HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.1 DubLandPropGPA Study CITY CLERK
File # 420-30
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 18, 2003
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
Initiation of General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment Study for property owned by Dublin Land
Company. (located generally between the 1-580 freeway to the
south, Gleason Drive to the north, Tassajara Road to the west, and
the Jennifer Lin properties to the east)
Report Prepared by Mike Porto, Planning Consultant and Marnie R.
Waffle, Assistant Planner
1. Letter from Mr. Kevin Weiss, JMH Weiss, Inc. representing Mr.
John DiManto, Dublin Land Company, dated February 5, 2003.
2. Existing and Proposed Land Use Plans, Dublin Land Company
3. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Designations, 1998
4. Existing Land Use Plan, Area G (Lin Properties)
5. Dublin Ranch Affordable Housing Processing Agenda
Statement, March 4, 2003
6. Resolution initiating General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendment Study for Dublin Land Company.
7. Resolution denying General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendment Study for Dublin Land Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Receive Staff presentation and public testimony.
2. Question Staff and the public.
3. Adopt Resolution initiating or denying a General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study for Dublin Land
Company.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None at this time.
DESCRIPTION:
Mr. Kevin Weiss, JMH Weiss, Inc., on behalf of Mr. John DiManto, Dublin Land Company, has
submitted a request (Attachment 1) to change the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use
designations for the property located generally between 1-580 freeway to the south, Gleason Drive to the
north, Tassajara Road to the west and the Jennifer Lin properties to the east.
The property is approximately 82 acres in size and is currently designated, in both the City's General Plan
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, for a combination of General Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial,
Medium Density Residential, Medium-High Density Residential, High Density Residential, and
Public/Semi-Public land uses (Attachment 2, Existing Land Use Plan). The Applicant is proposing to
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO.
change these land use designations to General Commercial and High Density Residential (Attachment 2,
Proposed Land Use Plan).
The chart below summarizes the existing land use designations and the Applicant's proposed land use
designations:
Existing and Proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Land Use Designations
Existing Land Use Designations In Acres + Proposed Land Use Designations In Acres +
General Commercial 59.96 General Commercial 56.30
Neighborhood Commercial 5.12 Neighborhood Commercial 0
Medium Density Residential 1.80 Medium Density Residential 0
Medium-High Density Residential 7.68 Medium-High Density Residential 0
High Density Residential 5.12 High Density Residential 25.18
Public/Semi-Public (School Site) 1.80 Public/Semi-Public (School Site) 0
TOTAL 81.48 81.48
In order to accommodate the land uses changes proposed by the Applicant, a General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Amendment is required that contains the following components:
1) Reducing the acreage for General Commercial from 59.96 acres to 56.30 acres (a reduction
of 3.66 acres) and concentrating it between the 1-580 freeway to the south and Central
Parkway to the north;
2) Increasing the acreage for High Density Residential from 5.12 acres to 25.18 acres (an
increase of 20.06 acres) and concentrating it between Central Parkway to the south and just
north of Gleason Drive;
3) Eliminating 5.12 acres designated as Neighborhood Commercial;
4) Eliminating 1.80 acres designated as Medium Density Residential;
5) Eliminating 7.68 acres designated as Medium-High Density Residential; and
6) Eliminating 1.80 acres designated as Public/Semi-Public.
BACKGROUND:
A General Plan Amendment Study request was initiated in 1999 and 2002 for portions of the 82-acre
property owned by Dublin Land Company. The City Council denied previous requests to initiate an
amendment study because of concerns that the entire 82-acre parcel should be examined as a whole for
appropriate land uses. Section 11.2.7 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan states that Specific Plan sub-
areas should be master planned as a whole in order to create a more coherent, cohesive development. The
Applicant's current proposal provides a concept for the entire 82-acre property and not just one section as
with previous application requests.
ANALYSIS:
The current General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan proposes that the project area should be
developed for General Commercial uses (59.96 acres) along Tassajara Road between the 1-580 freeway to
the south and Gleason Drive to the north and along Dublin Blvd from Tassajara Road eastward
(Attachment 2, Existing Land Use Plan). Several medium-high and high density residential areas are
planned to the east of the General Commercial uses to compliment the commercial areas.
At the time of the development of the original land use designations for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan,
Central Parkway was envisioned as a Transit Corridor (Attachment 3). As early as 1996, it was
determined that Central Parkway would need to carry additional traffic and the right-of-way width and
lane configurations were amended to accommodate the additional traffic. This rendered the original land
plan unusable as that plan proposed commercial uses directly abutting a transit-oriented thoroughfare with
shops and stores taking front-on access from Central Parkway.
In 1999, Dublin Ranch (the Lin Family) proposed an amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
(which was approved) to re-orient the land uses on their property that faced Central Parkway (Attachment
4). The proposal involved creating a "shopping street" with Medium-high and High-density land uses
anchoring the project comers. The original Eastern Dublin Specific Plan did not respect property lines
and spread land uses between properties to make a coordinated and cohesive land plan.
Previous approvals have left land use remnants on the DiManto property that, in themselves, would be
difficult to develop and would not be in keeping with the mandate in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for
coherent and cohesive development. It may be appropriate to look at a consolidation of land uses to allow
for orderly development of this property.
Issues:
Four important issues regarding the Applicant's proposal have been identified and are as follows:
1) Whether the proposed High Density Residential land use designation just north of Gleason
Drive is appropriate for the site;
2) What alternative land use designations should be considered for this area;
3) Whether a Public/Semi-Public designation should be preserved; and
4) Whether additional park land will need to be set aside due to the proposed increase in high
density residential land uses.
The area just north of Gleason Drive (3.60 acres total), due to its size and shape, may not be appropriate
for High Density Residential development (25.1+ units/acre). This area could be used for several less
intense developments that could serve as a buffer between the existing medium density residential
development and Gleason Drive. The existing Public/Semi-Public land use designation (1.80 acres),
intended to be a part of a future school site, could be preserved or combined with the remainder of the
property (1.80 acres) and designated for a complimentary land use. The Applicant's proposal would
increase the residential acreage and density of the project by 10.58 acres and could require that additional
acreage of parkland be set aside in accordance with the Dedication of Lands for Park and Recreation
Purposes ordinance of the Dublin Municipal code. Comparisons between the Applicant's proposal and
Staff recommendations are as follows:
Applicant's Proposed and Staff's Recommended
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Designations
Applicant prOpOsal In Acres + staff Recommendation In Acres +
General Commercial 56.30 General Commercial 56.30
Neighborhood Commercial 0 Neighborhood Commercial 0
Medium Density Residential 0 Medium Density Residential 0
Medium-High Density Residential 0 Medium-High Density Residential 0
High Density Residential 25.18 High Density Residential 21.58
Public/Senti-Public (School Site) 0 Public/Semi-Public (School Site)/ 3.60
Complimentary Land Use
TOTAL 81.48 81.48
CONCLUSION:
At the March 4, 2003 City Council meeting, Council evaluated the Community Development Work
Program and identified projects which were regarded as high priorities. In an effort to expedite the
processing of high priority projects such as the Dublin Ranch Affordable Housing project, Council
directed Staff to postpone work on new project applications until August 2003. Staff recommends that the
City .Council consider the request to initiate a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Study and, if authorized, defer commencement of work on this project until August 2003.
