HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1 Study Session: Downtown Dublin Specific PlanG~~~ OF DU~~~2
/ll/~~ ~\
19 (d~ =il~),8Z
`~~~~.~/l
~4LIFOR~~
STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL File # ^[~]~f']~-~`j]~
DATE: June 29, 2010
TO: Honorable Mayor, City Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners
FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager
SUBJ . Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session to Discuss the Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan (PA 07-036)
Prepared By Erica Fraser, Senior Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The purpose of this joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session is to discuss traffic
associated with increased development potential in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area
and the proposed Community Benefit Program.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds have been allocated in the Fiscal Year 2009/2010 budget to prepare the Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recorr~mends that the City Council and Planning Commission receive Staff's presentation
and provide Staff with direction regarding potential traffic impacts and the Community Benefit
Program.
~
Submit d By ' wed
Community Development Director Assistant anager
Page 1 of 11 ITEM NO. ~
DESCRIPTION:
Background ` °
The Fiscal Year 2006-2007 City Council Goals and Objectives included, as a high priority goal,
the preparation of a comprehensive Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP).
On June 19, 2007, the City Council adopted a Resolution approving a Consulting Services
Agreement with RBF Consulting for preparation of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. The
Specific Plan is anticipated to encompass the area of the existing Downtown Core, Village
Parkway, West Dublin BART, Dublin Downtown and San Ramon Specific Plans. A map of the
proposed Specific Plan Area is shown below.
Figure 1: Proposed Specific Plan Area
__...... . .. ___ _ ........ _....~ ~...._ _...........__.~.._.__ _.....~ _ ___ ,..... ,_.. ~. ~~~
~~,-------,. ~ ~
. . . . "~. ... . .~ ~ LEGEMA
. - , . . . ~. . . . . ~ ~F?'b)<i'.. f .11. ~iTUf!i;it't
. . . ... . .. . . . . ~ ~~~~?'~ ~il~l'.! ~SX'?
. . . . ~ . . ~~ ~~r.'.~t~ T Y F~)Itl;:~:l
. . ~ . . . ~. . . .. . . .. . _Utii~.;
.. ~ .~q'.. . .. . .. . . ~ .
~~~~W ~~~{
~~ .. F`:.c.~,ant_~r
The City of Dublin was awarded a Station Area Planning Grant in June, 2008 in the amount of
$200,000 from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the preparation of the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. On February 17,
2009, the City Council adopted a Resolution approving a draft Funding Agreement for the
Station Area Planning Grant for an amount not to exceed $200,000 for the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and authorized the City
Manager to sign the final Funding Agreement. On July 21, 2009, the City Council adopted a
Resolution approving a Consulting Services Agreement with RBF Consulting for preparation of
the Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report.
A joint Study Session with the City Council and Planning Commission was held in August of
2007 to initiate preparation of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.
Page 2 of 11
In the winter of 2007/2008, Staff and RBF Consulting conducted a number of public outreach
efforts to solicit input from stakeholders and other interested persons on the preparation of the
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. These outreach efforts included an online survey, a series of
walking tours through the Specific Plan Area, and an evening workshop. Outreach regarding
the survey included placing a flyer in water bills to notify residents about the on-line survey,
placing an advertisement in the Parks and Community Services Activity Guide that is mailed to
Dublin residents, and a television advertisement which ran on the local community channel, TV
30. Over 300 people participated in the online survey. Staff and RBF Consulting also
conducted one-on-one interviews with property owners in the Specific Plan Area. These
outreach efforts provided residents, property owners, and business owners with an opportunity
to share their ideas while helping to shape the future of Downtown Dublin.
A joint Study Session was held on June 3, 2009 to discuss the Opportunities, Issues and
Strategies Report that was prepared for the Downtown. This report was used in the preparation
of the Guiding Principles that were discussed and voted on during the Study Session (please
refer to the minutes in Attachment 1). The Guiding Principles have been used to prepare the
draft Specific Plan as well as identify the development potential for the Specific Plan Area.
A joint Study Session with the City Council and Planning Commission was also held on
November 17, 2009. The purpose of the November 17th Study Session was to review the
proposed Land Use Concept, the Development Pool Concept, the Community Benefit Program,
and to provide feedback to Staff. The City Council and Planning Commission were in favor of
the Land Use and Development Pool Concepts as well as the Community Benefit Program
(please refer to the minutes included as Attachment 2); however, the City Council and Planning
Commission requested that Staff bring back the Community Benefit Program for further
discussion during a future Study Session.
On January 29, 2010, Staff distributed a Notice of Preparation in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) notifying the public that the City will prepare an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in conjunction with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.
Work on the Draft EIR is currently underway. Staff continues to work on the draft Specific Plan
which incorporates the Guiding Principles as well as feedback received from the City Council
and Planning Commission during the previous Study Sessions.
Specific Plan Districts
In accordance with the Guiding Principles, three districts (Village Parkway, Retail, and Transit
Oriented) have been established in the Draft Specific Plan to establish development standards
and design guidelines that are unique to each District. Additionally each District has a
maximum Floor Area Ratio and development potential to meet the goals in the Guiding
Principles.
The three Districts are: the Village Parkway District, which encompasses the Village Parkway
Specific Plan Area; the Retail District, which is located to the north of Dublin Boulevard and
comprised of an area that is dominated by retail and large format retail uses; and the Transit-
Oriented District, which is located south of Dublin Boulevard and near the West Dublin BART
Station and accommodates transit-oriented developments with significantly higher Floor Area
Ratios to take advantage of the proximity to public transit opportunities. The following map
illustrates the location of each District.
Page 3 of 11
Figure 2: Specific Plan Districts
~
t ~
~ s,x ~
~t ~rF ~~~s~3 ~ 'e
3 6/
f ~ y~~.t„`~~f ~~ ~ ~~~y .:
a y
y ,s S
.. ~ '~.~ ~ ~ ~
f ~
L ~ ~ ~~3 4 .f ~ ~g~ ~. ~~
~~~ ~'. ~~/,~ ~a y
~6~ ~ y Y ' W'+.e~'~~ ~ ,
~y -~ ~ ~'~~`~~~~~~ ~. ~ l~4 _ `
i ~ w ua e ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~s"~ ° il ~ ~ a .
>~'`•" ,._ .~~~~~;~ w~~~ ~~`>s~ . ~~„.
,-,~--~ . "
LEt3END
,..-il
~.
~la ~
.m
za-
~ ~-
._
.
.
,
r
V
~
{ .~', ~.~Bp l d Li~~»
Specifi~ Pran Dntricls
~
~
`
; ,~,~ <cYa6I {,
~.sis~d
$
w ~~"
, 7 ,'f lFr~. _el ~~i
~
~
~" ,..y _. .
.
. . , r
,,, , ., .:;~ Fur,., o{ G s3iic4
riP~ ~r'
('~Q..N'.~Yik(311
ac~
.:.:v2~":'::. ~
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of this Study Session is to review traffic in the downtown and traffic impacts
associated with the construction of the development potential identified in the Draft Specific
Plan, and the proposed Community Benefit Program. Additionally, the City Council and
Planning Commission are requested to provide feedback to Staff regarding traffic and the
Community Benefit Program.
The following table illustrates the total development potential envisioned in the proposed
Specific Plan (including the base FAR and Development Pool). The development potential is
based on the Guiding Principles identified in the Opportunities, Issues and Strategies Report
and Market Analysis prepared by Keyser Marston Associates (KMA).
Table 1: Total Development Potential in Proposed Specific Plan
District Non-Residential (Sq. Ft.) Residential (du)
Retail District 737,094 100
Transit-Oriented District 2,277,716 1,100
Villa e Parkwa District 20,730 100
Total 3,035,540 1,300
Traffic Study
A Traffic Study was prepared by Fehr and Peers for the proposed Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan to evaluate the potential traffic impacts that could result from the development potential
Page 4 of 11
identified in the Specific Plan. The Traffic Study, which will be used to prepare the Draft EIR for
the Specific Plan, reviewed existing traffic conditions, traffic conditions in the near term and the
worst case scenario in the future with the construction of all of the development potential
identified in Table 1.
The term Level of Service (LOS) is used to describe the operating conditions of a roadway
based on factors such as speed, travel time and delay. The LOS of an intersection is
designated with the letters A through F, with A being the best and F being the worst.
The following Table provides a description of each level of service designation.
Table 2: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of
Description Average Control
Service Dela Seconds
A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable Less than 10
traffic si nal ro ression and/or short c cle len ths.
B Operations with low delay occurring with good 10 to 20
ro ression and/or short c cle len ths.
C Operations with average delays resulting from fair 20 to 35
ro ression and/or lon er c cle len ths.
D Operations with longer delays due to a combination of 35 to 55
unfavorable progression. Long cycle lengths occur and
man vehicles sto .
E Operations with longer delays indicating poor 55 to 80
progression, long cycle lengths and the intersection
o erates close to its ca acit .
F Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers 80 or more
due to over-saturation, poor progression or very long
c cle len ths.
The Dublin General Plan includes Guiding Policy F which was adopted on June 17, 1997 and
which states:
"For streets that are not defined as Routes of Regional Significance
in the TVTC Action Plan, strive to phase development and road
improvements so that the operating Level of Service (LOS) for
intersections in Dublin shall not be worse than LOS D."
During the June 3, 2009, joint Study Session, the City Council and Planning Commission
discussed and voted on the Guiding Principles (included as Attachment 3) that have been used
in the preparation of the draft Specific Plan. During the meeting, Guiding Principle No. 7 was
discussed which stated "accept increased traffic congestion (i.e. reduced level of service) if it is
found that traffic impacts associated with future development cannot be fully mitigated." After
voting on this Guiding Principle, the City Council and Planning Commission further discussed
the Principle No. 7. It was unclear from this discussion whether or not traffic congestion in the
downtown was acceptable if it led to increased economic development and vitality in the
downtown (Attachment 1 pages 9-12). Therefore, Staff is seeking further clarity about the
willingness to accept additional traffic impacts in the downtown.
Page 5 of 11
Level of Service and Proposed Specific Plan
As previously discussed, a traffic study was developed to review traffic conditions resulting from
the construction of all of the development potential identified in the Specific Plan (as shown in
Table 1).
The following table (Table 3) illustrates the Level of Service at key intersections in the
Downtown Specific Plan Area during the AM and PM peak periods. The `Existing LOS' column
refers to the current signal operations today. The `Future No Project LOS' indicates the signal
operations of these intersections in the future and includes traffic assumed from projects that
have been approved but not constructed in Dublin (i.e. AMB and Windstar projects), as well as
the surrounding communities and anticipated future growth in the Tri-Valley. The `Future with
Maximum Build-Out LOS' includes approved projects, future growth, construction of all of the
development potential identified in the Specific Plan and the implementation of mitigation
measures identified in the Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report.
Table 3: Peak Hour LOS in the Specific Plan Area*
Intersection
Peak Hour
Existing
LOS
Future No
Project
LOS Future
with
Maximum
Build-Out
LOS
Amador Valle~r Boulevard/San AM C E E
Ramon Road PM C E D
Amador Valley/Village AM D F F
Parkway PM D F F
Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon AM D F F
Road PM D F F
Dublin Boulevard/Regional AM C D E
Street PM D F F
Dublin Boulevard/ Amador AM D F F
Plaza Road PM D F F
Dublin Boulevard/Village AM D D D
Parkway PM C F F
St. Patrick Way/ Golden Gate AM A E E
Drive2 PM A F F
St. Patrick Way/Amador Plaza AM C F F
Road/I-680 SB Ramps PM C F F
* Please note that this is a Draft table and is subject to change as Staff completes their
review of the Traffic Study.
1 PM Peak build out conditions reflect improvements as a result of development mitigation
and the planned Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Improvements.
2 Existing level of service conditions are prior to development and with the BART station
under construction and not yef functional.
Currently all of the intersections in the downtown operate at a LOS of D or better. As shown on
the above table, 8 intersections will operate at a Level of Service of E or worse in the future with
the construction of all of the development potential identified in the proposed Specific Plan. If
the Specific Plan were not adopted, 8 intersections will still operate at a LOS of E or worse in
Page 6 of 11
the future with the construction of projects in the surrounding communities as well as the
construction of projects already approved in the Specific Plan Area (i.e. Windstar and AMB);
however it is unlikely that all of the development potential (Table 1) will be constructed in the
next ten years. Construction of all of the development potential will likely be spread out over the
years and it is likely that all of the development potential could take as long as 25 years to
construct.
After reviewing the existing roadway network, Staff determined that there are no feasible
mitigation measures which can bring the LOS up to D or better for the downtown. To bring the
downtown up to an LOS of D or better would require significant road widening and right-of-way
take in the Specific Plan Area. This would, in turn, have a negative impact on the downtown
area by significantly increasing roadway width which would create a negative experience for
pedestrians and increase the distance they would have to walk across the street. Staff believes
that this would then discourage people from walking in the Specific Plan Area and would
therefore be in conflict with the Guiding Principles including Principle 7.1.5 which states that the
Plan should "create a pedestrian-friendly downtown that minimizes potential conflicts between
vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists".
Traffic in Downtowns in the Surrounding Cities
Staff reviewed the General Plans for the cities of Pleasanton, Livermore and Walnut Creek to
determine the acceptable LOS for each of these Downtowns. In general, these three downtown
areas are successful areas that provide a variety of services, are popular destinations and are
considered pedestrian-friendly. In general, each of the City's General Plan strives for a LOS D
or better for most of the City, but exempts the downtown from this requirement.
In Pleasanton, seven downtown intersections are exempt from the LOS D standard unless a
mitigation measure is consistent with the City's Downtown Specific Plan goals and policies
which are generally aimed at maintaining a traditional pedestrian-friendly environment.
Currently, four intersections operate at LOS E or worse and it is anticipated that, at General
Plan build-out, all seven downtown intersections will operate at LOS E or worse in the
downtown area.
In Livermore, 18 signalized downtown intersections are exempt from their General Plan
requirement that intersections operate at LOS D or better. Currently, these 18 intersections
operate at LOS D or better; however, at build out it is anticipated that the level of service will be
reduced below LOS D.
Walnut Creek allows all intersections in their powntown area to operate a LOS E.
As noted above, the General Plans for several of the surrounding cities generally exempt their
downtowns from a requirement that intersections maintain a Level of Service D or better.
Downtowns typically are allowed to operate with a reduced level of service because increased
traffic leads to vitality in the downtown area. Additionally, mitigation measures which would
improve LOS in a downtown typically increase roadway width which leads to a negative
experience for pedestrians and can decrease foot traffic in the downtown area. As noted in the
memo prepared by KMA (Attachment 4), traffic in a downtown area is a good thing and can lead
to increased economic vitality of the area.
Page 7 of 11
Future Implementation
KMA estimates that over the next ten years (by 2020) it is likely that only 800,000 square feet of
the development potential and 1,300 residential dwellings could be constructed in the downtown
area (Attachment 5). The Specific Plan and companion Environmental Impact Report are
envisioned as a 20 year document that will allow the intensification of the Downtown Area over
time. Based on the likely amount of development in the near future and potential concerns
regarding LOS in the downtown, a future implementation goal could be established to review
traffic and development in the downtown in 10 years. This would allow development to occur in
the Specific Plan Area and provide for a check-in in the future to determine if the amount of
development in the Specific Plan Area should be reduced or if the traffic impacts are acceptable
in relation to a viable and successful downtown.
