportation and circulation systems that have thð least conflict with residential
uses;
where shared parking might QGcur between complementary uses;
with open space and landscaping amenities;
with proximity to City parks; and
with proximity to schools.
.
~$" City of Dublin - Commercial Access Diagram
.>::",....i'
o
.
0.25
~
- Dublin Lot:S _ RIght of WI'f$ ~ty of Dublin
I.....
o.~
september 2004
ATTACH ME
~.., -..... -.----_.
. C~ -1-; '.' .~,
:i:; :a~Ì'r:. ÒY: DUBLINj
:" ; 0(
.
.
.
Q2SB2S2551¡
APR.2B·04 9:51AM;
:IA~ 2/';.
DUBUN UNIFIED SCHOOL IJISTRlCT
RelÐlDdon No. 2003104 M "
R.eJeue of Wallis School Site
WHEIŒAS, 1h4 ~ DubfuI Unified Sohoøl District ("'Dilltrict") and C1umg Su..() .t..in (aka Jennifer
lJ.a.) tJ'Id Dub:m. Rano11 LLC (conClOtive1y'refcm¡d to bcte.in N ""De~elopd1 cmteted in10 two (2)
agreemenÞ in i 997 (U le "1997 Mitigation A¡1CmDoa.1A'') whiøh. provided for, ID10III I)therthirJ.gs,
paymmt of SQ Iloo1 miti gatioü feos and/or .iß.kiml co4tr1Ò\ItÍOIWI as more .,eoificalIy act forih in thcs~
~ems;IJld
'W'IIEltEA8. ft e DisllÍçt a.nd tb~~~oper have agreed CO enter into an !nMlieu AgrecmeJ1t
which win 8I1J2P1em.cmt the 1997 .Mitig¡WÔZ1:'A!f=mIJJ11S 8Dd which wil1 also oocompass lhit. prop;.rty
~yrefi!md to 21 th<: "Wa1Ji,~' (or Dublin R.moh West); and
"
WREJ!Œ.A5. Wallia Property itnot currently QØvored by the 1~7 Mitigation Agtccmmts, 'but
is $ubjeçt to p l,møt 0 f sçhool mitíJI,tjpn ,fees as levied by the: Díøtriœ; and
WB'.EREAS, tJLC Dastem Dublin Spooifio Plan obligates Deve10per to dcdiçat~ a school sitè
within ~ bo1 mdari ef (þf w.allis Property; , arid -
WBEI$AS, thl:l District htsa detérrnined, after Ii review of the Diltrid Faciliti~ Master Plan,
that 1111 e1esn~ nàry scll,101 site will DOt' -be ri.1qUi~d oor ia it d.eair;d by the Pistrict \I/ithin the bouudari05
of tho Wants Property; and
WHE REAS, c crtain toy elements of the InwLieu Ag.rocm~require Pev!fPlope:r to (1) ccmttuct
and dedicate without I~ Falltm Middle School. (2) c:óñ$tTUCt and dedicate withoot charp Orc;a
EIemeatary ~¡cbool, 111111 (3) convey to tbe :District without c1wgc (b.at schQol site know71 as ~ E~3
elementary $:haol site (otMrwisc bJown'a¡: the 'rrown cefttet" she).
NOW, TJlEBEFORE. BE rr"RtsOLV.EÐt by the Governing Board of the DlJhlin UniJ1ed
School D1stri ct tNi:
1. In act. qo for the obligatíòns œferenced above. am! olht:r ob1iptions COI1talccdín the
rn.U~1 A¡reem~ MemO%'811411m of Intent. Addendum. to ~ 1997 Mitigation
Aar=r ;¡cø.b, the PurCbue, Apeemen1S md ¡óint Escrow .[Ntr'uçtions for the school
aitc$. 2 nd aU other ~ nooCSøary to œfççtu.atc the obligationi of 1be parries,
Devclc.pc:r,aba.ll receive ~redíts 10 use in lieu oftbc r;:QWrcm=tlt to pay school miû~¡å1on
fCl:$ or ¡ property C4J1't(Ifttly owned in Ddblin Ra.Dcb aDd Waltis 'Property =nmencmg on
Mareh 31,2004. .
2. The Wallis Property. rnáre particularly ~õed by a legal descriptiQn wbích i$
attacb1d tD this ROIOtu60%l as Bx'b1ãit 1. IS hereby te1eased from. the obligatio¡¡ to
provùJ~ a school site to District.
ATTACHMENT 14
I'.'____.·~··~·
..,_.,- --.--
AI'R.~g·04 9:5~AU;
~~EN~ ~y: OU~LrN:
92S8282551¡
.