Should the City Council approve the initiation of the proposed General Plan and Specific Plan
Amenchnent Study, and once the applicant's complete package was submitted with a proposal for a
General Plan Amendment, Tentative Subdivision Map, Site Development Review, and Planned
Development rezoning, the Planning Manager would determine what Staff resources are available to begin
a detailed review of the project. Staff would work with the Applicant to:
· Evaluate the proposed land uses in relation to existing land uses;
· Analyze how the removal of approximately 1.8 aCres of Public/Semi-Public Facilities designated-
property impacts adjacent properties and the City as a whole;
· Examine the land use proposals in relation to the results of the Public/Semi-Public Facilities
General Plan Amendment Study;
· Evaluate the provision of services, police, fire, parks, etc. for new residents in this area;
· Examine the proposed land use designations to determine if they are appropriate based on City
policies and standards;
· Study the land use plan, lot subdivision, proposed infrastructure, circulation routes, and the
interrelationship and compatibility of the proposed combination of uses; and
· Prepare the required environmental documentation.
At this point, the City Council needs to determine whether a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendment Study should be authorized for the Applicant's proposal and continue the work effort to
later in the year or if the City Council does not want to consider the Applicants request at this time. Both
resolutions have been included for City Council consideration (Attachments 6 and 7).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive Staff presentation and public testimony; question Staff
and the public, and adopt a Resolution either approving or denying the General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment Study request.
IMH Weiss, Eric.
Land Develot}ment Consultants
Civil Engineering
Honorable Mayor Lo'ckhart
City Council Members
City-of Dublin
Civ/c Plaza
Dublin, CA. 94568
February S, 2003
Re:
Request for General Plan Amendment Study for proposed zoning
modifmafioRs to the Dublin Land Company property (+/-82 acres) on the
east side of Tassajara Road between 1-580 and 'Gleason Road approximately.
Dear Mayor' and Council Members:
The East Dublin Specific Plan was assembled for development opportunity with
flexibility. This flexibility, as presented by a mixed-use approach, was creatively
authored to respond to changing market conditions.
There is no doubt that the market has shifted over the past several years. Economic
trends and recent budget cuts have frmned a new template for business development.
The Dublin Land Company, represented by Mr. John Dimanto, would like to request, at
this time, for you to authorize your City staffto initiate a General Plan Amendment Study
for consideration of modifying the existing zoning of the referenced property.. The
proposed zoning changes represent merely a shift of the use designations based on
refined development strategies for the current market.
In general terms, the existing site contains approximately 82 acres which is severed into
four pieces byDublin Boulevard, Central Parkway and. Gleason Drive. A large portion of
the site is currently zoned General Commercial (GC). Said areas lie east of Dublin
BouleVard (adjacent to the freeway) and predominantly along the fi:ontage of Tassajara
Road (between Dublin Blvd. and Gleason Drive). Wedged behind the GC'zoning (north
of Dublin Blvd.) are small pockets of High Density Residential (it), Neighborhood
Commercial (NC), and Medium High Density Residential (MH). North of Gleason Drive
remains an almost unusable sliver of land of approximately 3 acres which is currently
zoned Medium Density (M) Residential and School.
The existing zoning scheme anticipated regional retail uses to-occUpy the front half of the
property with higher density residential and Neighborhood Commercial clustered in
behind in small pockets. The depth of the severed lots is approx/matety 1,000 feet. The
marketplace is still active. With end users for the CrC zone. However, these users would
require a depth of around 1,000.00 feet to establish a viable environment. In addition~ the
950 S. BascomAvenue Suite2010 San Jose, California 95128
5674 Stoneridge Drive Suite 205 Pteasanton, California 94588
ATTA/~IIB~r&IT /
T (925)226-2119 F (925)226-2127
residential development market maintains a steady pattern of growth, specifically the
higher density rental/condominium spaces. The current land use configuration would put
dimensional limitations on developing an effective program, of m/xed use with today's
active end users.
The proposed zoning changes would keep a strong presence of GC in order to allow
enough land to attract the active "regional" retail users. To allow for this space, we are
proposing to shift the resident/al zone(s) to the 'lands north of Central Parkway.
Specifically, the.plan would be to keep the land south of Dublin Boulevard as is, namely
GC. This would allow the "gateway" type uses' such as hotels,, campus office, conference
center, restaurants, service and regional retail to hold the/mage. The "middle" portion of
the site (between Dublin Blvd. and Central Parkway) would also filI in completely as GC
( a slight change from existingJ. 'This would allow enough space for quality regional.
retail uses as well as allowing, opportunities for mixed use office and residential
interaction. The. northern portion.of the site .(north.ofCentral Parkway) would change to
High Density Residential (I-I). This would allow enough land to develop a quality
'residential community with a density of substantially greater than. 25 units/acre. The.
remaining"'~shver'' parcel '(north of'Gleason) would aisc' become H in order to effectively
develop this constrained .lot.
The proposed zoning Change does., not alter the_ development character of the Specific
Plan. The jobs/housing balance is maintained 'within '.the use flexibility of the zoning
designations,, The .proposed transition of zoning from the Tassajara Gateway (freeway
area) uses to the high density residential uses at the north end will continue to allow the
creation of a community-oriented commercial development with an interactive pedestrian
.realm.
We plan. to work closely with the City Planning. and Engineering Departments to identify
and'establish the fundamental gUidelines and necessities for specific and successful site
planning opporttmifies~ Some key components that we will focus, on are:
Pedestrian links from the High Density Zone to the Retail/Commercial Centers
-Traffic generation characteriStics to assure compliance with the adopted model
Vehicular access point integration and al~gnments, including a .left turn movement
from the southern portion of the property onto Tassajara Road.
Provisions for affordable housing within the City ordinances.
We have met with jeri Ram and Michael Stella of City staff and determined that the
overall development will require certain approvals and amendments to the City's current
land-use regulations, including:
Amendments to the City's General PIan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
to more specifically locate multifamily housing on th/s site;
Rezoning of the property and approval of appropriate site development
permits;
A Vesting Tentative Map for site;
A CEQA compliance document for the project,
Approval of a Development Agreement.
It was the request of the City Council that the entire Dublin Land Company property be
submitted for planning review as one overall development. Enclosed are two exhibits
which reflect the 'existing and proposed zoning.
We respectfully request that the City Council express its interest in considering this
project in Dublin and request that staff initiate a General Plan Amendment and other
studies necessary to permit proposed development of this site. We are prepared to begin
our development plans immediately and look forward to working with City staff in an
expeditious manner. Thank you for your consideration of our request.
Best Regards,
J-MH Weiss, Inc.
Representing Dublin ~and Company.
re,an R. Vlei s P.r .