Staff is requesting direction from the City Council and Planning Commission on whether or not
the Downtown Specific Plan Area should be exempt from LOS standards in order to allow the
construction of the development potential identified in Table 1 of this Staff Report. This would
allow increased density which would meet the objectives of the Guiding Principles but would
result in a decreased Level of Service. The Level of Service resulting from the Specific Plan
would only be slightly worse than the Level of Service that will occur in the Specific Plan in the
future as noted in Table 3. If the City Council and Planning Commission does not want to allow
a decreased level of service, this would eliminate all future growth in the downtown area beyond
those projects already approved. If that action is taken, the Specific Plan would then be a set of
design guidelines, but would not allow for any additional development in the Specific Plan Area.
Development Pool
In the proposed Downtown Specific Plan, a base Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of up to a.50 in the
Transit-Oriented District and .35 in the Village Parkway and Retail Districts would be
established as part of the Specific Plan. Property owners would be allowed to intensify their site
up to the base FAR by right. If a property owner would like to develop beyond the base Floor
Area Ratio, they may obtain additional square footage from the "Development Pool." The
Development Pool would allow the property owners to develop their property up to the
maximum Floor Area Ratio permitted in the Specific Plan based on the development potential
identified in Table 1 above. For a background discussion on Floor Area Ratio and the
Development Pool for the Specific Plan, please refer to the November 17, 2009 Study Session
Staff Report included as Attachment 6.
In order to access the Development Pool, the property owner would be required to enter into an
agreement with the City and would need to provide a community benefit, as discussed in the
Community Benefit Program section in the Staff Report. The Development Pool can only be
created if the Downtown Specific Plan Area is exempt from the City's current policy which
requires intersections to operate at LOS D or better as previously discussed in this Staff Report.
The base and maximum FAR for each District, as well as the size of the development pool for
each District, is shown on the following table.
Page 8 of 11
Table 4: Base and Maximum FAR and Density Development Pool
District Base FAR Maximum FAR Density Development
Pool Sq. Ft.
Retail 0.35 0.6 576,742
Transit-Oriented 0.50 1.2 1,659,806
Villa e Parkwa 0.35 0.35 0
Community Benefit Program
One of the Guiding Principles (Principle 7.1.2) states that developers should provide a
community benefit in return for the City allowing increased density on their property (Attachment
3). To meet this goal, a Community Benefit Program would need to be created in conjunction
with the Specific Plan which requires property owners to enter into an agreement with the City
to use square footage from the Development Pool (discussed in the previous section). If the
City Council and Planning Commission determine that the Downtown Specific Plan Area should
operate at LOS D or better, there will not be a Development Pool and the Community Benefit
Program cannot be established.
Staff would propose that the Community Benefit Program would be set up similar to the City's
current Tax-Reimbursement Program in that the property owner or developer would enter into
an agreement with the City that ensures that the agreed upon benefit will be provided. The City
would negotiate the terms of the agreement similar to the current Development Agreement
process. The life of the agreement will be limited to a specific period so that, if the project is not
constructed, the square footage can be returned to the Development Pool and would be
available for other property owners in the plan area.
The purpose of the Community Benefit Program is to ensure that developers provide a benefit
to the community in exchange for the City allowing a greater development potential on their
property. Some examples of benefits the City could negotiate include:
• Public Plaza or gathering space;
• Enhanced streetscape improvements (e.g. sidewalks, landscaping, etc);
• Pedestrian connections ( e.g. easement dedications and pathway improvements);
• Transit improvements (e.g. enhance or construct bus shelters);
• Payment into a Downtown Fund for future public improvements; and
• Other benefit proposed by the developer and approved by the City Council.
Staff is looking for feedback on what other items should be included in the Community Benefit
Program. Additionally, Staff would like the City Council and Planning Commission to determine
if the Community Benefit Program should begin at the adoption of the Specific Plan or if a two
year grace period should be enacted which allows developers use development capacity from
the Pool without providing a Community Benefit.
CONCLUSION:
Given the results on the downtown traffic study, Staff believes that the Downtown will need to
be exempt from the City's current General Plan Policy which requires all intersections to operate
at LOS D or better in order for future development (beyond what has already been approved) to
occur in the future. If the Downtown is not exempt from this standard, no future growth will be
Page 9 of 11
allowed in the downtown because any growth will increase travel trips and those trips will
conflict with the General Plan because eight intersections will operate at a LOS E or worse.
Should the Downtown be exempt from this requirement, Staff would evaluate the General Plan
to determine what amendments would be required to accommodate the increased development
potential identified on Table 1 in this Staff Report. Each property would be allowed to increase
their current building up to the base FAR identified for each District. The remaining development
potential identified beyond this base will be placed in the Development Pool. Developers would
be allowed to obtain additional density for their project from this Pool by entering into the
Community Benefit Agreement and providing a benefit to the community in exchange for
allowing the increased development on their site.
DIRECTION:
As previously discussed, the purpose of this meeting is to discuss the traffic impacts related to
the proposed Downtown Specific Plan and the Community Benefit Program. In order to assist
the City Council and Planning Commission in their discussion, Staff has prepared the following
questions to be considered by the City Council and Planning:
1. Should the downtown be exempt from the current General Plan Policy which requires all
intersections to operate at LOS D or better?
2. Should an implementation measure be established in the Downtown Specific Plan to
review traffic and development impacts 10 years after the adoption of the Specific Plan?
3. What additional benefit(s) would the City Council and Planning Commission like to see in
the Community Benefit Program?
4. Should the Community Benefit Program start at the adoption of the Specific Plan or
should a two year grace period be put into place which would allow developers to pull
from the Development Pool without entering into the Community Benefit Program?
NEXT STEPS:
Staff will complete the preparation of the Draft Specific Plan incorporating feedback received
from the City Council and the Planning Commission at tonight's meeting. The Draft Specific
Plan will then be reviewed by the City Council and the Planning Commission during a joint
Study Session which is anticipated to occur in August. Following the Study Session, the Draft
Environmental Impact Report will then be distributed for public review.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
A Notice of this Study Session was published in the Valley Times and mailed to all property~
owners and tenants in the Specific Plan Area, within 300 feet of the existing Specific Plan
boundaries and all persons who have expressed an interest in being notified of ineetings. The
Staff Report for tonight's meeting was also available on the City's webpage.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. June 3, 2009 Study Session Minutes.
2. November 17, 2009 Study Session Minutes.
Page 10 of 11
3. Guiding Principles (Excerpt from the Opportunities, Issues and
Strategies Report).
4. KMA Memorandum "Managing Traffic as Downtown Dublin
Evolves and Succeeds"
5. KMA Memorandum "Likely Level of Development in Downtown
Dublin in 2020"
6. November 17, 2009 Study Session Staff Report (without
attachments).
G:IPA#12007107-036 Downtown Dublin Specific PIanlCity CouncillCC PC Study Session 6.29.101DDSP SS Staff Report 6.29.10.doc
Page 11 of 11
~ ~~
~ Or' DU~~ MINUTES OF A JOINT CITY COUNCIL/
~ ~~ ,,, PLANNING COMMISSION
~ -~-~ a~
~ ~ "', SPECIAL MEETING - June 3 2009
.~~ . _ _ 11~
A special joint meeting of the Dublin City Council and Planning Commission was held on
Wednesday, June 3, 2009, in the Dublin Library Community Meeting Room. The meeting
was called to order at 6:33 p.m., by Mayor Sbranti.
.-.~.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Biddle, Hart, Hildenbrand, Scholz, and Mayor Sbranti.
Vice Chair King; and Commissioners Brown, Schaub, and Swalwell.
ABSENT: Planning Commission Chair Wehrenberg
•
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited by the City Council, Staff and those
present. .
•
STUDY SESSION
Mayor Sbranti welcomed the audience and opened the public hearing. Hearing no
comments he closed the pubic hearing and informed the audience there would be another
opportunity to speak at the end of the meeting.
PA 07-036: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. The City Council and Planning
Commission will receive the presentation and provide Staff and the Consultant with input
and feedback regarding the Opportunities, Issues and Strategies Report and the
preparation of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.
Mayor Sbranti introduced Jeff Baker, Acting Planning Manager.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i
VOLUME 28 ~ ~" I
SPECIAL MEETING 19;``~~, * ,~ Z+G ~'1
June 3, 2009 ~~~S,~~l ~0"2~~'10
,.~, ri,,,~~ ,
°~ S~'
~
Mr. Baker gave an overview of the agenda and stated the goal of the meeting was to
identify a long term, unified vision for moving forward on the Downtown Specific Plan
and also providing Staff and the consultant with direction.
Mr. Baker introduced Bill Weisman, RBF Consulting; Jerry Keyser, Keyser-Marston
Associates; and Mr. Weisman introduced Aaron Ackerman, RBF Consulting.
Mr. Weisman explained the proj ect and the terms that will be referenced in the meeting,
such as: specific plan, design standards, and design guidelines. He stated the specific plan
will be a guide or vision document for the future development of the area.
Mr. Weisman encouraged the public to stay involved with the process.
Mr. Weisman explained the previous work done on the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan,
i.e. technical analysis of traffic and infrastructure; a market study to look at economic
conditions; overall land use and urban design features; the site tour with the public and
stake holders which documented the likes and dislikes for the downtown area; and
stakeholder interviews. He continued that all of the above culminated in the
Opportunities, Issues and Strategies Report which has six chapters and proposes guiding
principles which lay out the overall vision which will help develop the land use plan.
Mr. Weisman explained the ~nap and the boundaries of the Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan. He continued that there are five (5) specific plans that the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan will replace in part; San Ramon Road Specific Plan, Dublin Downtown
Plan, Village Parkway, Downtown Core and West Dublin BART Specific Plan.
Mr. Weisman discussed the development that has occurred since the five specific plans
were developed. He also discussed the public improvements that have occurred as well;
Village Parkway streetscape improvements which included new sidewalks and lighting;
BART Station and garage; Dublin Senior Center and Wicklow Square; and a number of
public art features.
Mr. Weisman reviewed the pathways and walkways for pedestrian circulation in the
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2
VOLUME 28 ~
SPECIAL MEETING 19,`~ ~+~ ~~
June 3, 2009 ~\~~'~y~%~
~,~-,Q~
~~~58
Jerry Keyser, Marston-Keyser Associates spoke regarding the economic future of
Downtown Dublin. He felt Dublin's downtown location is in a dynamic Bay Area Market
at the intersection of the I-580/680 Freeway. He suggested that, as they go through the
process, they should think about short and long term goals and not only what affects the
economy is having today but how to survive and what they want the Downtown to look
like when the economy recovers. He felt there are more opportunities in the downtown
area because that area was built when it was less expensive to build. He stated when there
is a recovery the high density residential development axound the BART station will be
attractive, but it will take longer for the office market to recover.
Mr. Keyser spoke about revitalization vs. redevelopment. He stated that revitalization
would be used in the private sector, but a city would have to establish a redevelopment
area and agency. Redevelopment would require physical and economic blight in the area
designated. He stated that his office concluded the area would be unlikely to meet the
physical and economic restrictions for redevelopment. He stated the redevelopment plan
would not mean an increase in taxes.
Mr. Weisman explained the next steps in the development of the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan. He stated he would work with Staff to draft a land use plan and confirm the
grant funding for preparing the EIR and then return to the City Council and Planning
Commission for another Study Session in the fa112009.
Mayor Sbranti asked if the audience had any questions on the presenta.tion. There were
none.
Mr. Weisman led the City Council and Planning Commission in an exercise regarding the
proposed Guiding Principles. He explained the exercise is for the City Council and
Planning Commission only. He also explained how they were to vote on the guiding
principles. He asked the City Council and Commission to indicate to what degree you
agree or disagree with the statement. He stated that the purpose of the exercise is to
determine consensus and discuss their differences when there is no consensus. He stated
the exercise is designed to give direction to Staff as a guide to prepare the Specific Plan.
Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, asked Mr. Weisman to explain how the
guiding principles were created. Mr. Weisman explained the background work which
included: technical studies, interviews and working with Staff.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLAl~TNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3
VOLUME 28
SPECIAL MEETING 19'~~~~ `~
June 3, 2009 `~~"~'~/~
e~,.~-,o~
~ ~ ~)
~
Morgan King, Vice Chair Planning Commission, asked if the idea is to create a
destination, or two destinations (BART & Downtown), trying to attract traffic from
outside the city, emphasis on development or pedestrian quality-of-life issues. He stated
he was unclear as to the priorities.
Mr. Weisman stated those were good questions but he will wait until the discussion to
answer them. He stated that the purpose of the guiding principles is to give direction and
have a discussion about what the Downtown area should look like. He stated that they
wanted to see where there is consensus and where there is not. Then using the final set of
Guiding Principles Staff will have a guide for how the land use plan and specific plan will
be put together.
Bill Schaub, Planning Commissioner, asked if the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan will be
looking at 5, 10, 20 or 30 years from now and felt that everyone agreed that 30 years from
now the City will look different.
Mr. Weisman answered that most specific plans are intended for 10 to 20 years and it
depends on what the plan is for.
Mayor Sbranti sta.ted that the last maj or specific plans were adopted in 2000. He felt that
there should be a 10 year horizon or longer.
Mayor Sbranti felt that it was their job to answers questions collectively and try to have
consensus on the guiding principles.
Mr. Weisman explained how to vote on the guiding principles.
There was a period of 10-15 minutes for the City Council and Planning Commission to
vote.
The meeting reconvened at 7:47p.m.
Mayor Sbranti asked for introductions of the City Council, Planning Commission and
Staff. The Planning Commission, City Council and Staff introduced themselves. Mayor
Sbranti then asked the audience to indicate, by a show of hands, who is downtown
property owners, downtown business owners, brokers for downtown businesses or Dublin
residents.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES a
VOLUME 28 ~,~ ~r
SPECIAL MEETING ~ ~~~~~~
June 3, 2009 `~ '~ //
~~ ~~
5~'S~>
Mr. Wiseman read the comments from each of the guiding principles.
OVERALL GUIDING PRINCIPLES with written comments:
#2) Consider the development of a community benefit payment in return for increased
density/FAR (i.e., density bonus/incentive program) that could be used to pay for
public improvements in the Planning area.
(P = Planning Commission; C= City Council)
Stron 1 Disa ree Disa ree Neutral A ee Stron 1 A ree
PP, CC CC P,C
Comment: No - should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
#6) Encourage a greater joint use of parking areas through compatible mixes of uses
and enhanced pedestrian connections.
Stron 1 Disa ee Disa ee Neutral A ee Stron 1 A ee
P PP, C PPP, CC
Comment: Lots of areas that can be better used.
#7) Accept increased tra~c congestion (i.e. reduced level of service) if it is found that
traffic impacts associated with future development cannot be fully mitigated.
Stron 1 Disa ree Disa ee Neutral A ree Stron 1 A ree
P, C CCC, P P, C P
Comment: We can't rob Peter to pay Paul - increased traffic beyond allowable
LOS could decrease sales and deter shoppers.
Depends on trade-offs, prosperous areas generate traffic.
Why would we want to do this?
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES s
VOLUME 28
SPECIAL MEETING
June 3, 2009
~°F
~ ~~~~~
\~ ~~~1
~ ~ 5~>
#9b) The cost of infrastructure should be paid for by development.
Stron 1 Disa ree Disa ree Neutral A ee Stron 1 A ree
P PP CCC, P CC
RETAIL DISTRICT GIJIDING PRINCIPLES with written comments:
# 1) Encourage and support large format regional retail as an important community
and financial asset of the City.
Stron 1 Disa ree Disa ee Neutral A ee Stron 1 A ee
C, PP P, CC C
Comment: For better or worse this area's story has already been written, we must
embrace it for what it is but look to improve, i.e. design consistency
where possible.