.
.
PME à/3
3.
The DÌJtr.ct suppoÑ ~l1e ~gnaücm of 1.hc elementarY açhoal site on the: W&11is
J'roperty !!om se~l to residential and said re-ðosipation i8 eoøsistcnt with it's
]/aci1ities :~ P1àn. .
THJ: ,FI)RlCG01NG 1ŒSOLVTTON was duly puacd and adopted by the Oovemin~ Board
of the Dub¡;n Unified Sc:11oo1 Distriot at a special méetin¡ bc1d. DJl the 20th day of April, 1004. by the
foUowlDg roll CAn vO":
AYES: 4
. "
'~OES: 0
ABSEN"': t (Halt)
Signed I1'IIi approved b~ me aft:cr its paøa¡c. .
AtTBST~iU·' . ...
~av=iDié-
.... I,.
Page 2
I'tk :c..... .._~ ~
~1SJn ....*PÞ¡
""""'",.r......~""IM"t'mw
.
.
.
CITY OF DUBLIN
VILLAGE POLICY STATEMENT
, ," ,"",:::..!' ~~"
, " ':"_~~_ <~ i~ ~ '., ,·.Wi"
F'" 'P'" ,~, 1-
" ,'~ ., .._.~~.-. 111' ,,~.
, '_ø ft.tI ' """ f.~~ l'l 1 . :.' ~LJ r, .
, ~I' wJ ,/..:,,1 ~J".c>' ,,,·..·111 ~"'-: ~ I '
¡ '-, !':, ~ .,r< _ .. l rr r. f.. \ r; D'
" . t . ~ ' '.
- I . ~
WEIr H!VAflON
~..,'
'>".~ fÎo,,""~1 ,-:. \~..(;~..",
~Öii"..,,-.:'-· t[1-' ~';'Jf'n_' "'I~Ir"I"'"',~+r~~!I'-ii-
/!,,~ ¡¡¡ ~.,~, II' \;:.. J¡; '-~,.~r I . ',,! I:; ....
~3..f¡; ~ f 1 ,..,,t 'i! ! _æ.. ~;;. ,.",(1..." Irq" ..¡ ¡ ': , ,A~ ~~:
,,_'-:, \ . 'L,~? 't 1 ~_~ ~t! ,J) ¡¡" ··,~,'.1
~ . . ~ ~ ~ ' . ' ,~'
L _L,
NOITH I'L.UTIDN
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
1
ATTACHMENT
1 ~
e
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 of villages. In addition, this Policy provides direction 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.
ADDlicabilitv
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:
1. Possible Village Sites
2. Later modifications to the General Plan and Specific 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.
The Villal!l! Pol~
A Village is defined as a physical development of land that has been
designed to encourage compact development of an area which integrates a
variety of housing types and densities with community 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 affordabiHty 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 of the Village together;
5 Street and Pedestrian linkages should link to transportation spines including buses and transit
.
2
.
.
.
servIces;
6 The Village should have a strong "edge" defining the boundaries. This could include major
streets, architectural or landscaped areas;
7 Village size should reflect development that promotes pedestrian walkability, pennits a
- sufficient mixture of residential and public/private uses and convenient commercial areas.
8 Specific identity should be fostered for the Village areas (special signage, unique design
elements, public plazas etc.)
ImDlementation
An Action Plan to detennine 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.
G:\PA#\2004\04~25\VilIagœ Policy Statement Revisions from CC mtg,doc
3
--- ,.- ..- .- -- ~ ~ -- -..... ~ '
.
.
z
...
ii
~
:xl :xl )Þ
G G -
~ f. ii"
1:1. 1:1. "<
m
i'
3
..
.", ~
;~'~ City of Dublin - Northern Section Parks and Dwelling Units (dIu)
)<........,.
0.25
...
0.5
.. r:æIIn lotS _ Right of Ways _ Ntl hboI'hood Pork
~ty rtI DublIn _ IMIghbort1cxxt Scøre
...~~..:na¡:~
04
11
.
It is the policy of the City Council of the City of Dublin that in reviewing amendments to the land use
map of the Dublin General ,Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the City shall also review the
provision of opportunities for cultuI'a4 educational and other community services. Semi-Public
Facilities, such as child care centers, religious institutions and others defined below, deliver important
community services. It is the intent of the Policy to increase the opportunities for Semi-Public,
Facilities by increasing the locations oflands designated Public/Semi-Public Facilities on the General
Plan land use map. To that e:ffect~ all land use amendments may be reviewed for designation of Semi-
Public Facilities lands according to the guidelines below: ' .