Preside~7~,/
Cc: Mr. Eddie peabody / City of Dublin Planning
Ms. Jeri Ram/' City of Dublin. Planning
Enct. (2) exh/bits
ROAD
EXISTING LAND USE SUMMARY,.,
[] GC 59.96 A~, +
[] NC 5.12 Ac. 4'
65.06 Ac, 4.
[] E 1.80 Ac, ~'
[] MH 7.68 Ac, 4.
[] H 5.12 AC. 4.
14.60 AC.4'
[] SCHOOL 1,80 Ac. +
.80 A0. 4.
TOTAL 8t.48 Ac. 4.
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
GC GENERAL COMMERCIAL
~ NC
cc
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
CAMPUS OFFICE
NO~E_,'
THE AREA~ SHOWN HEREON ARE GROSS ACREAGE AND DO NOT INCLUDE ANY ADJUSTMEN'r8 FOR STREET
EASEMENTS AND DEDICATIONS, THE GROSS AREAS APE SHOWN IN ORDER TO CALCULATE THE AU. OWED
DENSITIES AND F.A.R. PER THE EAST DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN GUIDELINES.
EXISTINC LAND USE PLAN
[.
DUBLIN RET AIL CENTER
DUBUH, C_~,FORNIA
X
EXISTING LAND USE SUMMARY
25.18 Ac, =
0 Ac.:t:
SCHOOL
OAt.±
TOTAL 81.48 Ac. ~
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
I GO GENERAL COMMERCIAL
[] NC NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
[ ] M MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
[] MH MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
I H HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
CO CAMPUS OFFICE
NOTE:
'THE AREA8 SHOWN HEREON ARE GROSS ACREAGE AND DO NOT INCLUDE ANY .ADJUb'TMENT~ FOR glI=..EET
F. ASEMENTS AND DEDICATIONS, THE GROSS AREAS ARE SHOWN IN ORDER TO ~.,ALCULATE THE ALLOWED
DENSITIES AND FA.R, PER THE EAST DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLA~ GUIDELINES,
PROPOSED LAND
DUBLIN RET AIL
DUBUN, CALIFORNIA
USE PLAN
CENTER
I ' 'i
TA$SAJA~ ROAD
PARK
NOTE;
THE AREAS SHOWN HEREON ARE GRO~S ACREAGE AND DO NOT INOLUDE ~ ~U~M~ FOE ~
~EME~S ~D D~ICATtONS, ~E GRO~ ~ ~E ~HOWN IN ~ TO C~ ~E ~D
DENSITIES ~D F~R, PER ~E ~T DUBUN ~PECIFIC P~ GUID~N~,
PROPOSED ACCESS POINTS
I III IIII iii I i i
DUBLIN RET AIL CENTER
DUI~UN, CAUFORNIA
3~3
H$
NOTE:
'General Commercial may be permitted by a Pl~'nned Development Zoning Process (see text for complete discussion)
Will convert to Future Study Ares/Agriculture where determined inconsistent with Livermore APA (see text for complete discussion),'
The internal system o'~
local streets shown ~n
this figure is
illustrative only.
Figure 4.1.
Land-Use Map
Legend
~ Roads
RESIDENTIAL
~ Rural Residential/
Agriculture .0i alu/sc
~ Sin. g'le Family .0.9-6.0 du/ac
[~ ,Medium Density 6.1-14.0 du/ac
~ Med-Hi Density 14.1-25.0 dO/ac
~ Higl~ Density 25.1 · du/ac
· COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
~ General Commercial
~ Neighborhood Ccmmercial
~ Campus Office
~ Industrial Park
PUBLICISEMFPUBLIC
Public/Semi-Public
EI.ementary School
Jun'lot High School
High School
AND'OPEN SPACE
. NeighborhOod Square
Neighborhood Park
Community- Park
.City Park
Open Space
EASTERN DUBLIN
Specific Pla.n
Wallace Roberts &Todd
Urban and Environmental Planners
12'1 Second S~'eet~ 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Al IAL;HM
AREA F
AREA G
AREA
'o o.~
CIRCULATION, ENTRY, AND
OPEN SPACE PLAN
Legend
Bicycle Route Bike Lane
Multi-me Trail
Anticipated Neighborhood Entry
Village Center Gateway
Main Street Plaza
Secondary. Plaza
Parks and Open Space
Legend
DUBLIN RANCH
AREA G
PLANNI~ DI~VI~OPM~NT DISTtlIcr
I~iSTNR31 DUBLIN GI~qBRAL PLAN/~PECII*IC PLAN AMIh'ql)MENT
/>ab/& Ca//form'~
Dm~aber 11,1~
Ro~od IHy, 1~
No~
0 I00 200 400 600 800
MacKay & Somps*lin~eering & Plauning
Willhm Hczmlh~lch Al'~hit~, Inc. *
A.tchiiaciute and Pla~ming
NUVIS * Laudm:apc Architecture
ATTACHNIE. HT
CITY CLERK
File # ~-~-~-~
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 4, 2003
SUBJECT:
Dublin Ranch Affordable Housing Processing
Report Prepared by: Eddie Peabody, Jr., Community Development
Director and Jeri Ram, Planning _Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
List of City Council items to be Resolved between April 15th
and May 1.9th.
Community Development Department (CDD) Work
Program - February 26, 2003
Site Development Review' Application Checklist
RECOMMENDATION: 1.
2.
Receive Staff report and anticipated affordable housing
project schedule.
Review Community Development'Work Program and
provide direction on present high priorities and proposed
changes.
Determine if Staff should commence expedited processing of
the Dublin Ranch Affordable Housing Project when a
complete application is received.
Instruct Staff to return at the March 18th meeting with a
preliminary report that addresses other City Council
concerns.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
Delay of certain 2002-03 Goals and Objectives v~fll occur if this
project is the highest priority. Proposed specific City financing from
the Inclusionary Housing Fund will not be knov~m until the
Applicant submits a final proposal and financing plan and Staff has
completed its evaluation of the proposal.
BACKGROUND:
At the City Council meeting of February 18, 2003, the City Council heard a proposal from a
representative of Dublin Ranch for a high-density 928-unit multifamily project with a significant
affordable housing component.
The Dublin Ranch representative indicated that in order for this project to be financially feasible the City
would need to contribute the equivalent of 6.786 million dollars to the project and complete the project
entitlement process prior to the deadline of July 16, 2003 for applying for a State Housing Bond
Allocation. In addition, the Applicant requested that the City to waive any further inclusionary zoning
COPIES TO: In-House Distribution
Dublin Ranch
G:L~gendasL2003\CCSRLINN ljr.docITEM NO. ~r
AYTACHM'EN/
and future possible commercial linkage requirements for the balance of Dublin Ranch and Wallis Ranch
properties.
The City Council directed Staffto prepare a report that would evaluate the financing request, the impact
of paying prevailing wage on the project, the issue of affordable housing credits, the potential for the
development of affordable housing outside of the Dublin Ranch holdings, the potential for for-sale units,
the feasibility of processing the project within the timeline requested by Dublin Ranch and the impact of
the timeline of the proposed project on other City projects.