Short term - yes, long term there are better sites further east.
TRANSIT-ORIENTED DISTRICT GUIDING PRINCIPLES with written comments:
#2) Retain existing auto dealerships while supporting their eventual relocation to other
easterly locations within the City of Dublin.
Stron 1 Disa ree Disa ree Neutral A ree Stron 1 A ee
P CCCCC PPP, C
Comment: We need auto dealers but in eastern district.
Yes in City but not near BART.
#3) Identify opportunity sites for future development that incorporate mixed-use and
provide public and/or private plazas and outdoor gathering areas at strategic
locations.
Stron 1 Disa ree Disa ee Neutral A ee Stron 1 A ee
CCCCC, PPPP
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VOLUME 28 `~~~~
SPECIAL MEETING 19,~~~ ~
June 3, 2009 ~~ ~ ~
, ~s
6
r~~~~{~
Comment: Incorporate the historic area west of San Ramon Blvd.
VILLAGE PARKWAY DISTRICT GUIDING PRINCIPLES with written comments:
#3) Consider an appropriate site(s) for High Density housing.
Stron 1 Disa ee Disa ee Neutral A ee Stron 1 A ee
C C, PP P CCC, P
Comment: We already have too much high density housing.
#4) Support the retention of existing light industrial businesses.
Stron 1 Disa ee Disa ee Neutral A ree Stron 1 A ree
P, C CCCC, P P
Comment: Yes - for Dublin Blvd. not Village Pkwy.
Dublin needs industrial businesses but not in the Village Pkwy District.
ADDITIONAL GUIDING PRINCIPLES with written comments:
A) Create or encourage nightlife.
Stron 1 Disa ree Disa ree Neutral A ree Stron 1 A ree
CCC CC, PPP
Comment: Teen venues
Mayor Sbranti asked Mr. Weisman to read the items where the panel is in agreement first
and then wait to discuss where there is disagreement.
Mr. Weisman read the items where there is consensus:
OVERALL GUIDING PRINCIPLES
#1 Support short-term incentives to promote development in downtown Dublin such as
expedited permitting, fees, and sales tax reimbursement program.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~
VOLUME 28
SPECIAL MEETING
June 3, 2009
~ °~
19'~~~~11
\~ ~ 1/
~, ~,~
~C~ J U
~
Stron 1 Disa ree Disa ee Neutral A ree Stron 1 A ee
PP C CCCC, PP
#2 Consider development of community benefit payment in return for increased
density/FAR (i. e., density bonus/incentive program) that could be used to pay for
public improvements in the Planning Area.
Stron 1 Disa ree Disa ree Neutral A ee Stron 1 A ree
PP, CC CC C, P
#3 Increase amount of retail sales and related economic activity throughout downtown
Dublin.
Stron 1 Disa ee Disa ree Neutral A ree Stron 1 A ree
P, C CC, P CC, P
#4 Enhance the visual quality of downtown Dublin, including public streetscape
improvements (via the City's existing Streetscape Master Plan), entryways, on-site
landscaping and the appearance of individual buildings.
Stron 1 Disa ree Disa ree Neutral A ee Stron 1 A ee
CCCCC, PPP
#5 Create a pedestrian friendly downtown that minimizes potential conflicts between
vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists.
Stron 1 Disa ree Disa ree Neutral A ree Stron 1 A ree
P, C CCCC, PP
Mr. Weisman stated there is a lot of agreement but also a lot of challenge on this
point because of the nature of the existing land uses and the large format buildings.
#6 Encourage gf-eater joint usage of parking areas through compatible mixes of uses
and enhanced pedestrian connections.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES s
VOLUME 28 ~
SPECIAL MEETING ~~~~~~
June 3, 2009 ~~ ~ //
~,~, ~~
~~ 5~
Stron 1 Disa ee Disa ree Neutral A ree Stron 1 A ree
C CC, P CC, PPP
#7 Accept increased traffic congestion (i. e., reduced level of service) if it is found that
traffic impacts associated with future development cannot be fully mitigated.
Stron 1 Disa ree Disa ree Neutral A ee Stron 1 A ree
C, P CCC, P C, P P
Mr. Weisman felt there was a general disagreement. He continued that if you look
at traffic congestion in the context of increasing the amount of sales and supporting
those sales there are trade-offs because if there will be more people coming into
town they must accommodate more traffic.
Mayor Sbranti stated nobody wants increased traffic congestion, but the trade-off is an
economically vital area.
Cm. Hart agreed and felt that there was consensus of disagreement with the statement.
Cmr. Schaub stated that if the LOS is at D and half the buildings are empty then that is a
challenge. He felt that the City cannot reach an LOS of C unless we change the way
traffic moves through the City.
Mr. Wiseman stated that the traffic analysis was done last year when there were fewer
vacancies in the area and he felt the traffic is better now in that context but agreed with
Cmr. Schaub in regards to the big picture.
Cmr. Swalwell stated he made the comment regarding robbing Peter to pay Paul and felt
that there needs to be smart planning going forward. He agreed that the way the retail
district is laid out it was planned before the traffic congestion in the area. Cmr. Swalwell
suggested that in the Plan, with the level of service taken into consideration, what the
traffic will be like. He felt that the planning that took place 20 years ago did not envision
that this would be a regional center. He stated that the City cannot take the short term
benefit of giving away permitting or parking with the idea to balloon the area at the
expense of increased traffic and congestion. He wanted to ensure that 10 years from now
the planning and thought in the area will be evident. He felt that the area will continue to
grow and there needs to be planning for that growth.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLAN1vING COMMISSION MINUTES 9
VOLUME 28 or
SPECIAL MEETING 19;~~~~ ~~~
June 3, 2009 ~\~'~'~%
~4G1 R ~
~~ ~~'~~
~
Cm. Biddle commented there is the potential of increases in pedestrian, bike and mass
transit traffic because the area is close to BART. He stated the area was developed when
the most convenience for auto traffic was of primary concern.
Mr. Wiseman agreed and stated that was the reason the area was designated as a sub-
district. Because of the activity in a mixed use environment doesn't require so many trips.
He suggested that was a way of looking at the trade-off of having increased density but
not at the expense of all auto traffic.
Mr. Weisman continued that Cm. Hart's statement regarding consensus on disagreement
of the statement is well put and suggested looking at not only the mixed use level but
smart traffic management technologies that can also guide and make traffic more efficient.
Cm. Hart agreed with Mr. Weisman regarding what LOS is an acceptable level that
everyone can live with and having the businesses operational and how do we gauge an
accepta.ble level for the community.
Cmr. Schaub felt that there was a need to know what the people are doing in their cars and
felt that if they did not know they cannot plan.
Cmr. Swalwell commented that the study points out that this area has become a regional
shopping area and felt the once the West Dublin BART station is operational the
challenge will be how to make it comforta.ble and safe for people that are not from Dublin,
and convince them that they can take BART and still go to Target and other stores in the
area. He felt that would reduce traffic as well. He continued that these are large city
blocks that are not pedestrian friendly. He felt that if they were made more pedestrian
friendly they could encourage people to visit the area by BART.
Mr. Weisman stated that the extension of St. Patrick's Way towards BART will help to
provide more pedestrian friendly walkways.
Vm. Hildenbrand felt that the panel should consider that the traffic congestion patterns
will change as duplicate services are developed in the east and there are retail
opportunities on both sides of town. She felt that when looking at increased traffic
congestion you must take into consideration the overall development of Dublin and that
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES io
VOLUME 28
SPECIAL MEETING 19'`~ ~* ~~
June 3, 2009 \\\~'~'~l/
~, ~
~~~ e) ~
until the City is fully developed we won't understand traffic patterns on either side of
town.
Mayor Sbranti agreed with Vm. Hildenbrand. He felt in traffic/congestion strategies the
goal is to achieve prosperity and economic vitality while at the same time it can
potentially lead to more congestion. So addressing those things as well as the CIP now
will improve congestion in the future and evaluating Dublin Blvd. now for when it widens
are some of the things that will mitigate traffic in the future.
Mr. Weisman felt there is a consensus of agreement on parking where it relates to the
transit area; particularly regarding shared parking that peaks at different times of the day
being a way to encourage more efficient use of parking.
Cm. Hart agreed that the panel had consensus but stated that parking is a significant issue
in the community and we need to make sure it is evaluated in the plan and the parking
standards.
Mr. Weisman asked if he thought the parking standards were too high or too low.
Cm. Hart felt that was for another meeting but wanted to make sure that there is always
awareness of the parking issues.
Cmr. Schaub mentioned that the Planning Commission will be holding a study session on
parking in the near future.
Mr. Weisman responded that there are data. that was not incorporated into the specific plan
that looks at a comparison of Dublin's parking standard for retail as compared to other
cities in the Tri-Valley area and agreed to provide that information to Jeff Baker to
incorporate into the study session.
Mayor Sbranti stated that most of the parking issues/standards come from the residential
areas but felt there is a fundamental difference in parking codes in the commercial areas.
He stated that he has received comments from multiple commercial property owners who
feel Dublin's parking code is prohibitive as it relates to retail and restaurant uses and they
felt that the code prohibited them from redevelopment. He encouraged analyzing how
parking hinders commercial development but he did not want to create a situation where a
commercial building is under-parked.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i i
VOLUME 28 ~~or ~
SPECIAL MEETING ~9 ~~~"~
June 3, 2009 `~ '~ %
Gtr ~~°
/~.~ 5~
City Manager Joni Pattillo clarified that any parking study would be brought back to the
City Council for review and approval.
Cmr. King asked if there is a survey that identifies what people use their cars for most. He
felt if the most intense purposes can be localized it would take pressure off the main
streets.
Mr. Weisman stated that there are two sections of the traffic study that were not
highlighted at this meeting. He continued they did a parking count snapshot of how many
cars are in the parking lot and a license plate survey. He felt that it was difficult to
determine where people are going without doing focused surveys and questionnaires.
Mayor Sbranti agreed and stated it is standard operating procedure that development pays
for itself. He continued the City is also applying for federal stimulus dollars specifically
for the downtown area that would allow some fees to be lowered or not paid for by the
developer which would be an enticement to the developers.
Mr. Weisman suggested another guiding principle: "Seek other funding opportunities to
help leverage City and development dollars. "
RETAIL DISTRICT:
#1) Encourage and support large format regional retail as an important community
and financial asset of the City.
Stron 1 Disa ree Disa ree Neutral A ree Stron 1 A ree
C, PP CC, P P
Mr. Weisman commented that the choices were varied from "Strongly Disagree" to
"Strongly Agree."
Cmr. Swa1we11 felt the problem is that the area was developed 20-25 years ago, with the
parking in the middle which creates three different shopping districts, mostly for vehicle
traffic. He felt the City can't escape the retail outlets, which provide money for the City,
are good for smaller stores, and bring traffic to the area. He felt the City should embrace
the large retail stores and develop consistent design standards for them.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~2
VOLUME 28 ~r
SPECIAL MEETING 19~~ ~~ '"
June 3, 2009 \\~'~~//
~~ ~s
i~~ ~~~
Cmr. King asked what is trying to be accomplished. He felt that if the goal is to create a
pedestrian friendly area the big box retail stores do not encourage strolling as in
downtown Pleasanton. If the goal is to generate retail sales then the big box stores
generate income for the City. He stated that the City cannot eliminate the existing stores
but the City does not have to encourage more of these types of stores.
Cmr. Schaub felt there is an economic reason for the big box stores to be empty. He
suggested that the City work with the property owners to determine the best alternative to
empty stores.
Vm. Hildenbrand felt it is a mix of reasons. She mentioned downtown Pleasanton has a
lot of empty storefronts and it is extremely expensive. She felt the key is to find retail that
has a good mix and encourages strolling around the area. She felt that since the City can't
redevelop the area they should encourage a mix of both.
Mayor Sbranti agreed and stated that the large retail businesses and auto sales are a huge
percentage of sales tax base which comes from the downtown even with the vacant
buildings. He felt that the long term goal would be to move away from the big box stores
and create businesses that are not so auto reliant but more pedestrian oriented. He felt that
if the big stores that currently exist were to be eliminated and a"Main Street" was built
the City's sales t~ income would plummet.
Cm. Scholz asked Cmr. Schaub if he stated that half the buildings in the downtown area
are empty.
Cmr. Schaub answered yes and named some of the stores that are empty.
Cm. Scholz asked if in the past there has always been a certain level of buildings that are
empty or if Cmr. Schaub felt the empty buildings were part of the economic downturn.
Cmr. Schaub answered that 5 years ago there were not that many empty buildings.
Mayor Sbranti stated that 5 years ago everything was better and felt it was a difficult
comparison.
Cm. Scholz stated she asked the question to clarify that the empty buildings were because
of the downturn in the economy.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i3
VOLUME 28 `,~or
SPECIAL MEETING 19,~~~a~
June 3, 2009 \\~ '~ %
c~,~, ~.~
~~f ~~~
~
Cmr. Schaub responded that the Mervyn's store did not close because of the downturn it
was the individual business model for that company.
Mayor Sbranti stated that there are a lot of reasons why the larger retailers when out of
business but it didn't happen in Dublin only, it happened everywhere. He felt a lot of it
was due to the economic downturn, but also the corporate chains decided to close every
store and those stores just happened to be located in one area of Dublin. He felt it was the
wrong conclusion to say that the problem was Dublin or the building use.
#2 Develop design standards and guzdelines that support and enhance large format
regional retail uses such as optional building configuration and design, signage,
more efficient parking, parking strategies, pedestrian amenities, landscaping, etc.
Stron 1 Disa ree Disa ee Neutral A ree Stron 1 A ee
C, PP P CCC C, P
Mayor Sbranti felt that the agreement meant that if the City is going to have design
guidelines, they should do it right and with these principles in mind.
Cmr. Schaub felt there was a misunderstanding regarding the principle because the City
Council and Planning Commission were on opposite sides.
Mr. Weisman suggested looking at the parts and how they come together as a whole. He
commented that if the area stays as it is and is not the pedestrian friendly area that we
want, but pedestrian friendly areas may be created in the other two districts. He felt the
City could have some of all the things they want and still keep the tax base while still
embracing the reality that the buildings are there, and where redevelopment opportunities
come up then focus on the different types of areas.
Cmr. King again asked what is it we want to do with the district. Are we trying to make
the TARGET area a destination area?
Mr. Weisman felt that not everything will be pedestrian friendly, but suggested improving
what exists to provide for future development along these guidelines.
Cmr. King felt there should be more debate on what to do with the Retail District.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ia
VOLUME 28 `~or
SPECIAL MEETING 19,~~~~~~
June 3, 2009 ~~~,'~~ %
i~~ J~~
Cmr. Schaub asked if they can build a two phase specific plan; one with immediate needs
and one with a 5 years horizon.
Mr. Weisman answered that would be possible.
Ms. Ram mentioned that a specific plan allows for development over time. She continued
since most of the development would be private investment and we don't know when that
will occur the specific plan provides the ability for that transition over a 10 year horizon.
Vm. Hildenbrand stated that they could debate what to do about the downtown district for
years and never make a change. It's not a blighted area and not eligible for
redevelopment. She felt that there are opportunities to enhance the existing area and make
it the best we can.
Cmr. King felt that Vm. Hildenbrand was saying that the City should create the most
ambitious plan possible knowing that the big buildings will remain.
Vm. Hildenbrand answered that was correct.
Cmr. King agreed with Vm. Hildenbrand.