.
A. PurPose of Semi-Public Facilities Policv
The purpose of the Semi-Public Facilities Policy is to:
1. Create a greater sense of community in Dublin neighborhoods and commercial centers;
2. Enrich commuIÙty identity and foster a sense of civic pride;
3. Recognize and anticipate the different needs of Dub1!n residents who represent diverse ages,
interests, national backgrounds, and cultural, social and creative pursuits;
4. Leave future generations a culturallègacy which can change and develop as the City grows and
changes; and . .
5. Increase public access to cultural, educational and community services, cityWide.
B. Definitions
1. Semi-Public Facilities. Semi-Public Fac,ilities 'YÎll. inch.1de~es such ~ child care ccntprs.
youth centers, senior centers, speCial needs program facilities, religious institutionS,' ., .
clubhouses. community centers. community theatres, hospitals, and other facilities that provide
cultural, educational, or other community services. A semi-public facility may be used for more
than one semi-public use. Semi~Public Facilities are generally part of the Public/Semi-Public
Facilities land use category. '
2. Transportation and Circulation Systems. Adequate transportation and circulation systems
criteria is defined as a site located on a class 1 collector street wîth two points of access.
c. ADPIicabilitv
This Policy shall be applicable to all General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment applications. This
Policy shall apply to residential amendments involving 150 or more Single-Family Density housing
units fµldJor 250 or more Medium Density or greater density housing units, or increments and '
combinations thereof. .
-
¡'TTACHMENT (8
.
.
.
Final Task Force Recommendation
D. Procedure
City Staff shall work with project applicants to meet the goals and intent of the Semi..Public F~ci1ity ,
Policy according to the following procedme:
1. The location(s) of the Semi-Public Facility site(s) as part of a Public/Semi~Public Facility land
use category will be determined as a part of the amendment project review by the City.
2. Identification ofSemì-Public Facilities sites will begin at the early stages of the amendment
application.
3. The City Council shall have, final approval of the Public/Semi-Public Facility site identified for
Semi-Public Facility land uses.
E. Standards
1. When reviewing the sufficiency of the sites proposed as part of an amendment application
pursuant to the Semi-Public Facility Policy, the City will consider the following future
modifications of design requirements for Semi-Public Facility projects: parking reductions;
design modifications; use of nearby public facilities to meet over-flow parking demand;
partnering of Semi-Public Facilities with City facilities ~here feasible: and transfer of Semi-
Public Facility land use sites to other locations in the City of Dublin that meet the location
criteria described below.
2. When reviewing the sufficiency of sites proposed as a part of an amendment application
pursuant to the Semi-Public Facility Policy, the City will consider modification of these
standards for, or exempt, projects that proVide affordable housing in excess of the City of
Dublin Inclusionary Zoning Regulations.
3. New residential development subject to this Policy shall strive to provide sites for Semi-Public
Facilities land uses at a rate ofl acre (net) per .1 ,000 residents. In practice, General Plan and
. ,. Specific Plan Amendment applications shall strive.to provide .5 acre$ of l~ à:e$Ígnated for," .: '
Public/Semi-Public Facilities per 150 units ofSingIe-Family Density (.9 - 6;0 units per acre)"
and/or.5 acres ofland designated Public/Semi-Public facilities per 250 W1.Ïts of Medium
Density or greater density (6.1 or more units per acre), or increments and combinations thereof.
4. Private re~idential faci1ities~ to be used to satisfy this Policy IIlay not be restricted to .project
residents and employees.
5. Futlu'e facilities will have an identifying arcmtectural style that is attractive and that is
recognizable from the public right-of-way.
6. Sites for future Semi-Public Facilities will be reviewed per the location guidelines below.
* Private residential facilities are recreation rooms or facilities in housing developments that are
developed for the use of the project residents only.
F. Location of Semi-Public Facilitv Sites
In considering the potential location of Semi-Public Facilities,' the City Council will consider
locations in all parts of the City. In addition~ it is encouraged that Semi-Public· Facilities be located
at sites;
1. with adequate ttans¡J0rtation an~ circulation systems that have the least conflict with residential
use~ '
2. where shared parking might occur between complementary uses;
3. with open space and landscaping amenities;
4. with proximity to City parks; and
5. with proximity to schools.
2
Mr. Shumway indicated that he did not have that information in front of him, but could
get the information to the Council later. The agreement between the School District and
the Developer would not be as lucrative for the Developer as first thought. He was
coming before Council to say the Developer continued to demonstrate good faith, and the
School District would like to do the same to help them out.