Since the February 18, 2003 City Council meeting Staffmet with the Applicant to clarify the information
needed to complete the City's preliminary evaluation of the proposal. Staff has also worked at securing
the services of a financial/housing consultant to assist the Staff in evaluating the proposal.
As requested by the City Council at its February 18, 2003, meeting, Staff is working on the following
items and will present an analysis to the Council at its March 18, 2003 meeting (provided that the
Applicant provides the information requested by the City Staffby February 28, 2003):
Preliminary evaluation of the Applicant's financing request;
The impact of paying prevailing wage on the project;
· The issue of affordable housing credits;
- The potential for the development of affordable housing outside of the Dublin Ranch holdings;
and
· The potential for for-sale units.
In addition, Staff may identify other issues that are important for City Council consideration when
evaluating the total package proposed by the Applicant.
This Staff Report addresses the two issues that Staff indicated could be provided by the March 4th City
Council meeting as follows:
1. The Entitlement Process and approximate timeframes; and
2. The current Community Development Department (Planning & Housing Divisions) project list as
well as impacts to workload on other City Departments.
1. Entitlement Process and Time£rames for Processing the Lin Proposal:
The project, as currently known, would require the City to process the following entitlements:
· Site Development Review Approval
· Density Bonus Approval
· Development Agreement
· Affordable Housing Agreement
· City to issue bonds
o Includes hiring financial adviser
o Includes hiring bond counsel
o Includes hiring tmderw~iter
Generally, a project of this complexity fast-tracked would take the City approximately 8 - 12 months
from start to bond issue. The entitlements would be phased over the one-year period. In this instance the
Applicant has requested that the Site Development Review Approval (SDR) and first reading of the
Development Agreement (DA) be completed by July 16, 2003 (4 months). The other entitlements could
be phased in following those two approvals. Therefore, Staff examined the request in relation to this first
timeframe. That analysis follows:
Information Needed to Process SDR and DA
In order to begin processing of an SDR and DA very specific items are needed. A copy of the SDR
Checklist (with the items checked as necessary for a Predevelopment SDR and DA Application) is
attached as Attachment 3. This checklist contains all of the site and design information that is needed to
analyze the site issues relating to the project. If this information is not supplied by the Applicant by
March 5, 2003, Staff cannot begin work on the project and will not be able to complete the project within
the expedited time frame.
A traffic study must be performed by a City .consultant. This Study provides the information needed to
prepare a significant portion of the DA. The traffic study takes a minimum of 6 weeks to prepare
(including staff review).
Negotiations must take place on the Development Agreement. This includes significant attention from
both the City Manager and City Attorney. Unfortunately, the timeframes during which the Development
Agreement will be negotiated take place during the final stages of the City Budget process which requires
a significant commitment of the City Manager's time.
SDR and DA Timeframes
Staff has experience in processing complicated Site Development Reviews in the City. Some of the more
complex multi-family projects and associated timeframes are as follows:
Toll Area G (multifamily project consisting of One year
1,396 units in 4 projects)
Waterford Apartments (390 units) ] 8 months
Both of these projects were processed with expedited timeframe&
The Table below is an analysis of the request by the Applicant that Staff process the SDR and first
reading of the DA by July 16, 2003. This analysis assumes that Staff will have a complete submittal by
March 5, 2003. Additionally, that the Developer will work cooperatively with Staff and make revisions
requested in an expedited manner. It should be noted that there is no room for slippage in this
schedule.
The Schedule also assumes that the City Council will delay other high priority projects in order that
development Staff can be reassigned until August to this project. It should be noted, however, that
administrative Staff who play a key role in the development agreement portion of this project cannot be
freed up from their normal tasks - therefore this project will be in addition to items that require
concentrated attention during this time period, such as the budget, etc.
TIMETABI,E FOR PROCESSING LIN AFFORABLE PROJECT
FAST PROCESS - ASSUME COMPLETE COOPERATION BY PARTIES OF MAJOR ISSUES
March 4 City City Council approves Mandato~ Processing
Council Meeting Timetable, review of Staff Work Program
March 5 Applicant files Pre Application with detailed
site plans (see filled out Checklist -
Attachment 3). Start Traffic Report (6- . .
weeks)
March 18 City City Council evaluates preliminary project financial
Council Meeting plan
April 1, 2003 Applicant submits final Financial Package to
the City for review. No modifications to the
package can be accepted after this date or the
schedule will slip.
April 15 Completion of pre-application process by Staff/Applicant/City Council resolution of sports
applicant/staff(six weeks) including PRC park dedication/exact City funding, credits, subsidy
meeting requested; for sale units, etc. April 15' to May 19 (3
Council meetings) - See Attachment 1
April 22 Filing of final application for SDR; start of
Development Agreement, Affordable Housing
A~eement; routing or application to agencies
(final date for filing)
May 1, 2003 All Financial issues must be resolved by Staff
and the Applicant.
May 19 Date that all issues identified on Attachment 1 Final completion City Council action on issues
must be resolved and hearings concluded by above or project stops
City Council on these issues
June 17 Completion of staff report and agreement by
Applicant on Conditions of Approval for
hearing.
June 18 Hearing notice (I 4-days prior) for Planning
Commission and City Council
July 8 Planning Commission hearing on SDR and DA
July 15 City Council hearing and approval on SDR; 1ot Council final approval of all funding requests and
reading on DA. letter to CDLAC with City's commitment on
financing
July t 6 Submittal of approvals to CDLAC by applicant
August 5 City Council (2~d) hearing on Development
Agreement for project
August 6-10 Submittal of Development A~eement to Notice of award of financing by CDLAC to
CDLAC by applicant applicant; if not approved, project stops
September 5 Development Agreement in effect
Resolution of Other City Council Concerns that may effect Timetable:
As noted above regarding items scheduled for the March 18, 2003, City Council meeting, there are issues
that must also be analyzed while Staff is beginning to process the SDR and DA. The resolution of all of
these issues will not take place prior to the March 18, 2003, City Council meeting and may, therefore,
delay the project beyond the schedule listed in the Table above. These issues are listed on Attachment 1.
These ~s~ecific Council concerns must be completed or the process will stop and additional time beyond
July 16 will be required. While Staff will bring back a brief analysis of the issues identified above on
March 18, 2003, it is anticipated that there will be several additional staff reports asking for direction on
key policy and financial issues between April 15th and May 19th so that the Applicant and the City can
integrate the issues in both the Housing Financing and Planning approvals.
It is StafFs belief, based on past multi-family projects that have been processed in the City, that it is
unlikely that this expedited timeline of (4 months) as noted in the Table above will be successful. It is
StafFs experience that issues arise while processing a project that cause time delays. However, should the
City Council desire Staff to make this project its number one priority, Staff is prepared to begin the
4 ~,',L, ~
process to act on the Applicant's request as soon as specific information can be filed and to move this
project as fast as can be accomplished.
2. Present CommuniW Development Work Program as w-ell as Other Department Impacts
Although the list below relates to the Community Development Work Program; it should be noted that
many of these projects require significant time commitments from other City Departments. Those
Departments are also subject to maintain certain deadlines for other projects that cannot be postponed
during the timeframes for the Lin Affordable Project, such as preparation of the City Budget and five year
CIP.