Mayor Sbranti felt there should be short and long term goals because of multiple property
owners, multiple tenants with different leases, multiple businesses, and the current
economic situation are all constraints. He continued this is also a major tax generating
area and felt the City could do a lot to improve circulation and esthetics and in time when
opportunities present themselves be able to encourage change.
#3 Encourage a diverse mix of complementary land uses including civic uses, eating
establishments, entertainment, and similar uses that complement existing retail
uses.
Stron 1 Disa ee Disa ree Neutral A ree Stron 1 A ree
C, PPP CCC, P
Ms. Weisman stated that everyone was basically in agreement on this principle.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES is
VOLUME 28 ~,~or~,
SPECIAL MEETING i;~~~~~
June 3, 2009 `\ ~ ~/
~~, s
1(~ ~~~~
Cmr. King stated that he added the new principle regarding nightlife but felt it was
covered with this principle.
#4 Allow higher density housing and additional units.
Stron 1 Disa ree Disa ree Neutral A ree Stron 1 A ree
CC, PP C, P CC P
Mr. Weisman stated there is a very broad spectrum of votes whether on the City Council
or Planning Commission. He felt that if they want to embrace the short term goal of
working with what already exists as it relates to the retail district without compromising
housing.
Cmr. Schaub felt high density housing would be perfect for the BART area with mixed
use and retail, but did not mean a 6 story apartment building or something denser than
asphalt.
Mr. Weisman asked if Cmr. Schaub was speaking of the BART District or the Retail
District.
Cmr. Schaub was concerned about the walkability of both areas.
Vm. Hildenbrand mentioned that people love living at the Waterford apartments because
of its vicinity to restaurants, grocery stores, parks and shops, etc. She felt Waterford is a
perfect example of successful, high density retail, mixed use development in Dublin.
Cm. Biddle agreed and suggested an expanded transit village concept south of Dublin
Blvd. away from the BART Station but still within walking distance of shopping.
Mayor Sbranti stated he would be supportive but it would depend on the project and
where it is located. He agreed with Cmr. Schaub that the development would have to be
denser than asphalt but not a 6 story building with retail above. From an economic
standpoint putting residents on the street helps attract business and there is an economic
benefit if they are within walking distance of an area. He stated he would not rule out
housing but it would be on a case-by-case basis.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i6
VOLUME 28
SPECIAL MEETING ;~~~~~~
June 3, 2009 ~~~~ //
f 7 ~~~
~
Mr. Weisman felt the group would prefer mixed use in this area but on a case-by-case
basis.
#5 - Identify ways to improve%nhance non-vehicular and vehicular circulation and
connections that are pedestrian friendly, particularly in areas that contain large,
expansive parking lots.
Stron 1 Disa ree Disa ree Neutral A ree Stron 1 A ree
CC CCC, PPPP
Mr. Weisman stated that group agreed with this principle.
#6 Work with Zone 7 to relocate the storm drain that extends east-west through the
district to allow for greater flexibility in future redevelopment efforts.
Stron 1 Disa ee Disa ree Neutral A ree Stron 1 A ee
C, PP C C CC, P
Mr. Weisman stated there is a range of perspectives of this principle.
Mayor Sbranti stated he voted to strongly agree. He felt that the storm drain may not need
to be relocated immediately, but its location makes it prohibitive for property owners to
develop or update their property. He also felt it was costly to move the storm drain but
without considering it there can be no changes to the area.
There was a discussion regarding the storm drain, its location and what could potentially
be built there if the storm drain was moved.
City Manager Pattillo mentioned that Staff has had discussions with Zone 7 regarding the
cost to move the storm drain. She stated they told her the cost would be approximately
$1.5 to $2.5 million. She continued that the discussions were held with Zone 7 because
they heard about the constraints as they relate to this area.
Cm. Hart stated that hearing those figures completely changes his opinion because he
thought it would be much more expensive.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i~
VOLUME 28
SPECIAL MEETING
June 3, 2009
~°f
~
9~ ~1\
`` ~,"`,~
~, ~`~
~g ~,1~g
City Manager Pattillo continued that the City Council had asked Staff to pay attention to
what's happening in the downtown area as well as throughout the community regarding
economic development. A consistent discussion point was what to do to improve the
downtown area which in turn prompted the discussion with Zone 7.
Mayor Sbranti felt that Staff, along with the property owners and Zone 7 would work out
the specifics of moving the storm drain. He stated he supports the policy and felt the area
has implications for redevelopment.
Cm. Hart stated he would change his vote based on this new cost information.
Cmr. Brown stated he would also change his vote based on this new cost information.
TRANSIT ORIENTED DISTRICT
# 1 Promote transit oriented district development to create a distinctive and active
district.
All a~reed.
Stron 1 Disa ree Disa ree Neutral A ee Stron 1 A ree
C CCCC, PPPP
#2 Retain existing auto dealerships while supporting their eventual relocation to other
easterly locations within the City ofDublin.
All a~reed.
Stron 1 Disa ree Disa ree Neutral A ee Stron 1 A ee
P CCCCC C, PPP
#3 Identify opportunity sites for future development that incorporate mixed-use and
provide public and/or private plazas and outdoor gathering areas at strategic
locations.
All a~reed.
Stron 1 Disa ee Disa ree Neutral A ree Stron 1 A ree
CCCCC, PPPP
Mr. Weisman suggested revising #3 to make it a more positive statement.
Cmr. King asked why the questions for Retail District and Transit-Oriented District are
not identical. He also asked if was fair to assume that everyone also supports public and
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANI~TING COMMISSION MINUTES is
VOLUME 28 ~~~~~
SPECIAL MEETING ~9r~~~ ~
June 3, 2009 `~1-r'V" ~
/~~ ~~g
outdoor gathering areas in the Retail District as much as in the BART or Transit-Oriented
District.
Mr. Weisman answered that in the context of the area the Transit-Oriented District would
not be as pedestrian friendly therefore would not be exactly the same as the Retail District.
Ms. Weisman suggested that the group should think about what is the nature of the area
and what will they do differently to encourage outdoor areas and suggested incorporating
those guidelines where feasible.
Cmr. King agreed and stated that since they cannot change the existing buildings he felt
there were a lot of areas for micro-parks or outdoor living areas which could be created to
have more public space in the downtown area.
City Manager Pattillo referred the group to Page 35, Section 7.2, Item 3, which includes
civic uses. She felt "civic uses" has a wide variety of ineaning and captured the intent of
Cmr. King concern.
Mayor Sbranti felt that Cmr. King's concern will be supported in both the Retail District
and the Transition-Oriented District, where feasible, etc. He also felt there were more
opportunities for outdoor areas in the Transit-Oriented District because there is less land
dedicated to specific uses. He felt it would be more difficult to develop those types of
areas in the Retail District where every use is specific.
#4 Encourage underground and/or above ground parking structures.
Stron 1 Disa ee Disa ree Neutral A ree Stron 1 A ree
CCCCC, PP PP
All agreed.
#5 Discourage housing along Dublin Blvd. unless part of a mixed-use development
with ground floor o~ce or retail uses.
General agreement as long as it is in a mixed-use development.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i9
VOLUME 28 ~~e
SPECIAL MEETING 19,~~~~~~
June 3, 2009 `~ '~" `%
~ a
a~~,,~g
Stron 1 Disa ree Disa ee Neutral A ree Stron 1 A ree
C C CCC, PPPP
VILLAGE PARKWAY DISTRICT - Discussion
#4 Support the retention of existing light industrial businesses.
Stron 1 Disa ree Disa ree Neutral A ree Stron 1 A ree
C, P CCCC, PP P
General disagreement with that principle.
Cmr. King stated that he strongly agreed with this principle and was surprised to see the
disagreement because all the small businesses in the area are services that people use all
the time. He felt the potential problem of moving these businesses would be the increase
in rent which could cause the small business to go out of business.
Mayor Sbranti stated he does not want to lose those businesses and felt Staff should
review the zoning to determine better locations for some of those uses. He stated that
most of the business owners are Dublin residents. He felt that the goal is not to relocate
the businesses immediately but if other locations in the City can be identified we can
change Village Parkway to achieve those goals while still retaining the businesses.
Mayor Sbranti continued that the businesses are not relying on street visibility but rely on
success of their business and their customer base to stay in business. He felt that
businesses do not need to have frontage on Dublin Blvd. they only need a location where
the business is permitted.
# 1 Continue to support a diverse mix of complementary land uses along Village
Parkwav.
Stron 1 Disa ree Disa ee Neutral A ree Stron 1 A ree
CCCC, PPP
All Agreed.
#2 Create o ortunities or inte ratin live/work units into the Villa e Parkwa area.
Stron 1 Disa ee Disa ree Neutral A ee Stron 1 A ree
CCC, PP CC, PP
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Zo
VOLUME 28 ~
SPECIAL MEETING ~,;~~ ~ ~~~
June 3, 2009 ~~~'~~~
Gw a
~1~5g
All agreed.
#3 Consider an appropriate site(s) for High Density housing.
Stron 1 Disa ree Disa ree Neutral A ee Stron 1 A ree
C C, PP P CCC, P
#4 Support the retention of existing light industrial businesses.
Stron 1 Disa ee Disa ee Neutral A ee Stron 1 A ee
C, P CCCC, PP P
All agreed, except one Strongly Agree.
ADDITIONAL GUIDING PRINCIPLES - Discussion
A. Create or encourage nightlife.
Stron 1 Disa ee Disa ree Neutral A ee Stron 1 A ee
CCC CC, PPP
Agreed - teen venues or centers outside the Retail District.
City Manager Pattillo stated that this is a positive document and the guiding principles are
about being supportive and positive. She suggested changing Page 35, Section 7.3, Item
5, to read: encourage mixed use development... instead of "discourage" which is a more
positive statement.
Public Comment
Mary, Dublin resident, was concerned that there was no discussion regarding encouraging
public transportation such as bus service.
Mayor Sbranti responded public transportation would be addressed with traffic and
congestion during this process. He stated that due to budget cuts the number of trips for
Wheels bus service has been cut.
Cmr. King stated the City was trying to encourage more people without encouraging more
cars.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 21
VOLUME 28
SPECIAL MEETING
June 3, 2009
~
~ ~~~~~~
~~ ~~/
aa~~~~
Ken Price, Dublin resident, commented that there were five districts shown on the meeting
notice but only three are shown on the map. He stated he lives within the San Ramon
Road Specific Plan and noticed that area was eliminated.
Mayor Sbranti responded that a lot of that area has been built out. When the specific plan
was created it was primarily a commercial oriented area with some residential but the
residential uses would not change.
Chris Harney, owner of 7100 Village Parkway, stated neither his partner nor his property
manager had received a notice for the meeting. He felt that the reason the Retail and
Transit-Oriented Districts are not pedestrian friendly is because they axe all big box retail.
He felt the Retail District and Transit-Oriented District should be considered one district.
He felt that if the City encourages mixed use, medium to high density with a retail
component then there would be neighborhood serving retail which creates pedestrian
traffic. He suggested a percentage of retail on the ground floor in those areas. He
suggested changing the name "light industrial" in the Village Parkway Specific Plan to
"neighborhood service commercial" which would be more easily accepted. He continued
that he does a lot of work in San Francisco and in most of the areas the buildings were
built prior to zoning codes and there is no parking but the businesses are still successful.
He did not feel that public transit played a roll in their success. He suggested reducing the
parking requirements on Village Pkwy. He felt that the businesses can still be successful
even with fewer parking spaces. He also suggested creating an email distribution list for
quicker distribution of ineeting notices.
Tim Chen, BART Planning, commended the group for their forward thinking to transform
this area and felt there is a lot of opportunity there. He suggested creating an access and
circulation plan within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. He felt there is a need to
integrate all of the different districts, but there should be enhanced internal circulation.
He suggested creating a grid-like system that would make connections within the district
and encourages biking, walking and transit.
John Reynolds, BART, commended the City Council, Planning Commission, Staff and the
community for their work on the document.
A resident stated she participated in the walking tours and felt the group did an excellent
job. She felt good about the ways things are moving. Her biggest concern is traffic
congestion and stated she does not go shopping because of traffic during certain hours of
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 22
VOLUME 28 ~
SPECIAL MEETING i;~~~„~
June 3, 2009 `~ ~ %
~~, ~.~
a3~;5~
the day. She asked how other city's plans coincide with Dublin's and will they be
competing for big box stores business.
Mayor Sbranti answered that there are a lot of ineetings with other cities in the area and
inevitably there is some level of competition, but Dublin tries to be as compatible as
possible and work on how to manage traffic with other cities. He felt that the cities
complement each other and think of themselves as a region not just one city.
Vm. Hildenbrand felt there are different philosophical ideas in each of the cities in regards
to traffic circulation. She felt that the biggest challenge is traffic but Dublin tries to work
on it consistently, as a region, and there is mitigation as development occurs. She
continued that Dublin stays informed with other city's development but that does not
mean they are working together on development but Dublin stays on top of how it impacts
our community and how to mitigate any negative effects. She also felt that retail is built
where they feel they will make money.
Cm. Hart mentioned the Staples Ranch area of Pleasanton and asked Vm. Hildenbrand to
discuss that traffic situation.
Vm. Hildenbrand stated that opening up Stoneridge Drive to I-580 and Livermore will
relieve a lot of cut-through traffic congestion in Dublin. She stated it took years to get that
accomplished and finally three Pleasanton council members encouraged the Stoneridge
Drive extension along with a large development.
Cm. Hart stated that was an example of cities working with other cities and felt that
Dublin does a good job of that.
No further comments.
Jeff Baker thanked the audience for input and explained the next steps.
Cmr. King asked where in the next steps process the group would see a site plan.
Mr. Baker stated they would work on a draft land use plan.
Mr. Weisman stated that the land use plan would not necessarily state what would go in a
certain places but the City will encourage these types of uses.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 23
VOLUME 28 ~
SPECIAL MEETING 19 ~~~,~~
June 3, 2009 ~~ ~ ~
~,~, ~s
~ ~j~~
Mayor Sbranti thanked Bill Wiseman and Jeff Baker and everyone present, the City
Council and Planning Commission for the discussion. He stated he is looking forward to
final adoption and continued revitalization of the Downtown area.
ADJOURNMENT
10.1
There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:20 p.m. in memory of Staff Sgt. Sean Diamond and our fallen troops.
Minutes prepared by Debra LeClair, Secretary.
~ ~c:~., ~Q.X:~4.,~ .
Mayor
ATTEST: ~ P ~~
City Clerk
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES za
VOLUME 28 ~r
SPECIAL MEETING 9`'`~~~ ~~~
June 3, 2009 ~~~~~//
ti,~~~
~~ ~~
~ ~F ~U~~~ MINUTES OF A JOINT CITY COUNCIL/
~ ,,~ PLANNING COMMISSION
~ ~ ~~ 82
' ~,/
` SrECIAL MEETING - N~vember 17, 2~09
.~w>_ _ tt~
A special joint meeting of the Dublin City Council and Planning Commission was held on
Tuesday, November 17, 2009, in the City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to
order at 6:00 p.m., by Mayor Sbranti.
~-~---
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Biddle, Hart, Hildenbrand, Scholz, and Mayor Sbranti.
Vice Chair King; and Commissioners Brown, Schaub, and Swalwell.
ABSENT: Planning Commission Chair Wehrenberg
~ ~--
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited by the City Council, Sta.ff and those
present.
.~+~
STUDY SESSION
PA 07-036: Downtown Dublin S~ecific Plan. The purpose of the Joint City
Council/Planning Commission Study Session is to discuss the proposed land use concept
for the Specific Plan Area, the proposed "Development Pool" (square foota.ge available
for intensification/development) of properties in the Specific Plan Area and the proposed
Community Benefit Program for the use of the Development Pool.