Mayor Lockhart continued Item 8.1 to its appropriate spot on the agenda.
.
CONSENT CALENDAR
7:26 p.rn Items 4.1 through 4.10
Cm. Sbranti pulled Item 4.8 for discussion.
On motion ofVm. Zika, seconded by Cm. McCormick and by majority vote (Cm. Oravetz
absent), the Council took the following actions:
Approved (4.1) Minutes of Regular Meeting of September 21,2004;
Approved (4.2 600-35) Contract Change Orders Nos. Z, 3 and 4; approved Budget
Change in the amount of $6,001; and accepted improvements under Contract No. 02-10,
Traffic Signal Upgrade - Village Parkway/Amador Valley Boulevard, and authorized
release of retention after 35 dates if there are no subcontractor claims;
Adopted (4.3 600-60)
RESOLUTION NO. 198 - 04
APPROVING FINAL MAP AND IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 7524,
DUBLIN RANCH, NEIGHBORHOOD H-2 THE TEIlllACES, PHASE 2
(TOLL-DUBLIN, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY)
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 23
REGULAR MEETING
October 5, 2004
PAGE 460
DUBUN RANCH WEST (FORMERLY WAWS RANCH)
9:50 p.m. 8.1 (410-20)
Planning Consultant Mike Porto presented the Staff Report and advised that Staff was
seeking direction from the City Council regarding land use related to the application of
the Vi11age Policy, provisions of parks and neighborhood commercial sites in the
northern section of the City, and the application of the Public/Semi-Public Policy on the
project site. Since the adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, new policies and
other issues have surfaced which also impact the development of Dublin Ranch West,
such as the release of the school site, the Village Policy, and the Public/Semi-Public
Policy. The Council was also being requested to give direction regarding the release of
the elementary school site by either allowing the Developer to use the land for residential
development or to create neighborhood commercial, parks, semi-public lands uses or
other uses.
Note: testimony relative fo this issue was heard by Randy Shumwa~ Dublin School Board
President? at 7:18 p.m. during Oral Communieabons.
Martin Inderbitzen, Attorney representing the Applicant, advised that they had recently
submitted a Village Study whitepaper to the Planning Department, which he felt spoke
for itself. He reviewed the processing history of the project and advised that the
application was actually submitted on July Z, ZOOl; not July ZOOZ as indicated in the
Staff ReJXJrt. One year was spent working with Staff and property owners on how to best
move forward with the project, before resubmitting the application. In July Z002, the
Council authorized the General P1an/Specific Plan Amendment Study. During the
application processing time, the Council implemented several new policies which have
caused delays. They have also worked extensively with the School District to identify
facility needs and impacts that could best be accommodated in conjunction with the
development of Dublin Ranch and other properties in Eastern Dublin. They have worked
col1aboratively with Staff and the Council, attempting to find ways to achieve the
maximum number of goals for the City and themselves in a way that leads to a better end
product. The Wallis project is part of the overall Dublin Ranch project, and is linked in
ownership, as well as in the development of resource plans and management of resource
permits. There is a significant mitigation element in this project which links to the rest of
the Dublin Ranch project, including parks, affordable housing, and school needs. The
application of the Public/Semi-Public Policy is a relevant thing to link to both the Dublin
Ranch and Dublin Ranch West projects.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 23
REGULAR MEETING
October 5, 2004
PAGE 479
Council member McCormick asked what would become of the elementary school site,
which the Applicant was asking to be released from its obligation to build.
Mr. Inderbitzen explained the process of developer-built schools and advised that the
School District's analysis on student generation numbers based on conservative build-out
numbers concluded. that their Master Plan did not generate a need for an elementary
school on the Wallis property and that, even if there was a need, they did not think that it
was an appropriate location. The Applicant has advísed the School District that, if they
were not able to convert the property to residential use in order to offset costs, it would
be very difficult for them to commit to the construction of Green Elementary School.
The Council, Staff and Applicant discussed the Wallis property school site and the
Applicant's request to be released from their obligation to build a school on that site and
build residential instead.
Mr. Inderbitzen referred to the Village Policy, which the Council had only adopted a few
months ago and discussed its potential impact to the project as it relates to parks,
Neighborhood Commercial and Public/Semi-Public facilities, and offered a combination
of uses that seemed to the Applicant to make sense for the project.
The Council and Staff discussed the Applicant's suggestions regarding the proposal as it
related to parks, Neighborhood Commercial and Public/Semi-Public facilities.
Jay Edgy, Project Manager for the DeSilva Group representing the Moller Ranch,
described possible park opportunities on their property that would serve the east side of
Tassajara Road.