Staff has compiled a list of the current projects and major ongoing tasks that the Planning and Housing
Divisions are currently working on (Attachment 2). This list has been organized by:
City Prqiects - This list represents projects that were assigned by the City Council as part of
the FY 2002-2003 Goals and Objectives as well as additional projects assigned by the City
Council since the Goals and Objectives were approved; and
Developer Initiated Projects - This list includes projects submitted by Developers that required
initiation by the City Council (legislative changes such as General Plan Amendments, Specific
Plan Amendments), as well as projects that are submitted by applicants that must adhere to
certain timeframes for processing under State Law; and;
Other On-Going Tasks - This list includes keeping documents updated, code enforcement,
implementation of approved projects (plan checking for building permits, field checks, etc.)
providing data to other departments and agencies (projections for ABAG, CMA and various
City studies - i.e., Park Master Plan) as well as preparation of the next fiscal year's budget.
In order to assemble a Staff team to work on the Lin Affordable Housing project, City Staff will need to
either be reassigned temporarily from some of the projects they are currently working on or slow down on
other projects to free up time to work on the proposed affordable project. Based on analysis of Staff's
workload and the types of skills necessary to process the proposed application, Staff is recommending
that the work programs for the following items be postponed until August (a schedule delay of 5 months)
· Dublin Ranch Area F
· Wallis Annexation (Dublin Ranch West)
· RV Ordinance (onsite) alternatives
· Commercial Nexus Study (slowed down, not postponed)
In addition, Staff recommends that any projects on Attachment 2 that indicate no progress and any new
projects proposed for initiation by the City be automatically postponed until at least August 2003. These
new projects would then be placed into the schedule following those items that were either postponed by
this application or showed no progress. In other words, should the City Council initiate a new project,
Staffwould not begin work on it until after August 2003. This would include those projects that are on
the FY 2002-2003 Goals and Objectives list, but show no progress, such as the Parks RFTA master plan
as well as the projects that are listed as not yet initiated at the end of the list (Attachment 2).
Staff explored the alternative of hiring limited term Staff so that projects could proceed without
postponement. However, based on the short-term need (4 - 5 months) for staffing and the timeframe for
hiring and training, it is not a feasible alternative.
Although Staff believes that this reassignment of workload will free up the Staff team to work on the
project in an extremely expedited manner, the success of the obtaining an SDR approval by the City will
5 o ~
depend on the ability of the Applicant to submit a comprehensive SDR Preapplication, final SDR
Application and final financing proposal in the timeline indicated above, as well as quick response to
Staff's requests for revisions to the application materials, if needed.
CONCLUSION:
A representative of Dublin Ranch has asked the City Council to consider the expedited processing of a
high-density 928-unit multifamily project with a significant affordable housing component. As part of
that request there will be City financial contributions of an ~.mknown amount.
City Staff has analyzed the issues of expediting the processing of the application at a timeframe that is
faster by more than ½ the time of its most accelerated multi-family project. The four-month time period
that has been requested will be a challenge for City development and administrative Staff as well as the
Applicant. In addition, the full financial contribution and analysis as well as other City issues may not be
known until May 19th, halfway through the process. If for any reason the financing for this project is not
acceptable to the City or feasible, the processing of this entitlement could waste City resources that could
have been spent on other projects.
In order for the City to begin work on this project, other high priority projects will have to be postponed
or slowed down. In addition, other projects that have not yet begun will be further delayed while the
complete facts, policy and financial implications are explored and analyzed so that City Council can make
an informed decision as to whether or not they wish to financially participate in this project.
If the City Council determines that this project should not be processed in an expedited manner, Staff
could process it under its normal timeframes which would give the City Council and Staff more time to
explore the issues relating to the project, while continuing to work on the other High Priority projects that
were identified in the City Council's Goals and Objectives.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Receive Staff report and anticipated affordable housing project schedule.
2. Review Community Development Department and provide direction to high priorities.
3. Determine if Staff should commence expedited processing of the Dublin Ranch Affordable Housing
Project when a complete application is received.
4. Instruct Staff to return at the March 18th meeting with a preliminary report that addresses other City
Council concerns.
LIST OF CITY COUNCIL ITEMS TO BE RESOLVED
DUBLIN RANCH AFFORDABLE PROJECT
FEBRUARY 18, 2003
STAFF EVALUATIONS
Actual entitlement necessary for submittal of financing and City
process/critical dates
Financial analysis of Lin proposal (all three phases)
· What credit procedure (non-residential, actual residential)
Cost differential prevailing wage/non-prevailing wage issue
· The subsidy requested and credit issues
· Status of all present and potential affordable credits and impacts on other
East Dublin Property' Owners and newly annexed areas
· A definite submittal for each phase (number of units, mod/low/very low
totals)
· (Minor) parking standards
· More family units (3 bedrooms) in each affordable category
· Loan/grant/funding of proposed affordable units by City (over Inclusionary
12.5% requirements, as requested by Applicant, etc.)
· Grading requirements (Areas F and B) to fill site
ATTACHMENT 1
Community Development Department
Plannin~ & Housino~ Divisions Project List (2/19/03)
City Projects:
Project Title Goals & Objective Level Current Status or
or Initiated After FY Estimated Completion
2002-2003 G&O Meeting Date
or other Reason
5 year Affordable HOusing High March 18, 2002 City
Plan Council
Open Space Implementation High April 2003 City Council
Mtg
Scarlet Court SP High Tabled Until 10/03
Resolve Final boundaries of High Priority (Parks & In progress
Sports Park in Eastern Community Services)
Dublin S.P. area Necessary for other high
priority planning projects -
A2 & A3 Development
Agreements Cannot be
approved prior to location
being determined (hence no
building permits)
Historic Specific Plan High RFP £or Survey is out for
Proposal
Community Facilities Task High Study Completed - March,
Force and development of 2003 meeting to determine
policy Task Force composition
Streetscape Master Plan High Development of Work
Program in progress
Downtown Monument CIP Projects (funded) Going to bid in March,
Project 2003
Intersection Improvement CIP Projects (funded) Preparation of bid docs.
Design (Lewis & Village
Pkwy
Sustainability Inventory I Assigned by City Council Draft received on 2/26 for
staff review
I
F:X~kdministrationkProjects&Assignfor Couneil3-4-03.doc
ATTACHMENT 2
Project Title Goals & Objective Level Current Status or
or Initiated After FY Estimated Completion
2002-2003 G&O Meeting Date
or other Reason
Housing Element Update Assigned by City Council Received comments from
HCD on draft Housing
Element- drafting revisions
Senior Housing Project Assigned by City Council 20 hours per week till July -
time increases towards JulY
Garage Conversion Assigned by City Council March 18 City Council
Ordinance Meeting
Heritage Tree Ordinance Assigned by City Council Address comments by Mr.