Erica Fraser, Senior Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Bill Wiseman, RBF Consulting, also presented the project. He sta.ted he has been working
on the preparation of the Draft Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) and has a
working copy of the document. He indicated there are some issues that require input from
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i
VOLUME 28
SPECIAL MEETING 19;`~ ~ ~~
~
November 17, 2009 ~
hm~.nt '~
aa~,~~
the City Council for direction before putting together a formal administrative draft and
then a draft document for public review.
Mr. Wiseman stated there are two key objectives for this evening: 1) ways to encourage
or stimulate development consistent with the guiding principles by establishing uses by
district; and 2) improve the quality of downtown and encourage development. He stated
they would be reviewing the downtown area as a whole and looking at a Community
Benefit Program and related development densities.
Mr. Wiseman stated the study axea has 284 acres, 2.5 million square feet and 10,000
parking spaces. He mentioned the 5 planning areas and stated when the original plans
were adopted the land uses were defined by parcel and were very specific; commercial,
retail and retaiUoffice. He felt that did not provide much flexibility. He stated that, at the
previous workshop, the panel reviewed breaking the whole area into 3 districts: Retail,
Transit Oriented and Village Parkway. He proposed looking at a range of potential uses
which can occur within any of those three districts. He stated the ultimate range of land
uses needs to be determined by each district and the development capacity will be
determined later.
Mr. Wiseman felt this approach gives greater flexibility, responds to market conditions
and encourages more mixed-use districts which are fundamental to one of the guiding
principles which is to create a more usable downtown with a variety of uses and can
encourage a mix of uses that makes it more functional and can encourage night uses.
Mr. Wiseman discussed density and Floor Area Ratio (FAR). He then discussed the FAR
for the different districts and the range of uses. He stated Staff needed direction on how
to reassess the FAR and make them more consistent across all three districts.
Mr. Wiseman discussed a development pool which is a density bonus with some type of
community benefit for public improvements in the downtown area. The development pool
is the amount of square footage that the City would use to assess each project, and what
kind of benefit are we getting in return. He mentioned some of the advantages of using
the Community Benefit Program; 1) it provides a mechanism to fund improvements and
benefits the community; 2) it improves the City's competitive position in the regional
retail market; and 3) a viable downtown will help sustain long-term sales tax revenues for
the City.
Cmr. Schaub asked when the draft EIR will come to the Planning Commission.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2
VOLUME 28
SPECIAL MEETING 9i ~~u~ -
November 17, 2009 \ ~ ~
,rou
a7~~5$
Mr. Wiseman answered they planned to bring both the Draft EIR and the Draft Downtown
Specific Plan to the Planning Commission in March 2010. He stated there axe also
specific deadlines for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) grants.
Cmr. Schaub asked if the Planning Commission needed to approve the Draft EIR before
reviewing the specific plan and asked if the Planning Commission would review both
documents together.
Ms. Fraser stated the draft documents would be circulated for public review for 45 days.
At that time the Planning Commission would receive a copy of the draft documents. She
continued that, at the Planning Commission public hearing, they would be taking action
on the Specific Plan as well as the EIR but the two documents must be reviewed and acted
on together.
Mr. Wiseman mentioned that the Planning Commission would recommend approval of the
documents to the City Council who would make the final approval.
Cmr. King asked if this proposal is in lieu of a City proposal.
Mr. Wiseman answered no; this proposal is to obtain direction from the City Council and
Planning Commission on the concept of how development will be allowed and whether
the City wanted to have a development pool. He continued that this is part of the land use
chapter of the specific plan and this document would determine how it will happen.
Cmr. King stated the materials received for tonight's meeting states "a typical land use
plan would not meet the intent of the guiding principles. " He asked if that meant that the
proposal would discaxd the typical land use plan.
Mr. Wiseman answered it means that the typical land use plan defines uses at the parcel
level, but this proposes an overlay with a range of uses within a district that would give
the City more flexibility as to what the development would be at the district level.
Cmr. King stated he understands the "overlay" but stated it must overlay something. He
felt this proposal is not a plan if the City is waiting to see what the developers want to do.
Mr. Wiseman responded that the City will define a range of uses which would empower
the City to determine what kind of project is to be developed. He mentioned the mixed-
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3
VOLUME 28
SPECIAL MEETING 19 ~~~~~
November 17, 2009 \ .'~ ~
c~~, ~~
~~~~,~~
use where it could be determined that there would be office above and ground floor
restaurants; which is in response to a Guiding Principle brought up by Cmr. King
regarding more nightlife. He continued if the range of uses is defined, then the City can
define the uses and determine the type of development. He stated that the Specific Plan is
written with guidelines which determine the kinds of uses the City is looking for, the types
of finishes on the buildings, etc. The City would actually have more ability to define the
quality and the type of development in each district.
Cmr. King responded he still did not believe this proposal is a plan. He felt that if there is
a range of uses and the City is waiting for a developer to decide what and where to build a
development, then it really isn't a plan. He mentioned the Planning Commissioners attend
a Planning Institute every year and one of the seminars is "How to Create a Vibrant Civic
Center." He stated they learned that there are a lot of specific concepts that create a
vibrant civic center and he did not see where they will it be addressed in this process. He
stated the concepts have not been addressed yet.
Mr. Wiseman felt that Cmr. King should look at how the Specific Plan is organized with a
deta.iled set of development standards which dictate how physically you want a building to
look, the setback requirements and parking, etc. Then there are the guidelines that
determine how it will function and look. He stated those tools that will define any project
will be in the Specific Plan; how it will look and how it will be built. He stated the land
use as an overlay for the districts will retain flexibility so that the City is not so specific
that no development occurs at all. He felt this would give the City flexibility to be able to
respond to market conditions.
Mayor Sbranti suggested Cmr. King meet with Staff or Mr. Wiseman for clarification.
Cm. Hart asked if the individual districts will have different ranges of use or will they all
be the same.
Mr. Wiseman responded the districts will have different ranges of use for what is
appropriate in each district.
Cm. Scholz asked if the proposal will take a specific p~an and then decide how to use it.
Mr. Wiseman responded that the City will be deciding how to organize the land use
chapter and use the guiding principles as a stepping stone for how the City Council wants
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES a
VOLUME 28
SPECIAL MEETING p~`~~~ ~~~
November 17, 2009 ~~~~~J
~~
a~~~ ~~
it to look. He felt that after tonight's meeting the City Council will be able to see the big
picture.
Mayor Sbranti stated the City Council is looking at policy statements within the Specific
Plan and not a real plan but policy statements that will guide development.
Mr. Wiseman stated the City Council is giving Staff strategic direction that will guide the
policy direction.
Cmr. Brown asked to clarify that the developer would not pay into the community benefit
unless they will use some of the development pool.
Mr. Wiseman answered yes. He explained the developer has a base FAR that they would
be allowed to build to and if they wanted to build a denser FAR they would pay into the
Community Benefit Program and the agreement would be negotiated between the
individual developer and the City.
Cmr. Brown asked if a developer who does not use the pool would not pay into the
Community Benefit Program.
Mr. Wiseman answered yes.
Cm. Hart asked if the developer did not pay into the development pool then they would
not have the option of increasing the density above the base FAR.
Mr. Wiseman answered yes.
Mayor Sbranti stated within a district there are permitted uses and asked if there will be
caps within the district on a specific permitted use.
Mr Wiseman answered yes. He continued different uses generate different traffic, etc. at
different times of the day. He stated the City wants flexibility but also wants to ensure
that the traffic on Dublin Blvd., for example, will not be adversely affected.
Mayor Sbranti stated with the caps within the district there would not be 500,000 square
feet of retail and the cap could be 100,000 square feet of office and certain districts will
have a lower count than other districts.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES s
VOLUME 28 ~
SPECIAL MEETING 19 ~,~ ;
November 17, 2009 ~~ ~ /~
~c,
~D ~~
~
Mr. Wiseman responded the best way to look at this is so that the flexibility stays at the
broadest level with a capacity by district that can be met with different types of uses, but
once the capacity is met, it cannot be exceeded.
Mayor Sbranti mentioned that a use on Village Parkway with a.20 FAR would be allowed
to go to .35 FAR without pulling from the development pool, by right, as a permitted use;
some landowners could increase their FAR without going into the pool.
Ms. Fraser answered yes, that is correct.
Cm. Hart asked if there is a way to quantify the true difference between the baseline, the
development pool and the cap.
Mr. Wiseman answered yes. If base density is identified, the cap will be driven by the
traffic and the traffic engineers will be able to tell by district the ultimate capacity.
Cm. Hart asked what the baseline is.
Mr. Wiseman responded that they can use the proposed baseline identified in the DDSP or
the ultimate capacity.
Cm. Hart asked if traffic is the only factor.
Mr. Wiseman responded that traffic was used because it is a key element and the others
(water, storm drain and sewer) did not seem to be a big issue.
Cm. Hart felt those items needed to be part of any equation. He felt that when it is noted
that only the traffic is used in the equation it doesn't give the big picture of what is really
included.
Mayor Sbranti stated the EIR will be a guiding force in terms of defining the capacity for
each district, for each type of use.
Cmr. Schaub asked for an explanation of the districts. He felt that there are 2 retail
districts and 1 transit district and asked if the EIR will determine what the base and
capacities are by districts.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6
VOLUME 28
SPECIAL MEETING ~,,~~ ~~
November 17 2009 19~~~
~ ~ ~~ l
.
~ j~
Ms. Fraser answered yes but it is different for each district. She stated Staff is proposing a
.35 FAR in the retail district and Village Parkway district; two separate districts with the
same name.
Cmr. Schaub felt that was not clear from the presentation.
Ms. Fraser stated Staff reviewed the Village Paxkway area, where there are smaller
properties and the current maximum FAR is .35 and Staff is recommending that the FAR
remain the same. She stated this would allow the smaller businesses to expand/improve if
they were able.
Cmr. Schaub asked what Staff is proposing for the other retail district.
Ms. Fraser answered Staff is proposing a base of .35 FAR due to the large scale retail
operations, i.e. Target, Home Expo, etc. that exist in the area. She continued this would
be giving them a small increase because their buildings are very large already. It is the
same baseline FAR as Village Parkway but it will mean different things in both districts.
Cmr. Schaub asked if when the Planning Commission receives the EIR they will be able
to understand the capacity of Village Parkway and will be able to esta.blish baseline and
capacity for the reta.il and transit oriented districts.
Ms. Fraser answered yes. She stated the purpose of tonight's meeting is to discuss with
both the City Council and Planning Commission the direction Staff is moving so that Staff
does not expend time, money and resources if the panel wants to go in different direction.
Mayor Sbranti asked if there will be integration of uses between the different districts.
Ms. Fraser responded there will be common uses in each district, i.e. restaurant uses will
be allowed in all three districts.
Mayor Sbranti commented that the Streetscape Master Plan and Community Design
Element which have common features. He stated he did not want to go back to having
three different specific plans that are very different. He wanted to ensure that this would
be an integrated plan for the entire area.
Ms. Fraser stated that Staff is using the guiding principles as a base and trying to focus
certain developments in certain areas.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~
VOLUME 28
SPECIAL MEETING n~~ ,a
November 17 2009 19 ~~~~
~ ~ ~
~~, ~s
3ab~_ ~~
~
Cmr. Brown asked why the FAR of .35 proposed in the Retail District is a reasonable
number.
Ms. Fraser answered there are typically very large buildings in the current retail district
and although .35 FAR may sound low it actually equates to very large expansions of those
buildings. She stated that if the City is trying to encourage property owners to develop
their property and they want to go over a certain FAR and provide a community benefit
there is a base at which it needs to start. For example, Target is at a.29 FAR, if they were
allowed to go up to .35 FAR that would allow them to add 22,000 square feet to their
building which is a significant number.
Mayor Sbranti suggested reading the questions and obtaining feedback from the panel.
1. Should the City allow uses based on the Specific Plan District rather than a Land
Use Designation? Or, would a typical land use plan, with specific allowable uses
for each property, be more appropriate?
• Cmr. Brown felt it should be based on the Specific Plan District which gives
more flexibility.
• Cmr. Swalwell agreed with Staff's recommendations. He felt the City needs
to be flexible and adapt to the changing times and look at what people are
doing with their property versus what we'd like them to do.
• Cmr. Schaub felt it was a good idea.
• Cmr. Kin~ felt this is a plan to not plan. He asked where is that being
mentioned that the City wants a certain use in a certain area. He felt it was
completely off the track of where the Planning Commission had been going
for the last 3-4 years. He felt the plan is saying that the City shouldn't worry
about where they want things to be built, public spaces and the factors of
what and where we want things built in order to build a vibrant downtown.
He felt the plan was saying that the City only wants the flexibility for bigger
block sizes. He stated that the Planning Commission was given the
"Opportunities, Issues and Strategies" report which explains what's wrong
with the current downtown. It says "the very large block sizes, wide and
busy roadways, large building footprints and expansive parking lots creates
an environment that is dominated by automobiles. " He felt the proposal was
a plan to encourage more of the same. He was unclear how this proposal
would change the area to create a pedestrian friendly City.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES s
VOLUME 28
SPECIAL MEETING 19,~~~ ~
November 17, 2009 `\~~~/~
1
~~~,~~~
• Ma,yor Sbranti asked Cmr. King if he would like to see a land use plan similar
to the current one. He continued that the current specific plan land use plan
is very specific by parcel. He stated the other three Planning Commissioners
are supporting the land use plan by district; Cmr. King would like to keep it
similar to the current specific plan, i.e. specific land use designation by
parcel.
• Cmr. Kin~ answered yes, that is the direction he felt the City should be going
in and thought they were going in. He responded that if this were an overlay
to a plan that is specific; which says what development the City would like to
see where and if it's allowing flexibility to change that then he would agree
with flexibility. He felt this goes beyond flexibility, this only says the City
wants the flexibility to approve whatever the builders want to build and
nowhere does the City say we want this element in a specific space in order
to create a pedestrian friendly experience.
• Mavor Sbranti felt Cmr. King was clearly opposed and wanted to clarify that
what Cmr. King is supporting is basically the current specific plans that have
been in place since 2000 which are parcel specific. He then asked Cmr. King
if that is what he wants.
• Cmr. Kin~ stated he was not saying the current plan was perfect but he liked
the concept.
• Cm. Hart supports the Staff's recommendation but would be cautious
regarding density.
• Cm. Scholz also supports Staff recommenda~ion.
• Cm. Biddle supports the concept of a development plan and sticking to the
guiding principles based on the district.
• Cm.Hildenbrand supports Staff recommendations and felt the flexibility is
good and a greater mixed-use is good. She felt there hasn't been any
development and unless the City tears everything down and rebuilds it, and
reconfigure streets, the City will still be faced with the challenge of making
the area walkable. She felt that if the City can encourage a different type of
use there may be more people coming to the area. She continued the City
Council has asked to fix this downtown specific plan in the past and so fax
the plan has not changed conceptually to encourage development in the
community. She continued that she is willing to give this specific plan a try
to see how it works.
• Mavor Sbranti also agreed with Staff recommendations but felt the City is
being flexible but felt there are still constraints within each district. There is
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9
VOLUME 28
SPECIAL MEETING 19,~Cj,~~~~
November 17, 2009 ~\ ~ /~
~~ R~
~ ~
~
still a definition of how much office space, etc. and that will vary based on
different circumstances. He felt it is a different way of doing things because
the specific plans that have been here since the early 80's are parcel specific.