The Council and Staff continued its discussion on parks as it related to the Applicant's
proposal and agreed that it would provide the internal park usage for the Wallis
development and also provides an open space buffer and access for development on the
east of the Fal10n/Tassajara area.
City Manager Ambrose advised that the Council had four issues before them tonight and
suggested that they make decisions individually:
Village Concept
The Council discussed Village concept as it related to the Dublin Ranch West project and
agreed that it would not be a feasible concept for this project location.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 23
REGULAR MEETING
October 5, 2004
PAGE 480
Parks
The Council, Staff and the Applicant discussed the several park options available for the
Council's consideration.
Tracy Anthony, representing Standard Pacific, the developer processing the Mission Peak
property, advised he was reluctant to let the Council vote to take a 2-acre chunk out of
the Mission Peak property for a park that was not required in the Specific Plan. It
seemed to him that they were trying to force park on the east side of Tassajara that could
really be accommodated by the released school site. Rather than bonus the Wallis Ranch
property with 40 more units or 10 acres of developable land, they should put their park
on those 10 acres.
Mayor Lockhart advised that the Council was not suggesting that scenario.
Mr. Anthony advised that it could become an option and he wanted to be on the record
opposed to it. He had submitted a letter to Staff earlier today stating as much.
The Council continued its discussion and agreed to accept Park Option 4 because it
would serve the different needs of the community.
Neis:hborhood Commercial
The Council agreed that Neighborhood Commercial was not an option.
Public/Semi- Public
The Council agreed that the remnant parcel on the southern end of the properly should
remain flexible for either more park or Public/Semi-Public use.
.
RESPONSE TO INI'I1AL SnIDV AND PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR. THE NORTHBOUND 1-680 HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE (ROV)
AND AUXlIJAR.V LANES PROJECT ALONG SUNOL GRADE
11 :35 p.m. 8.3 (800-30)
Traffic Engineer Ray Kuzbari presented the Staff Report and advised that Caltrans was
proposing to adopt a Negative Declaration conduding that a proposed project to install
an HOV lane and auxiliary lanes on northbound 1-680 between Route 237 in Milpitas
and Route 84 in Pleasanton would have no adverse impact on transportation and traffic
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 23
REGULAR MEETING
October 5, 2004
PAGE 481
in the area. City Staff have reviewed the Initial Study for this project and determined it to
be inadequate as it lacks supporting document and fails to analyze potential project
impacts on Dublin Boulevard and other downstream routes along the 1-580 corridor
resulting from regional cut-through traffic in the area. Staff was proposing to submit a
joint Tri- Valley response to Caltrans with detailed comments from the Cities of
Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin on the Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration
for the northbound 1-680 HOV and Auxiliary Lanes project along the Sunol Grade.
Vm. Zib stated that he agreed with what Staff was trying to accomplish. Although he
had concerns about the motivations of some of our surrounding cities, he would keep an
open mind. He specifically agreed with the Staff Report that the traffic study should
recognize the current capacity for I -580 and address those needs first.
On motion of Vm. Zika, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by majority vote (Cm.
Oravetz absent), the Council approved the proposal to submit a joint Tri-Valley response
to Caltrans with detailed comments from the Cities of Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin
on the Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration for the northbound 1-680 HOV
and Auxiliary Lanes project alo11$ the Sunol Grade.
..
ornER BUSINESS
11 ;44 p.m.
Vrn. Zika congratulated Staff for an outstanding Day on the Glen event.
Cm. Sbranti commended Staff on a productive Camp Parks charrette workshop.
Mayor Lockhart congratulated Staff on the City's kick-off leadership academy. The
participants enjoyed it and are looking forward to next meeting.
Mayor Lockhart referred to resident Ellen Silky's request for stop signs at Antone Way
and asked if it should go to the Traffic Safety Committee.
City Manager Ambrose advised that, based on another comment receive, the Traffic
Safety Committee was already looking at speeding and traffic issues on South DublingRanch Road and Antone Way. Gleason Drive was expected to open next week, which
would make a difference in that neighborhood.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 23
REGULAR MEETING
October 5, 2004
PAGE 482
Public Works Director Morlon added that the Developer doing the work on Gleason
Drive was finishing a punch list of items. Staff was hoping to have the signal on Graft
turned on next week. Public Works has been working closely with Police on issues
related to cut through traffic.
+
ADTOURNMENf
a
11.1
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned
at 11 :50 p.m.
Minutes taken and prepared by Fawn Holman, Deputy City Clerk.
ArnST:
,.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 23
REGULAR MEETING
October 5, 2004
PAGE 483