David Bewley - March 18,
2002 City Council Meeting
Transit Corridor GPA Initiation Scheduled for
3/4/03
Investigate Parking and Medium No progress
access alternatives for
Village Parkway S.P. Area
Update City's General Plan Medium No progress
Develop City Low No progress
Telecommunications Policy
beyond Zoning Ordinance
for Wireless
Communications
View and Solar Access Low No progress
Ordinance
Develop Ordinance to limit Low No progress
amount of square footage
increase on remodel of
existing houses
Zoning Ordinance Amendments required by No progress
Amendments: Second Unit, State law
Emergency Shelter &
DensitY Bonus
CDBG administration Auditing - 6 hours per
week throu~h July
Toll Brothers Affordable 4 hours per week though
Regulations (must be July
completed to allow- units to
be sold in Area G)
Developer Initiated Projects:
Project Title Goals & Objective Level Current Status or
or Initiated After FY 2002 Estimated Completion
- 2003 G&O Meeting or Date
other Reason
EDPO RMP - part of total High Development of RFP in
project listed in Status as progress (developer
EDPO Annexation changed process after
Proposals were received)
EDPO Land Use Plan - part High Will begin approximately 6
o£total project listed in months after start of RMP
Status as EDPO Annexation preparation
Pinn Annexation, PD/SDR High Annexation complete,
(referred to as Silveria PD/SDR in presubmittal
Annexation in G&O)
Juvenile Hall, East County High 6 months - 12 months from
Hall of Justice Project submittal (currently in
(SDR) i preapplication process)
Juvenile Hall, East County High I Cotmty Board of
Hall of Justice Project Supervisors schedule shoWs
(EIS/EIR , that they plan to take action
in May, 2003
'Valley Christian Center Assigned by City Council Waiting for issues on
GPA , Downtown TIF - Admin
i draft Final EIR under
review
Bancor Pak &Sav Assigned by City Council Information not provided by
applicant to begin work on
project
3
Project Title Goals & Objective Level Current Status or
or Initiated After FY 2002 Estimated Completion
- 2003 G&O Meeting or Date
other Reason
Evaluate Dublin Ranch Assigned by City Council In progress- March 4 & 18
Affordable Housing - reports to City Council
Project/Proposal (This is
not work on the processing
of the actual project - see
below under projects not yet
submitted)
Site 15 A Transit Center Required by Transit Center Planning commission
GPA Approval (Park and Grant Meeting - March, 2003
Issue)
Transit Center Master DA Required prior to any September, 2003
development in Transit
Center
Transit Center Avalon Bay One Transit Center project Presubmittal
PD/SDR (690 units) is required to be approved
and construction begun
prior to September, 2003, so
that City remains in
compliance with MTC
Grant requirements
Transit Center BART One Transit Center project Presubmittal
Garage is required to be approved
and construction begun
prior to September, 2003, so
that City remains in
compliance with MTC
Grant requirements
Lermar 1 Affordable Project One Transit Center project Presubmittal
- Transit Center (114 units) is required to be approved
and construction begun
prior to September, 2003, so
that City remains in
compliance with MTC
Grant requirements.
4
Project Title Goals & Objective Level Current Status or
or Initiated After FY 2002 Estimated Completion
- 2003 G&O Meeting or Date
other Reason
Lennar 2 Project - Transit One Transit Center project Presubmittal
Center (280 units) is required to be approved
and construction begun
prior to September, 2003, so
that City remains in
compliance with MTC
Grant requirements
Toll A2 and A3 Must be approved prior to In progess - Need location
Development Agreement the issuance of any building of Sports Park tied down.
permits
Bancor Alcosta Project Medium Application received in Feb.
(listed in G&O as explore 2003
options for San Ramon
Village Shopping Center)
Complete Parks RFTA Medium No Progress
GPA
Bart/Orix BART station In preapplication stage by
and residential Project (at Orix
west Dublin BART station)
Legacy PD/SDR (at west Developer Delay -
Dublin BART station) preparing new submittal
1197 Brittney Lane SDR Recently submitted -
(Lot 6) estimated completion
approximately 3 months
Quarry Lane SDR Developer delay
Honda PD/SDR Developer delay
Greenbrier Phase III, Presubmittal -
PD/SDR approximately 6 months to
heating
Black Mountain Miscellaneous questions by
Implementation property owmers (10 hours
per week)
Lot 7 Black Mountain SDR Recently submitted,
estimated completion 3
months
Bukari TPM/SDR t Developer Delay
Project Title Goals & Objective Level Current Status or
or Initiated After FY 2002 Estimated Completion
- 2003 G&O Meeting or Date
other Reason
Miscellaneous
CUPs/SDRS: Various - depends on
· Tri Valley Marshal developer submittals
Arts
· Dublin Theatre
· Parkway Autobody
shop
· Volkswagen
MSP/SDR
· BMW MSP/SDR
· Dance Studio CUP I
· Jaliscos SDR
· Casa Orozco SDR
· Gallucci Collision
Center CUP/SDR
Other Ongoing Tasks:
Project/Tasks Status/Completion
CMA - Document Letter sent on Tier 2
compliance with Tier 1 and requirements, quarterly Tier
Tier 2 requirements 1 compliance report in
progress, Annual land use
survey completed
Projections for budget In progress
Budget preparation May, 2003
General Plan Circulation Need to amend for, No progress
Map consistency with Land Use
Map
Downtown Specific Plans Document does not No progress
Integrate Amendments currently reflect
amendments
Update Zoning Maps for In progress
consistency with General
Plan and current zoning
ordinance
Update EDSP Text completed - maps in
progress
Code Enforcement Ongoing
Project/Tasks Status/Completion
Implementation of approved Ongoing
projects such as plan checks
and field checks for Area G,
Armstrong Garden Center,
Areas A, Black Mountain,
etc.
Counter and Phones Ongoing
Preparation of Ongoing '
environmental documents
for other City projects -
Park Master Plan
Environmental Doc - ]
currently in progress
Projects Not Yet Submitted:
1. Moller GPA/SPA Annexation-Approximate submittal March - April,
2003
2. Dimanto GPA - March 18th CC meeting for initiation - project
Includes a proposal by Pacific Properties for a multi-family project
3. Dublin Security Storage GPA
4. Vargas Annexation
5. Lin Affordable Project, If approved by City Council on March 18, 2003
6. Dublin Ranch Detention Basin SDR - expected after 404 permit
approval.
7. Bank of America at Koll Center
7
SUBMITTAL QUICK
REQUIRED ' CHECK TYPE OF suBMITTAL REQUIRED
~ Vicinity, Map (1 copy) showing the site in relation to nearest cross streets.