He felt that this new plan is a different way of doing things.
2. Should the City establish a base FAR for each District before a developer is
required to use the Development Pool? Or, should the City allow development
(FAR) up to the maximum allowed pursuant to the Specific Plan?
• Cmr. Schaub felt the concept of FAR's is not a very clear way to look at a
district. He continued FAR's are only a part of what is reviewed for a
project. He felt this is the most complex part because it speaks to capacity
and how that is determined, but did not feel that FAR is the complete answer
as to how the City wants a district to look.
• Cmr. Schaub was in support, but when the DDSP comes back to the Planning
Commission they will have a long discussion about it.
• Cmr. Kin~ was not in support.
• Cmr. Brown asked to clarify the second part of the question regarding the
specific plan talking about the existing FAR which was shown on the graph.
Ms. Fraser answered that the within the districts a developer can build up to a
base FAR that the City has established and after that they must pull from the
development pool. She asked if the panel wants to set a maximum FAR
pursuant to the EIR which would allow Applicants to build up to that maximum
and not require them to apply for additional FAR but would be allowed by right
to build to the maximum.
• Cmr. Brown supported the district FAR concept.
• Cmr. Swalwell was in support of the district FAR concept.
• Cm. Biddle was in support of the development pool concept and supports
district FAR concept.
• Cm. Scholz was in support of the development pool concept and supports
district FAR concept.
• Cm. Hart was in support of the development pool concept and supports
district FAR concept but was still concerned about density.
• Mayor Sbranti was also in support and felt by having a base FAR some
property owners who are currently under that to still go up without pulling
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES io
VOLUME 28 ~
SPECIAL MEETING 19,~~~,~
November 17, 2009 `~ ~j ~
`~1 ~~
~// l~
~
from the development pool. He felt if there is someone who wants to do
something very innovative they could pull from the development pool.
3. If the City establishes a base FAR for each District, should the base be
established as .35 for the Village Parkway and Retail Districts and .SO for the
Transit-oriented District?
~ Cmr. Brown felt it was a good step to begin with.
• Cmr. Swalwell agreed with Cmr. Brown that this is a good start.
• Cmr. Kin~ supported the base FAR.
• Cmr. Schaub was unsure that FARs will solve the problem in the future. He
felt the Transit Oriented Districts will not look like we thought they would
two years ago. He did not feel there would be a developer willing to build
the densities that were built earlier. He was concerned that the transit
oriented districts will look different and did not want it to look too different
in the planning because there is no way to know what it will look like in the
future. He felt there might be more retail in the area because no developer
wants to build residential housing there. He was in support of .50 FAR for
retail. But felt the City needed to look at what a transit oriented district looks
like and if FAR's will satisfy landowners and residents' need for certain
proj ects in certain areas.
• Cm. Hart was in support.
• Cm. Hildenbrand was in support.
• Cm. Scholz was in support.
• Cm. Biddle felt it was a good place to start.
• Mayor Sbranti was in support.
Mayor Sbranti suggested discussing questions 4 and 5 together in the interest of time and
felt there needs to be a broader discussion on these two questions at a future meeting.
4. Should the City establish a Community Benefit Program to provide a benefat to the
community in exchange for allowing developers to use the Development Pool?
S. Are there any benefits to the community you would like to see included in the
Community Benefit Program?
• Cmr. Schaub felt these issues were not land use decisions. He did not feel
that parts of the Community Design Element and Downtown Specific Plan
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i i
VOLUME 28
SPECIAL MEETING ~,,`~~~ ~~
November 17, 2009 `~!~~/~
Gc~ ~
~ `~
~~~
should be part of the Community Benefit Program and felt it was up to the
City Council to decide these issues. He voted yes.
• Mayor Sbranti suggested that part of the Community Benefit Program could
be performance based to either waive or lower the Community Benefit
Program as a.n incentive to encourage activity. Mayor Sbranti asked Cmr.
Schaub if he would count plazas as part of the Community Benefit Program
where a landowner would dedicate an area as part of the Community Benefit
Program as a public plaza. ~
• Cmr. Schaub stated he would rather see a list of benefits that would be
discussed by the City Council and Planning Commission and come up with a
consensus on whether it is a planning issue but agreed that public plazas
should be part of the list.
• Cmr. Kin~ felt that this is an abdication of what the Planning Commission
has been working toward and will result in a hodge-podge of development,
but he felt these two questions could save the project. He felt it could create
an inspirational design for a vibrant, pedestrian friendly, city center through a
community benefit program, but if all the Downtown Specific Plan is saying
is the developer can build a bigger box if they add public art in front of the
building then the City is back to county planning. He felt that if the City was
very ambitious with questions 4 and 5 then a real plan could be
accomplished, but he felt there was nothing in the plan currently to create a
distinctive, pedestrian friendly, vibrant downtown.
Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, asked if Staff could ask the panel for their
comments regarding the Development Pool. She stated there will be more detailed
information on the Community Benefit Program brought to the panel at a future meeting.
• Mayor Sbranti felt there was a general consensus regarding the Community
Benefit Program and having a follow-up discussion.
• Cm. Hart disagreed and wanted to ensure that the City does not rely totally on
the Community Benefit Program for access to the development pool. He was
concerned with the inference that the City would allow increased density versus
access to the development pool.
• Mavor Sbranti stated the panel will look at the Community Benefit Program at a
future time.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~a
VOLUME 28 ~
SPECIAL MEETING 19,~~,~ ,~~
November 17, 2009 `~~j~j
,
3~~ ~~
• Cm. Hart felt question #5 is a Staff question and could not be answered at this
time.
• Cm. Hildenbrand agreed with Cm. Hart.
• Cm. Biddle suggested that there may be a community benefit that a developer
may propose that the City has not thought of and suggested the list should be
flexible.
Mayor Sbranti opened the public comment period. Hearing none he closed the public
comment period.
Mayor Sbranti asked for the next steps.
Ms. Fraser answered the next steps will be to take the feedback from the panel and
continue with the completion of the analysis for the EIR. She stated they are working on
the EIR; the traffic study and all the other environmental studies as well. She stated Staff
will return to the panel to discuss the Community Benefit Program at a later date. She
continued the panel will be reviewing the draft Specific Plan and the EIR in the late winter
or early spring. The final EIR will be completed in the spring 2010 and the Planning
Commission would act on it summer 2010 then the formal public hearings would occur.
Cmr. Swalwell asked what the consensus is from the business and development
community about this new Downtown Specific PIan.
Ms. Fraser answered there have been no calls so it is hard to say. She felt there would be
comments when the draft Specific Plan is available for review.
Mayor Sbranti refened to Cmr. King's point that the panel is looking at policy issues that
will go into the plan but not looking at an actual plan.
Cmr. King stated his understanding was there would not be a plan.
Mayor Sbranti answered that tllere would be a plan and asked Cmr. King to be patient
until the plan is available for review. He stated the panel has adopted some policies for
the plan and he will have the opportunity to review the plan. He felt that FAR matters in
the areas where there are under utilized parking lots in the downtown. He felt that
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i3
VOLUME 28
SPECIAL MEETING 19'~~~ `~
November 17, 2009 ``~~~j
~
,
~~ ~~)
because the City has increased the FAR someone could take those vast parking lots and
create a mini retail site that is walkable. He disagreed that the FAR would not do
anything to address pedestrian friendliness. He felt that increasing FAR will potentially
increase the walkablility of the area because it would provide incentive to develop the
unused parking lots that are auto-centric commercial activity. He felt that the
development pool would allow some very innovative ideas to create shopping districts
and public parks. He felt that one of the flaws of the current Downtown Specific Plan was
that the City would like to put a park on someone's property. He felt they all agreed that
the City would like the park, but who is the property owner that will dedicate 5 acres of
their land and build a City park. He encouraged the panel to keep an open mind and wait
to see the details of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.
Cmr. Schaub felt the City needs to build "people-density" downtown to make it
successful. He felt there needs to be residents living there or the City would need to bring
in a major destination. He felt that if there is no way to bring thousands of people to the
downtown there is no market for it.
Mayor Sbranti agreed that in order for the downtown to be successful there needs to be
destination opportunities or a potential housing mix.
Mayor Sbranti thanked everyone and stated he looks forward to continued discussions on
the project.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was
adjourned at 7:02 p.m. in memory of Staff Sgt. Sean Diamond and our fallen troops.
Minutes prepared by Debra LeClair, Secretary.
f"~
J ~--
Mayor
ATTEST: ~~ ` ~ ~~
City Clerk
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ia
VOLUME 28
~
SPECIAL MEETING 19~~~~ ~~
November 17, 2009 `~~~~~
, ~
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
Opportunities, Issues, and Strategies Report
7 GUIDING PRINCIPLES
This section describes a set of guiding principles that will be used as part of the preparation of the
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP). They are drawn from the focused market study, field
observations, interviews with stakeholders, discussions with City staff, and professional urban
design principles.
Within the new study area, three districts have been identified to establish unique development
standards and design guidelines that are unique to each district's needs (see Figure 7-1:
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Districts). These districts are:
^ Retail District - comprised of mostly regional serving large-format retailers bounded
by Amador Valley Boulevard, I-680, Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road
Transit-Oriented District - comprised of land south of Dublin Boulevard and within
walking distance to the West Dublin BART station
Village Parkway District - comprised of retail and service-oriented businesses along
both sides of Village Parkway.
Guiding principles for the DDSP study area as a whole and each district are described below.
The purpose of these guiding principles is to define a framework for future land uses,
development standards and design guidelines for the project area and each district.
7.1 Downtown Dublin Guiding Principles
1. Support short-term incentives to promote development in downtown Dublin such as
expedited permitting, reduced parking requirements, reduced water hook-up fees, and
sales tax reimbursement program (the later of which currently exists).
2. Consider the development of a community benefit payment in return for increase density
(i.e., density bonus/incentive program) that could be used to pay for public improvements
in the Planning Area.
Increase the amount of retail sales and related economic activity throughout downtown
Dublin.
4. Enhance the visual quality of downtown Dublin, including public streetscape
improvements (via the City's existing Streetscape Master Plan), entryways, on-site
landscaping and the appearance of individual buildings.
5. Create a pedestrian-friendly downtown that minimizes potential conflicts between
vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists.
6. Encourage a greater joint use of parking areas through com~atible mixes of uses and
enhanced pedestrian connections.
7. Accept increased traffic congestion (i.e. a reduced level of service) if it is found that
traffic impacts associated with future development cannot be fully mitigated.
3 ~~ 5~,
6/18/2010 Page 34
~
Attachment 3
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
Opportunities, Issues, and Strategies Report
8. Consider more flexible and appropriate parking standards that reflect verifiable demand
and consider the transit-oriented land uses in the area.
9. Encourage businesses that support evening activities for adults and teenagers, such as
restaurants, theaters, bookstores, etc.
10. Enhance the multi-modal circulation network to better accommodate alternative
transportation choices including BART, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation.
11. Work with property owners and business to achieve the goals and objectives of the
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.
a. Work with local businesses and property owners to establish a business
improvement district that would help to fund downtown improvements.
b. The cost of infrastructure improvements shall be paid for by development.
7.2 Retail District Guiding Principles
1. Encourage and support large-format regional retail as an important community and
financial asset of the City.
2. Develop design standards and guidelines that support and enhance large-format regional
retail uses such as optimal building configuration and design, signage, more efficient
parking, parking strategies, pedestrian amenities, landscaping, etc.
3. Encourage a diverse mix of complementary land uses including civic uses, eating
establishments, entertainment, and similar uses that complement existing retail land uses.
4. Allow higher density housing and additional units.
5. Identify ways to improve/enhance non-vehicular and vehicular circulation and
connections that are pedestrian friendly, particularly in areas that contain large, expansive
parking lots.
6. Support relocating the existing storm drain that extends east - west through the district to
allow for greater flexibility in future development efforts.
7.3 Transit-Oriented District Guiding Principles
1. Promote transit-oriented development to create a distinctive and active district.
2. Retain existing auto dealerships while supporting their eventual relocation to other
easterly locations within the City of Dublin.
3. Identify opportunity sites for future development that incorporate mixed-use and provide
public andlor private plazas and outdoor gathering areas at strategic locations.
4. Encourage underground and/or above ground parking structures.
6/18/2010 Page 35
~
~~ ~~~
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
Opportunities, Issues, and Strategies Report
5. Encourage housing along Dublin Boulevard only as part of a mixed-use development
with ground floar office or retail uses.
7.4 Village Parkway District Guiding Principles
1. Continue to support a diverse mix of complementary land uses along Village Parkway.
2. Create opportunities for integrating live/work units into the Village Parkway area.
3. Consider an appropriate site(s) for High Density housing.
~l ~b 5~~
6/18/2010 Page 36
~
~~ 5~
~
G~ >
>..~~
KEYSER MARSTON ASSC3~lATES.
ADVISORS IN Pl1Bl.IC/PRIVATE RFAI. [STATE DEVEI.OPMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Dublin
~~„ ~,~ ~~,:. ~.
t~e~i Fsrrr~
REDEVELOPMENT FrOm: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA)
AFFUKUAKIE HUUSIN~~
E<UNVtiUC DfVftUPbIEN!
Date: June 22, 2010
, ~~ ~ ~.,,.~, ~,~ ;
A. I[Kkv Kevsett
n~,~,T~~YC. Kr~~,• Subject: Managing Traffic as Downtown Dublin Evolves and Succeeds
K.ATE EAIiIE Fl!Nf:
DL~ItNIk A1. KERN
KU8Efi1~ ~. WEiMURE ~ntroduction
12fFf1 T. KAltiAl1AHA
DAVIp I)UF7,FMr\
The City of Dublin is now in the process of reviewing a draft Specific Plan for its
,
K.,ilHlE[N H. HtAU Downtown. That plan recommends capacity for net new development over the next 15
IAMES A. RANF plus years that is significantly greater than the current level of development in
1'nt~t C.. ANCfCRSC1N
t,~tF~,~,~tti o.~,~,,~~>~~ Downtown. The traffic component of a draft EIR has identified that levels of service
"`.F'" ` E"`'~Ta°"' (LOS) on key components of the Downtown roadway nefinrork will likely fall below the
IULIE L. RUMk\'
n~N~~c ~;~~~KEH~T~~~ minimum standards consistent with City policy (as defined in the General Plan). Since
the extent of new development that might occur has direct implications for the amount of
.;~,,,,,,,,
~~~~~~>~,.,K~M«~~ traffic generated downtown, the City engaged Keyser Marston Associates (KMA) to
r.~u ~ C. htnii R,~
address two matters:
1. What is the probable level of development that will likely occur over, say, the next
10 years, i.e., by 2020, at which time reevaluation could occur of net new
development on levels of service of the Downtown Roadway Network?
2. What lessons learned are available to manage the traffic and related parking
demands of a successful suburban Downtown?
Accordingly, KMA has prepared this memorandum, which addresses the traffic (and
parking) principles that are recommended or have been applied in suc cessful suburban
downtowns. KMA has also prepared a separate memorandum that addresses the
likelihood of achieving actual development that would approximate the capacity
recommended in the draft Specific Plan. That separate memo is summarized next.