Site Plan (I0 copies) drawn to i" = 20' scale and fully dimensioned (folded, 9" x 1 l" m~ximum
~ Size). The plans must. be prepared and signed by a licensed civil engineer, surveyor, architect, Or
designer. The plans must graphically and understandably describe the proposal. The plans must
show the following:
a. North arrow and scale;
b. Dimensioned property lines, existing and proposed easements and adjacent streets.
c. Location, setback and dimensions of all existing and proposed structures on the site;
d. Parking information, including:
- parking ratio (i.e. parking spaces/t000 sq. ft of building),
- parking provided,
- parking required,
- handicapped spaces,
- total project,
- number of parking spaces per row (indicate compact spaces with 'c'),
- typical parking stall dimensions,
- parking aisles dimensioned,
- entrance drives dimensioned,
- adequate back-up dimensions
- striping details
- lighting fixtures
- cart corrals, if required,
e. Loading/receiving areas:
- dock location and track access
- truck well
- turnaround area dimensions
- trash compactor
- porte cochere
f. Location, setback and dimensions of alt existing and proposed:
- driveways,
- median openings,
- loading areas,
- handicapped ramps,
- sidewalk/pathways,
- pedestrian circulation,
- landscaped areas,
- fences,
- retaining wails,
- signage,
- trash enclosures, and
- utility connections on site;
g. Location, setbacks and dimensions of all existing and proposed structures, parking, driveways,
walkways, landscape areas, fences, retaining walls, signage and trash enclosures within 50 feet
of the project site;
g:\forms~ppsubreq/sdr
-3-
SUBMITTAL QUICK
REQUIRED CHECK TYPE OF SUBMITTAL REQUIRED
~ Completed Processing Fee Agreement Form,
~ Written Statement (1 copy) describe the requested use in detail and give reasons why the
application should be approved. Provide factual information supporting the following:
a. What type of business, activity or use are you proposing?
How employees will have or propose to have?
many
you
c. What are the proposed hours and days of operation?
d. Are there any ways in which your business, activity or use have a negative
effect on the health or safety, of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or
be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.
(~ Describe how the design of the project including site layout, structures, vehicular access,
circulation and parking etc. will provide a desirable environment for the future
development.
(~ Is the site physically suitable for the type and intensity of development proposed?
Describe how the proposed development may impact views.
Describe the physical characteristics of the site including existing slopes and topographic
features.
~. Describe the architectural design/theme of the development including character, scale
and quality of the design, and explain how the project will relate to and be compatible
with the existing site and the character of adjacent buildings, neighborhoods and uses.
O Describe how the landscape features have been designed so as to insure visual relief and
an attractive environment for the public.
Q~ Is the proposed project located on a hazardous waste and substances site pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5? (A list is of these sites is available in the Department
of Community Development).
~ Preliminal~. Title Report/Property Pr'of'de (1 copy) to document ownership, prepared within three
months of application submittal.
Public Notice Materials:
a. Reproduced copy of Alameda County Assessor's Parcel Map showing the project parcel(s)
outlined in red and a 300-foot radius in blue drawn from the perimeter of the parcel(s),
b. Two sets of mailing labels; one set addressed to current property owners by name; and
another set addressed to all current occupants/tenants on the properties eontig~aous to the
project site. The labels need to show the addresses and Assessor's Parcel Number's within
300 feet of the parcel(s) typed on 8½" x 11" sheet labels. (Example of how these labels
should be typed:)
J. Doe (Property Owner) Occupant/Tenant
APN: 941-042-0003 APN: 941-012-3456
1010 Main Street 1010 Dublin Blvd.
Anytown, CA 91234 i Dublin, CA 94568
c. Plain envelopes (1 set) 4¼"x9½" with first class postage (stamps only, metered mail will
not be accepted, no return address) with labels affixed on e~velopes.
g:~forms~appsubreq/sdr
-2-
SUBMITTAL QUICK
REQUIRED CHECK TYPE OF SUBMITTAL REQUIRED
~ Vicinity, Map (1 copy) showing the site in relation to nearest cross streets.
~ Site Plan (10 copies) drawn to 1" = 20' scale and fully dimensioned (folded, 9" x 11" maximum
size). The plans must be prepared and signed by a licensed civil engineer, surveyor, architect, or
designer. The plans must graphically and understandably describe the proposal. The plans must
show the following:
a. North arrow and scale;
b. Dimensioned property lines, existing and proposed easements and adjacent streets.
c. Location, setback and dimensions of all existing and proposed structures on the site;
d. Parking information, including:
- parking ratio (i.e. parldug spaces/1000 sq. ft. of building),
- parking provided,
- parking required,
- handicapped spaces,
- total project,
- number of parking spaces per row (indicate compact spaces with 'e'),
- typical parking stall dimensions,
- parking aisles dimensioned,
- entrance drives dimensioned,
- adequate back-up dimensions
- striping details
- lighting fzxtures
~ cart corrals, if required,
e. Loading/receiving areas:
- dock location and track access
- track well
- turnaround area dimensions
- trash compactor
- porte cochere
f. Location, setback and dimensions of alt existing and proposed:
- driveways,
- median openings,
- loading areas,
- handicapped ramps,
- sidewalk/pathways,
- pedestrian circulation,
- landscaped areas,
- fences,
- retaining walls,
- signage,
- trash enclosures, and
- utility connections on site;
g. Location, setbacks and dimensions of all existing and proposed structures, parking, driveways,
walkways, landscape areas, fences, retaining walls, signage and trash enclosures within 50 feet
of the project site;
g:'~formsXappsubrext/sdr
-3-
SUBMITTAL QUICK
REQUIRED CHECK TYPE OF SUBMITTAL REQUIRED
h. Summary of development calculations including:
- site area (gross and net, each floor and total)
- floor area of all buildings and uses,
- number of parking stalls (required and proposed),
- lot area coverage (allowed and proposed),
- pement of landscaping
- when appropriate, number of beds, students, dining seats, auditorium/church seats,
occupants, employees of largest work shift, or square feet of assembly floor area.
~ Prellmln arv Grading/Drainage Plan (10 copies, folded, 9" x 11" maximum size) showing:
a. Existing topography (dashed line) - one-foot intervals (slopes 3:1 or greater shall be five-foot
intervals)
b. Proposed or £mish grade contours (solid line) - one-foot intervals
b. Boundaries of all cut and fill areas
c. Cross-sections of site where topographic changes exceed 5%
.d. Direction and path of drainage on, through and offthe site (indicate any proposed and existing
drainage catchbasins and pipe)
e. Retaining walls with critical spot elevations
f. Pad elevations for appurtenances (i.e. transformer, generator, etc.)
g. Finish floor elevations
~ Preliminaaw Utili~ Plan (10 copies, folded, 9" x 11" maximum size) shoWing:
a. Electric Service routing from existing supply to building (including poles, guy wires, conduits
(min. 5-4"), conductors (number and size) etc.
b. Transformer, generator, propane rack enclosure (across from electric room)
c. Gas service
d. Water service, location and size including, domestic water with meter, back flow preventer
and/or detector value location, fire hydrants with protection, fire department connection and
P.I.V.
e. Sanitary Sewer location and size including, manholes and ¢leanouts (100' O.C.)
f. Telephone service
g. Easements (existing and proposed)
h. Critical crossings calculated for clearance (encasement if required)
I. Approximate light pole locations
j. Storm drain system (with invert elevations)
k. Building tie-ins with sanitary sewer and storm drain
1. Stub out locations for future pads, if any
m. Finish floor elevations
g:~fo rms~appsubreq/sdr
-4-
SUBMITTAL QUICK
REQUIRED CHECK TYPE OF SUBMITTAL REQUIRED
~ Preliminary Landscaping Plan (10 copies, folded 9" x 11" maximum size) This plan shall be
consistent with the site plan and architectural plans for the proposed project. The plan shall
demonstrate clearly the character, massing and site compatibility of the proposed landscaping
program and shall include the following:
a. Design layout showing the desired landscaping pro.am in terms of location of proposed
landscaping and hardscape,
a. Plant palette with the location, size and name of the proposed plants and trees (both common and
botanical
b. Locations of proposed, berms, concrete curbs, paths, fencing, and miscellaneous structures
(including above grade utility structures such as PG&E transformers).
c. Percent of landscaping (and how it is allocated)
d. Statement of overall design theme
e. Areas proposed for outdoor use
f. Outdoor furniture details
g. Lighting plan including pedestrian level, security and parking lot lighting
Building Elevations (10 copies) fully dimensioned and drawn to a 1/8" = 1' scale of all sides of all
~ proposed structures. Elevations must include building materials, colors, trash enclosures, fencing,
roof screening details and signage.
Colored' Building Elevations. (1 set, full size and mounted)
Color and Material Palette (I set) indicating the proposed finishes of all exterior materials
(including roof and walls) and color samples of paint or manufactured products to be applied on the
building exterior (including fascia and trim).
Scale Model of Project A model is required only if the proposal is for two or more commercial
buildings. The scaled model shall be submitted at least 2 weeks prior to a decision being made by
the Community Development Director or with/none month cfa public hearing. (check with planner
for additional information)
Floor Plans (10 copies) fully dimensioned, drawn to scale, showing exterior doors and windows,
~ stairways, mechanical rooms and hallways (folded, 9" x 11", maximum size).
~ Roof Plan (10 'copies) drawn to scale showing the direction.of slope of roof elements and location of
mechanical equipment, ducts and vents (folded, 9" x 11" maximum size).
Reduced Copies (10 copies, 11" x 17") of each plan,
~ Traffic Data specific to the site or proposed project: traffic generation rates, peak hour counts, trip
distribution and similar information. (Applicant must check with Public Works Dept. for additional
information.)
Special Information or information in such form and number as may be required by the Planning
Department
g:\forms\appsubreq/sdr
-5-
OFFICE USE ON£ Y
Planner Date
The Quick Check has determined that the application submittal is incomplete and cannot be accepted.
The Quick Check has determined that the application appears to contain the items required by this checklist
(complete~aess as defined by Section 65943 will be determined within 30 days of application) and processing will begin.
For assistance or questions regarding this form, please contact: PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF, CITY OF DUBLIN,
100 CMC PLAZA, DUBLIN, CA 94568, (925) 833-6610.
g:~forms~appsubreq/sdr
RESOLUTION NO. - 03
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AND
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY
FOR PROPERTY OWNED BY THE DUBLIN LAND COMPANY
WHEREAS, Mr. Kevin Weiss, JMH Weiss, Inc., on behalf of Mr. Jolm DiManto, Dublin Land
Company, has submitted a request to change the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land
use designations for the property located generally between the 1-580 freeway to the south, Gleason
Drive to the north, Tassajara Road to the west, and the Jennifer Lin properties to the east; and
WHEREAS, a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment would be required to allow the land
use changes requested:
1) Reducing the acreage for General Commercial from 59.96 acres to 56.30 acres (a reduction
of 3.66 acres) and concentrating it between the 1-580 freeway to the south and Central
Parkway to the north;
2) Increasing the acreage for High Density Residential from 5.12 acres to 25.18 acres (an
increase of 20.06 acres) and concentrating it between Central Parkway to the south and just
north of Gleason Drive;
3) Eliminating 5.12 acres designated as Neighborhood Commercial;
4) Eliminating 1.80 acres designated as Medium Density Residential;
5) Eliminating 7.68 acres designated as Medium-High Density Residential; and
6) Eliminating 1.80 acres designated as Public/Semi-Public.
WHEREAS, additional entitlements including a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Subdivision Map, Site Development Review, and Planned
Development rezoning, and associated permits would need to be processed before development could
occur; and
WHEREAS, Section 65358(a) of the State of California Government Code states that an
amendment to the General Plan shall be in a manner specified by the legislative body; and
WHEREAS, the initiation request has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt under
Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, a Staff report was submitted outlining the issues surrounding the request; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all such reports, recommendations, and
testimony hereinabove set forth and using their independent judgment supports the initiation of a
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study for a +82-acre site; and
WHEREAS, at the March 4, 2003 City Council Meeting, the City Council decided that new
projects proposed for initiation by the City be postponed until at least August 2003 in order to process
other high priority projects; and
ATTACHMENT 6
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby approve the initiation request for a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Study for the property located generally between the 1-580 freeway to the south, Gleason Drive to the
north, Tassajara Road to the west, and the Jennifer Lin properties to the east.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Applicant shall pay for all processing costs involved
with the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Study.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin on this 18th
day of March 2003, by the following votes:
AYE S:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:kPA#k2003\03-009XCC Resos Dimanto.doc
RESOLUTION NO. - 03
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DENYING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AND
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY
FOR PROPERTY OWNED BY THE DUBLIN LAND COMPANY
WHEREAS, Mr. Kevin Weiss, JMH Weiss, Inc., on behalf of Mr. John DiManto, Dublin Land
Company, has submitted a request to change the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land
use designations for the property located generally between the 1-580 freeway to the south, Gleason
Drive to the north, Tassajara Road to the west, and the Jennifer Lin properties to the east; and
WHEREAS, a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment would be required to allow the land
use changes requested:
1) Reducing the acreage for General Commercial from 59.96 acres to 56.30 acres (a reduction
of 3.66 acres) and concentrating it between the 1-580 freeway to the south and Central
Parkway to the north;
2) Increasing the acreage for High Density Residential from 5.12 acres to 25.18 acres (an
increase of 20.06 acres) and concentrating it between Central Parkway to the south and just
north of Gleason Drive;
3) Eliminating 5.12 acres designated as Neighborhood Commercial;
4) Eliminating 1.80 acres designated as Medium Density Residential;
5) Eliminating 7.68 acres designated as Medium-High Density Residential; and
6) Eliminating 1.80 acres designated as Public/Semi-Public.
WHEREAS, additional entitlements including a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Subdivision Map, Site Development Review, and Planned
Development rezoning, and associated permits would need to be processed before development could
occur; and
WHEREAS, Section 65358(a) of the State of California Government Code states that an
amendment to the General Plan shall be in a manner specified by the legislative body; and
WHEREAS, the initiation request has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt under
Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, a Staff report was submitted outlining the issues surrounding the request; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all such reports, recommendations, and
testimony hereinabove set forth and using their independent judgment supports the initiation of a
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study for a +82-acre site; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby deny the initiation request for a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Study for the property located generally between the 1-580 freeway to the south, Gleason Drive to the
north, Tassajara Road to the west, and the Jennifer Lin properties to the east.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin on this 18th
day of March 2003, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
G:\PA#~2003\03-009\CC Resos Dimanto.doc