55 PACIFICAVENUE MALL > SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFC~RNIA9411) > PHONE: 415 398 3050 ~ FAX:415 397 50(a5
002-003.doc; jf
WW W.KEYSERMARSTON.COM 18931.018
AT1'ACHMENI' 4
~~ - / I'~
~
To: City of Dublin June 22, 2010
Subject: Managing Traffic as Downtown Dublin Evolves and Succeeds Page 2
Likely Level of Develop ment in Downtown Dublin in 2020
For reasons outlined in a separate memorandum entitled "Likely Level of Development
in Downtown Dublin in 2020," the "bottom line" projection is that approximately 700,000
SF of non residential development and 1,300 residential DUs may be built in Downtown
over the ne~ 10 years, i.e., by 2020
Managing Traffic (and Parking) in Successful Downtowns
If new development occurs in Downtown Dublin by 2020 at the levels described above
then the Downtown would be well on its way to the successful implementation of the
vision for powntown contained in the Specific Plan. That vision is for powntown Dublin
to become a vibrant and dynamic commercial and mixed-use center that provides a wide
array of opportunities for shopping, services, di ning, working, living and entertainment
that attracts both local and regional residents. It is that success which will of course
generate additional traffic and parking demand.
Lessons Learned in Managing Traffic (and Parking) from the Urban Land Institute
The Urban Land Institute ( ULI) is probably the most prestigious organization in the
United States dealing with land use and development issues. The mission of ULI is to
provide responsibl e leadership in the use of land in order to enhance the total
environment. Their publication, "Ten Principles for Reinventing America's Suburban
Strips," contains many lessons learned in managing traffic (and parking) that will apply to
Dublin as it uses its new Specific Plan to reinvent its Downtown through encouragement
of new development and improvements to existing developments to create a more
walkable, urban environment and to enhance the City's tax base.
The following recommendations are drawn from ULI's publication as edited by KMA to
more particularly apply to Dublin. In our judgment, four of the ten principles are
especially relevant. These four are very consistent with the Specific Plan
recommendations and are:
Tame the traffic but do not destroy the commercial vitality by taking off too much
traffic;
2. Establish pulse nodes of development that will create peaks and troughs of
commercial activity that will pump new life into suburban strips;
3. Anticipate evolution of retail as retail becomes integrated into a total destination;
002-003.doc; jf
18931.018
~~ ~~ 5~~
To: City of Dublin June 22, 2010
Subject: Managing Traffic as Downtown Dublin Evolves and Succeeds Page 3
4. Prune back retail that has become inconsistent with the importance of retail sales
to the City's tax base (the sales tax contributors in Dublin being especially
important).
These four principles are ULI's recommendations for helping to create and maintain a
successful suburban downtown and emphasize how increased commercial and
community activity (and the traffic volumes that come with such activity) are vital to the
success of downtowns.
ULI's principle directly related to traffic is:
Tame the traffic but do not destroy the commercial vitality by taking off too much
traffic. Whatever solutions are chosen, they must ensure continuing ease of
access to the commercial developments or they will wither and die.
Transportation solutions must be scaled to the specific nature of the strip and
balanced to serve the m ultiple needs and m ultiple markets, but not discourage
the vitality of downtowns by being overly restrictive.
ULI's related principles speak to their greater concern of revitalizing older commercial
strips by:
Establishing pulse nodes of devel opment that will create peaks and troug hs of
commercial activity that will pump new life into suburban strips. The suburban
strip has become the main street of shopping for most Americans because of its
easy access to middle class markets, its high visibility, its convenient parking,
and its adaptability to large retail formats. However, strips face an enormous
challenge in a retail world now demanding environments that strips do not
provide. In other words, ULI is recommending, where feasible, nodes of intense
activity that are attractive and walkable (and con nected to non auto
transportation where practical).
Anticipating evolution of retail as retail becomes integrated into a total
destination. ULI goes on to point out that what worked in the past may not work
in the future, and that although end-to-end shopping centers have become the
norm along many suburban arterials, no one se riously believes that this format
represents the most convenient, livabte or efficient long term arrangement. KMA
is of the opinion that the recommended Specific Plan directly addresses what the
evolving patterns should look like in the near future in Dublin to protect and
enhance the City's retail and its retail sales tax base.
002-003.doc; jf
18931.018
~b~ 5~
To: City of Dublin June 22, 2010
Subject: Managing Traffic as Downtown Dublin Evolves and Succeeds Page 4
Pruning back retail that has become inconsistent with the importance of retail
sa/es to the City's tax base (the sales tax contributors in Dublin being especiall y
important). As ULI says, when economic conditions change, as they constantly
do, some strips or parts of strips are left to deteriorate, often before they have
been fully developed. This can leave the strip difficult to revitalize because of its
characteristic sprawl and lack of focus. KMA's view is that these are the very
vulnerabilities that the draft Specific Plan addresses with recommendations that
will re-stimulate a new vitality to Downtown Dublin.
In conclusion, the recommended Specific Plan includes a set of guiding principles to
help prioritize the direction and developm ent strategy for powntown Dublin. These
guiding principles address issues associated with the retention/enhancement of existing
retail, improving the aesthetic quality of the Downtown, and promoting transit-oriented
development. These Specific Plan guiding principles are consistent with the
recommended principles by the ULI for successful suburban downtowns wherein ULI
recognizes that an increase in traffic is an indication of increased activity downtown and
is a necessary result of a vital and thriving downtown economy.
002-003.doc; jf
18931.018
~~(/~ ~~
G`~'
>..~~
KEYSER MARSTt7N' ASSt~C1ATES.
ADVISORS IN PUBI.IC/PRIVqTE REAL ESTATF. DEVEI.OPMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Dublin
~"~ "`"`~" From: Ke ser Marston Associates, Inc. KMA
RE:1L ESTATF ~ ~ ~
ItEDEVELUf'MENI~
~FFURf~AHtF HUUSING
[~UNUMIC DkVE~UI`MEN-i Date: June 22~ 20~ 0
l:~:t: I K:~<+ I~~ i
n. ikKK, ,;~Y,Ek
Subject: Likely Level of Development in Downtown Dublin in 2020
IlMOTNY' C. KEU.Y
KATE fAKLE FUNI:
nk~,,,E ~,. kEaN
Introduction/Statement of Purpose
koneki~ I. werti~G~Re
RF611 T. KAN'AHAIL\
n.a.~,~ n~,E,E~,A The City of Dublin is now in the process of reviewing a draft Specific Plan for its
downtown. That draft allows for net new development potential over the next 15 plus
~,,, ,t ,
KAIHLEEN H. HkAU years, i.e., to say 2025, of 3.0 million square feet of non residential and 1300 DUs.
IntitESA.RnOE Recognizing that the net new development recommended is a theoretical buildout
PAU L C. AN flF RSUN ,
~,aF~,~~kY o.,~,~~.H~,~~ Keyser Marston Associates (KMA) has been retained by the City to estimate the likely
KEVIN L ENI;}iRQM level of development that will actually occur over say the next 10 years
i.e.
by 2020.
IULIE L. RUMk\' ,
,
I~CNItiE RICKERSL~FF
In May 2009 (about a year ago) KMA prepared a market study that focused on the likely
,,,,,,,,~,,,
CilH.A4P ht. TRIMRI.G level of development that could be expected in Dow ntown Dublin by the year 2015. Our
PAUL C. MARKA
extended projection to 2020 builds on the earlier analysis and applies new judgments
based on current observations about the real estate economy and the pluses and
minuses of Downtown Dublin's ability to attract new development. Based on these
analysis factors, KMA provides its conclusions as to the percent of Specific Plan
capacity likely to be in place by 2020.
Recommended Specific Plan Capacity Compared to Existing Level of Development
The remaining development capacity in Downtown Dublin based on the multiple Specific
Plans that now govern the downtown area may be summarized (in round numbers) as
follows: nearly 3.2 million SF of non residential development and 740 DUs of residential.
The recommendation of the new draft Specific Plan would modify the additional net
allowable to 3.0 million SF of non residential and 1,300 DUs of residential. However, the
new draft Specific Plan specifies that the actual density of development allowed on a
particular parcel will be regulated by a Base FAR (Floor Area Rati o) that is allowed
outright and a Maximum FAR that can be constructed based on use and Downtown
district. When applied as a totality to the Downtown, the approximate Base FAR would
SSPACIfICAVENUEMALL > SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA94111 > PHONE~4153983050 > FAX:41539750G5
002-002.doc; jf
W W W.KEYSERMARSTON.COM 18931.018
ATTACHMENT 5
~~~ ~~~
To: City of Dublin June 22, 201 Q.
Subject: Likely Level of Development in Downtown Dublin in 2020 Page 2
be about 800,000 SF of net new non residential; 2.2 million SF would be in a density
development pool allocation whose use would require an individual project applicant to
provide a community benefit as defined in the City's Community Benefit Program.
A comparison of the existing and recommended net new development capacity is as
follows: existing level of development in the Downtown consists of approximately 2.8
million SF of non-residential space, both occupied and vacant. The recommended Base
FAR in the draft Specific Plan would increase the non residential square feet by about
29% (800,000 S F above the existing 2.8 m illion SF). The development pool allocation
would contain an additional capacity increase of 79% (2.2 million SF above the existing
2.8 million SF). Residential is a different story. The number of residential units in
Downtown today is nominal (about 50 units in one senior project), although 617 units
have been approved for development.
Projected Amount of Future Development Compared to Recommended Specific
Plan Capacity
Overview
As the draft Downtown Specific Plan acknowledges, the actual amount of future
development will likely be considerably less than the recommended capacity due to the
fact that Downtown Dublin is largely developed. This results in significant obstacles to
new development including: the value of existing buildings, multiple ownerships, tenant
leases, parcel configurations, and parking and circulation patterns established for uses
built in previous times. Adding to these obstacles is the continued availability of vacant
land available for development in East Dublin and elsewhere in the area. And stil I
another obstacle in the near term is the current major economic recession. Recogniz ing
these obstacles, Downtown Dublin does enjoy advantages, including a strategic location
at the junction of the 580/680 freeways, the favorable image of the City and its location
in a growth area, the successfu I development that has occurred elsewhere in the City,
and the soon to open BA RT station in Downtown.
Forecast (2015)
The KMA focused market study of a year ago took into account all these overview
factors, and the amount of development already "in the pipeline," i.e., approved for
development by the City, in providing its forecast of likely development that will occur by
2015 in Downtown. It also included a num ber of caveats which are incorporated herein.
Highlights of the earlier forecast are:
002-002.doc; jf
18931.018
~~ `~ ~~)
To: City of Dublin June 22, 2010
Subject: Likely Level of Development in Downtown Dublin in 2020 Page 3
1. That the two projects adjacent to the new West Dublin BART Station are well
positioned to proceed per their entitlements once the current recession ends and
assuming no long term leases are entered into that would conflict with new
development. Should both proceed, the total of new development would be 617
DUs added, and just over 200,000 SF of non residential.
2. While total new non residential dem and in the City of Dublin by 2015 is estimated
at 700,000 SF (predominantly regional retail), Downtown will confront a very
competitive environment and most demand will be absorbed by the large amount
of current vacant space (about 300,000 SF) or "in pipeline" space, with only a
modest percentage likely to be realized as new development in the Downtown.
3. By contrast to non reside ntial, residential development opportun ities exist in both
the City (3,000 DUs projected) and in its Downtown. Downtown especially will
benefit from residential opportunities stimulated by the BART Station and TOD
(Transit Oriented Development). The probabilities are that the 617 units already
approved will actually be built by 2015
Therefore, the conclusion of the 2015 forecast is that the roughly 200,000 SF of non-
residential space and 617 DUs in the two approved projects adjacent to the West Dublin
BART station are likely to be built. It is unlikely that much more than the approved
amount of additional downtown development will occur during the next five year period.
Forecast (2020)
In contrast to 2015 when the probabilities are low that much of the recommended
Specific Plan development capacity will actually be built, KMA projects that most of the
1,300 DU residential capacity and about 700,000 of the non-residential capacity will be
built by 2020.
The key reasoning that underlies the KMA 2020 projection is as follows:
The draft Specific Plan Maximum development capacity recommended for
residential is 1,300 DUs and 3.0 million SF of non residential. The 3.0 million SF
of non residential would double what exists today, i.e., a lot of capacity.
2. Most of Downtown Dublin is in a built situation and therefore securing land for
new development requires acquisition of built property, not just land. Public
redevelopment assistance is not available. The private sector is on its own to
overcome the obstacles to new development downtown including the higher cost
of buying built property, much of which has existing tenant leases, and other
related issues, as noted earlier in this doc ument.
002-002.doc; jf
18931.018
~ ~f~
1~,
To: City of Dublin June 22, 2010
Subject: Likely Level of Development in Downtown Dublin in 2020 Page 4
3. Residential and office have the best chance to be developed in the Dow ntown
because these two uses - in the assumed recovered econom y by 2015 - lend
themselves to high density and therefore high land value solutions. T hese finro
uses have the best chance of affording the cost of redeveloping the existi ng built
sites that comprise most of Downtown. It is much more difficult for retail and
hotels to achieve high density, high land value solutions except as components
of Mixed Use Development (MXDs) and Transit Oriented Developm ents (TODs).
Occasionally retail or hotel can "f it" to an existing building or "leftover" parcel but
such is the exception and not the rule.
4. Given the foregoing, KMA believes it reasonable to expect Downtown to
achieve - at best - 50% of available citywide demand. The citywide demand
projection for 2010-15 was 700,000 SF (which assumes economic recovery this
year or next). So even if citywide demand doubled to 1,400,000 SF between
2015-20, (which of course would require the resum ption of strong growth in the
Bay Area and East Bay in particular), and Downtown achieved 50% of citywide
demand, Downtown would achieve 700,000 SF of new development.
The "bottom line" projection is that the actual level of non residential development that
will occur over the next 10 years, i.e., by 2020, is likely to approximate 700,000 SF, 23%
of the recommended non residential capacity of $3.0 million SF. However, the amount of
residential development likely to be built is at or near the maximum 1,300 DUs permitted
by the Draft Specific Plan.
002-002.doc; jf
18931.018
~~ ~~
~
Table 1.
Summary of Downtown Development
City of Dublin
Non-Residential Residential
Existing downtown development Approx. 2.8M sq. ft. Approx. 50 units
(one senior project)
New downtown development 3.2M sq. ft. 740 units
permitted under the five existing
Specific Plans
New downtown development 3.OM sq. ft. 1,300 units
permitted under the current Draft
Downtown Specific Plan
Projected new downtown Approx. 200K sq. ft. Approx. 600 units
development 2010-2015
Projected new downtown Approx. 700K sq. ft. Approx. 1,300 units
devetopment 2010-2020
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\~Sf-fs1\wp\18\18931\18931.018\Development Memo Table 6 18 10.doc; 6/22/2010
5~ ~~
~~ ~
~
,,~ ~~,
'~` ~-,~~ STAFF REPORT C I T Y C L E R K
`~,<~a 1~ DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL File #^[~ !^~- ~^~
DATE: November 17, 2009
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Planning Commission
FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager
SUBJE . Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session to Discuss the Status of
the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (PA 07-036)
Prepared By: Errca Fraser, Senior Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The purpose of the Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session is to discuss the
proposed land use concept for the Specific Plan Area, the proposed "Development Pool"
(square footage available for intensification/development) of properties in the Specific Plan Area
and the proposed Community Benefit Program for the use of the Development Pool.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds have been allocated in the Fiscal Year 2009/2010 budget to prepare the Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council and Planning Commission receive Staff's presentation
and provide Staff with feedback regarding the proposed land use concept, "Development Pool"
concept and Community Benefit Program.
Submitt By:
Commun ty Development Director
Reviewed By:
Assistant City Manager
PanP 1 ~f R ITEM NO_ ..1..• Attachment 6
5~ 5~
~
~ESCRlPTION:
Background
The Fiscal Year 2006-2007 City Gaunci( Gc~als and Objectives in~luded, as a high pri~rity goai,
the preparation of a comprehensive Downtc~wn Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP).
Qn June 19, 2007, the City Counci! ad~pted a Resolution apprcrving a Consulting Services
Agreement with RBF Consulting fcar preparation af the downtown Dublin Specific Plan. The
Specifiic Plan is~ anticipated to encompass~ the ~rea of the existing C7owntawn Core, Village
Parkway, West Dublin BART, Dublin Dc~wntown and the San Ramon Spec'r#ic Plans. A map of
the proposed Specifiic Plan Area is shown belc~w:
Figure 1: Prapc~sed Specific Pian Area
~- ~~ ~ ~ ~.~
~~
~
. .
p
4
~
' z
•x 'tzk ~;~*) 14YA~. ~
x ~:.
~r~fx
F ,~ ~«~~~~~
a
= A
` ~ ,
~ ~
f 'z,
~
~ ~r
~~.~prc-(r.. 3~Iun ~.~.;en~..~,xy
~ I ~ ~ ~~1 ~ S,.».e..-~.1 C .~~ ~.1'YiY ,kfil?
A/ .~.t ~ ~ ~3naY~Yn~Yi ~`tfje`~tfYy3
7 ..
~£A~~~
,
„
.,. , ~ f ; ~ ~i7~~..lR
£
~
~ ~~` V~ _~ ~
c ,.
' ~
~ ~~
~~ ~
~ ~ ~~
c
4,~ ~r
k ~
D V ` t .
a d ~ ~ 7
.
~ "
„(
,~ t
i
~
~
~
~'~
~' ~',
~ ~
,.
,iF
r ,
v, *a
)
'"~
~ ~~
~
~
,
~
r"5 ,f. "'' ~ ?`i~X` ~ ;~
~ ~
~
~ z ~ ~ -f" ~ x
.
~
~
~
~ ~~¢ ~
_
~
~~~~
~ ~ :~
~.. „`
~
g
"C~~, „
~
°+'
c
z"~ `~ `` ~
~ , ' '
~A T
tz ~
a _ .
°• I
,~
~'~ N .
~.
`s,~
~'" ~ .
ti:
;.
.:
~: ~ ~+~
~ ~ .
~ . "'
-
.
;
3 ~.,~~~
~ ~ '
'~& ~
'~tds,~_
~ ~ ~ c1
~~~
~ ~~
a~
ra a~' ~~
ry
i _
-
~ ; ~ ..
` ,
$"
v'~5
~ /^
j ~pi •
.
~
x
'
„ ~ M1~
s
<'~
-
6
~
- .
?'
. . , ,
. ~ _ . :.'... '.- - ,,.
.
., ,
. ~ . _
".. ~ ~ .
< .
' " ':-
,
<. .
.
,
~
'SM _
~
.. , ....
. .,,,, .._ ~ ...,,.
...,.... ..., • . .. ...,...,.
..
~ ~~ (..1~~' b}
. ~ € L
~,~C(I"1:`J~41
~
~,., ., ~ ~~.4x
The City of Dublin was awarded a Station Area Planning Grant in June 2008 in the amount of
$200,000 from the Me#ropolitan Transpartation Ccammiss~on for the preparation of the
Environmental Impact Report ~EI~) for th~ Downtown C~ublin Specific Plan.
On ~ebruary 17, 2~09, the City Council ada~t~d a Resolution approving a draft Funding
Agreement for a Station Area Pianning Grant for an amount not to exceed $200,flOfl for the
preparatic~n of an Environmenfial Impac# Report for the Downtown Dublin Specifie Plan. Qn
July 21, 20fl9, the City Council adopted a Resolution approving a Consulting Services
Agreement with RBF Consulting {for preparation of the Specific P1an Envirc~nmental Impact
Report). The wc~rk on the Environmental Impact Repc~rt is underw~y.
Prnjecf S~tatus
Par~P ~ nf R
//~ ~~
A joint Study Session with the City Council and Planning Commission was held in August of
2007 to initiate preparation of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.
In the winter of 2007/2008 Staff and RBF Consulting conducted a number of public outreach
efforts to solicit input from stakeholders and other interested persons on the preparation of the
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. These outreach efforts included an online survey, a series of
walking tours through the Specific Plan area, and an evening workshop. Outreach regarding
the survey included placing a flyer in water bills to notify residents about the on-line survey,
placing an advertisement in the Parks and Community Services Activity Guide that is mailed to
Dublin residents, and a television advertisement which ran on the local community channel (TV
30). Over 300 people participated in the online survey. Staff and RBF Consulting also
conducted one-on-one interviews with property owners in the Specific Plan area. These
outreach efforts provided residents, property owners, and business owners with an opportunity
to share their ideas while helping to shape the future of Downtown Dublin.
Specific Plan Districts
An Opportunities, Issues and Strategies Report was prepared to identify areas of strength to
capitalize on in the Specific Plan Area and opportunities to generate positive fiscal impacts to
the City. A number of background studies including a Traffic and Transportation Analysis,
Infrastructure Analysis and a Market Analysis were completed to assist in the preparation of the
Opportunities, Issues and Strategies Report. The Report describes the preliminary
opportunities, issues and strategies related to the potential infill opportunities and revitalization
of the Specific Plan area. The Opportunities, Issues and Strategies Report was presented to the
City Council and Planning Commission at a Joint Study Session on June 5, 2009. The
information contained in the Opportunities, Issues and Strategies Report and the feedback from
the City Council and Planning Commission was used by RBF and Staff to create a draft land
use plan.
Based on the Report, three districts have been established in the Draft Specific Plan to
establish development standards and design guidelines that are unique to each District. The
three Districts are: Village Parkway District, which encompasses the Village Parkway Specific
Plan Area; the Retail District, which is comprised of an area that is dominated by retail and large
format retail uses; and the Transit-Oriented District, which is located near the West Dublin
BART Station and accommodates transit-oriented developments with significantly higher Floor
Area Ratio to take advantage of the proximity to public transit opportunities. Each District will
have its own design guidelines and maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The following map
illustrates the location of each District.
P~nc '~ nf R
~ J~
~
Fi~ure 2: Sp+ecific Plan C~istricts
The fallow-up steps from th~ June 30, ~009 Joinfi City CouncillPlanr~ing Commissian Study
Session inciu~ie fihis foliaw-up s#udy session to discuss the Land Use Gc~ncept that was
developed by RBF based on informa#ian obtain~d during the Study 5essian. The purpose af the
Study Sessian is #fl review #he Lar~d Use Cr~ncept Staff and RBF have creat~d, the
Development Pool Concept, the Community Benefi# Pragram and to prc~vide feedback to Staff.
ANA~YSIS:
Land Use Plar~
Following the 5tudy S~ssion, Staff and R8F reviewed the existing land use plans, the
Opportunities, Issues and Strategi~s Report, the Specific Plan ~uiding Principles ~Attachment
1) and cc~mments made by ~he City Council and Planning Cammission ~iuring the Study
Ses~ion. Based on this, St~ffi determined tha#, in ord~r to allow maximum flexibility within the
Specific Pian Area, a typical land us~ plan would not rneet #he ir~tent af #he ~uiding Principles.
Rather #han est~blishing a typical iand use plan which assigns a sp~cific I~nd use designation
to each p~rcel, Staff is recc~rnmen~ing that permitted uses be esta~lished across each of the
three Dis#ricts. This wnuld ~Ilow for maximum flexibility and wc~uld ensure that uses are
p~rmitted in each Distric# which meet the objectives in the Guiding Principles.
A list of permitted and conditionally permitted useS ~auld k~e pr~pared for each District. These
uses would be ailowed to Qccur anywhere within ~ach Distric# rather than restricting certain uses
to a particular parcel. For example, any property within the Transit-C7riented Distric~ would have
a restaurant with outdnor dining. This is different from what is aliQwed today; currently, outdoor
dir~ing can anly occur an certain parcels. By allowing these uses to be locat~d anywhere within
Paria d nf R
~5~ 5~
the District, the City would be permitting maximum flexibility to encourage development in the
Specific Plan Area. A Downtown Specific Plan Land Use Designation would be created in the
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan to allow this flexibility.
Housing, however, may be limited to specific locations based on traffic impacts. A Traffic Study
is currently being prepared to identify current traffic counts in the Specific Plan Area and will
also evaluate constraints to future development. Following the completion of the Traffic Study,
the Specific Plan may need to identify specific housing sites or limit the number of units within
the Specific Plan area in order to minimize traffic impacts and to maintain a Level of Service
(LOS) of D. This limitation is consistent with City Council direction at the June 30, 2009
workshop.
Development Pool
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is defined as the relationship between the amount of useable floor area
permitted in a building (or buildings) and the area of the lot on which the building stands. The
following diagram (Figure 3) illustrates the different ways in which a building may be constructed
on a site with an FAR of 1.0.
Figure 3: Example of Different Building Configurations with an FAR of 1.0
/
~ ~
~
~.`,~~\ %~
~~~;~~ ~~
~~ .
~ ~~
i~
~
The current specific plans assign development potential to each property based on the
maximum Floor Area Ratio allowed for each property and the maximum development potential
that could be accommodated pursuant to the environmental review prepared for each specific
plan. Since the inception of the Specific Plans, none of the properties which received a
significant increase in the allowable Floor Area Ratio (or development potential} have
intensified, with the exception of Target which did construct a small addition.
Staff is proposing to create a Development Pool within each District. A Traffic Study is currently
underway which will identify the maximum development capacity in terms of square footage that
Page 5 of 8
~. ~u
5 G;
can occur within each District. The development capacity, above the base FAR (discussed in
more detail below) would be placed into a Development Pool, by District. The maximum
development potential for the proposed Specific Plan Districts will not be known until
environmental review is completed. Based on the traffic study or availability of water resources,
the development potential would be set to ensure that the Specific Plan does not result in
significant environmental impacts.
Staff is proposing to allow a base Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of up to a.50 in the Transit-Oriented
District and a.35 in the Village Parkway and Retail Districts. If a property owner would like to
develop beyond this base Floor Area Ratio, they may obtain additional square footage from the
"Development Pool." The Development Pool would allow the property owners to develop their
property up to the maximum Floor Area Ratio permitted in the Specific Plan. In order to access
the Development Pool, the property owner would be required to enter into an agreement with
the City and will need to provide a community benefit, as discussed further below. The property
will then be required to be developed within a certain time frame or the additional square
footage will be returned to the Development Pool so that it is available for other property owners
that wish to use it.
The following Table illustrates an example of development potential for three properties in the
Specific Plan Area, before the property owners would be required to obtain additional square
footage from the Development Pool.
Table 1: Example of Development Potential Before Property Owners Must Obtain Square
Footage from the Development Pool
Sit Existing Building Maximum Base
e Size and FAR Building Size Change
and FAR
Hostess Factory 6,200 sq. ft., 10,825 sq. ft. +4,625 sq. ft.
Villa e Parkwa .20 FAR .35 FAR
Target (Retail 122,400 sq. ft., 144,625 sq. ft. +22,245 sq. ft.
District .29 FAR .35 FAR
Corrie Center 78,516 sq. ft., 81,088 sq. ft. +2,572 sq. ft.
Transit-Oriented .48 FAR .50 FAR
As shown above, each of the three properties have development potential beyond the existing
building size. For example, Target could construct an addition of up to 22,245 square feet,
before obtaining additional square footage from the Development Pool. If Target wanted to
increase the size af their building beyond the base FAR allowed by the Specific Plan, Target
would then be required to pull the additional square footage from the Development Pool and
provide a Community Benefit.
Following completion of the Traffic Study, Staff will identify housing opportunity sites in the
Specific Plan Area and will identify the appropriate development amount before property owners
must use the Development Pool. The Traffic Study will also determine the maximum
development (total square footage and number of housing units) which would be allowed in the
Specific Plan Area.
Page 6 of 8
~~C~ ~
~,J
One benefit to the proposed Specific Plan is that environmental work will be completed as part
of the process. This means that any requests for an increase in square footage over the base
FAR would not require subsequent environmental review. This is a cost and time savings for
property owners in the Specific Plan Area.
Community Benefit Program
One of the Guiding Principles states that developers should provide a community benefit
payment in return for the City allowing increased density on their property (Attachment 1,
Principle 7.1). Staff proposes that a Community Benefit Program should be created which
requires property owners to enter into an agreement with the City to pull square footage from
the Development Poo(. The terms of the Community Benefit Program will be prepared at a later
date for City Council consideration. Options include requiring a community benefit payment,
establishment of a fund which will construct improvements in the Downtown Area, payments to
property owners to assist with improvements, or the construction of improvements as part of the
project which provide a community benefit (such as outdoor plazas, high quality materials, etc.).
Staff anticipates that the Community Benefit Program would be set-up similar to the City's
current Sales Tax-Reimbursement Program in that the property owner or developer would enter
into an Agreement with the City that ensures that the agreed upon benefit will be provided. The
life of the Agreement will also be limited to a specific period so that if the project is not
constructed, the square footage can be returned to the Development Pool and will be available
for other property owners in the plan area.
CONCLUSION:
The existing Specific Plan significantly increased the density allowed in the Specific Plan Areas,
however, few properties have taken advantage of this benefit that the City provided and have
intensified their properties. The proposed Specific Plan will allow intensified development in the
Downtown and the Development Pool will allow the property owners, who wish to construct a
more dense project, to construct this improvement on their properties. By utilizing the
Development Pool concept, the City will ensure that the additional square footage (development
potential) is available to those that will use it, rather than assigning it to a specific property which
may never use it.
The proposed land use and development pool concept will provide property owners with the
ability to increase the size of their development without pulling from the Development Pool right
away. The base FAR of.35 FAR in the Retail District allows properties to slightly intensify their
development before requiring them to pull from the Development Pool.
By requiring developers to pull additional development potential from the Development Pool and
requiring the developer to enter into a Community Benefit Program, the City would ensure that a
benefit to the community is provided in exchange for the increased development on the site.
PURPOSE OF MEETING:
As previously discussed, the purpose of this meeting is to discuss the proposed land use
concept, "Development Pool" concept and Community Benefit Program. In order to assist the
City Council and Planning Commission in their discussion, Staff has prepared the following
questions to be considered by the City Council and Planning Commission:
Page 7 of 8
5~ ~~~~
1. Should the City allow uses based on the Specific Plan District rather than a Land Use
Designation? Or, would a typical land use plan, with specific allowable uses for each
property, be more appropriate?
2. Should the City establish a base FAR for each District, before a developer is required to
use the Development Pool? Or, should the City allow development (FAR) up to the
maximum allowed pursuant to the Specific Plan?
3. If the City establishes a base FAR for each District, should the base be established as
.35 for the Village Parkway and Retail Districts and .50 for the Transit-oriented District?
4. Should the City establish a Community Benefit Program to provide a benefit to the
community in exchange for allowing developers to use the Development Pool?
5. Are there any benefits to the community you would like to see included in the Community
Benefit Program?
NOTiCING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
A Notice of this Study Session was published in the Valley Times and mailed to all property
owners and tenants in the Specific Plan Area, within 300 feet of the existing Specific Plan
boundaries and all persons who have expressed an interest in being notified of ineetings. The
Staff Report for this meeting was also made available on the City's webpage.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Guiding Principles (Excerpt from the Opportunities, Issues and
Strategies Report)
G: IPA#12007107-036 Downtoivn Dublrn Specific PIanlCrty CouncrllCC PC Study Session /1.17.09111 17 09_Staff Reporll FINAL.doc
Page 8 of 8