HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.2 BJDublinCommrclGPA
.
.
~
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 11, 1993
if
PA 93-052 BJ Dublin Commercial General Plan
Amendment study Request
W
David K. Choy, Associate Planner
Attachment l:~ocation Map
Attachment 2:/froject Description
Attachment 3:~General Plan Land Use Map
Attachment 4:~General Plan Amendment Boundary
- Map - study Area' #1 ~
Attachment 5:~General Plan Amendment Boundary
Map - study Area #2 /
Attachment 6:~General Plan Amendment Boundary
Map - study Area #3,,/
Attachment 7:~eneral Plan Land Use
Definitions
Attachment 8:~Letter from Applicant regarding
General Plan Amendment, dated
October 4, 1993
Lloc..,...
'D {'
SUBJECT:
REPORT PREPARED BY:
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
RECOMMENDATION:
f:r~
Authorize General Plan Amendment study.
Define the size of the General Plan Amendment
study area.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
No Significant Cost Impact
DESCRIPTION:
BACKGROUND
The J. Patrick Land Company, representing BJ Dublin commercial, a
California Limited Partnership, is requesting the city Council to
authorize a General Plan Amendment Study for their I7 acre site located
on the north side of the Dublin Boulevard Extension, near the
intersection of Dougherty Road.
The current General Plan land use designation for the site is
Business Park/Industrial: Outdoor Storage which does not allow retail
as a permitted land use. The subject site and the adjoining properties
to the north are zoned PD, Planned Development, which permits uses from
both the M-1, Light Industrial and C-2, General Commercial Zoning
Districts. The properties adjoining to the south are zoned C-2,
General Commercial.
The Applicant is requesting to amend the General Plan land use
designation for the property to the Retail/Office and Automotive
designation. This designation would encourage the development of
retail/office uses, in addition to automotive related uses, on the
property.
~;;~-;;~~~~--------------------~;~~;~-;;~--~~~~~~~/~~~~~~-;i~~---
Project Planner
Applicant/owner
CITY CLERK
FILe~
IOIl,.le
.
.
The General Plan Amendment request is part of a larger development
plan for the entire parcel. The Applicant is also seeking approval of
a Tentative Map to subdivide the parcel and a Rezone request to modify
the Planned Development General provisions which govern the property.
ISSUES
There are two issues which need to be addressed in conjunction
with the Applicant's request. The first issue is whether or not the
City council feels it is appropriate to initiate a General Plan
Amendment Study. If the city council decides not to authorize an
amendment study, all of the existing policies will remain in effect.
No further direction would be needed.
The second issue is if the city council decides to authorize the
amendment study, direction needs to be provided regarding the size of
the study area. Staff has identified three (3) optioni for the size of
the study area:
1. Study Area #1: The study could focus primarily on the I7 acre
parcel owned by BJ Dublin Commercial, as requested by the
Applicant (see Attachment 4).
2. Studv Area #2: In addition to Study Area #1, the study could
include the four properties, including two remnant parcels owned
by the City of Dublin, which are located between the BJ Dublin
Commercial property and the Dublin Boulevard extension (see
Attachment 5). These four properties are zoned C-2, General
Commercial. Staff has received verbal confirmation for inclusion
within the General Plan Study Area from the property owner of the
two privately owned parcels.
3. Studv Area #3: In addition to Study Area #2, the study could be
expanded to include the two parcels located north of the subject
site, which will have frontage along the new Sierra Lane cul-de-
sac constructed on the east side of Dougherty Road (see Attachment
6). These two properties are currently located within the same PD
District as the subject site. Staff contacted the property owner
of the Borcher Bros. property, as well as the property owners for
the Allsafe Self Storage site, which is currently under
construction, to inquire about inclusion within the General Plan
Study Area. The property owners expressed reservations about
changing the General Plan land use designation for these
properties, feeling that an industrial, rather than commercial,
designation was more appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the city council take the following actions:
1. Authorize the General Plan Amendment Study. The proposed
Retail/Office and Automotive General Plan land use designation
would help to promote retail development along the Dublin
Boulevard Extension, which will serve as the primary access route
to the Eastern Dublin Planning Area. This could provide the
2
.. -
1:1 }~ n ~ i ,....... V T; J'...-'-~.' -}i
~ m' "~";:r~.~..:.!l v :1
" , ....;! I ~ I ~ ,~
4 ; ~ ( ;
... ._._,i....~_~,_ '_~'
- .~- '-..-. :.......,"."'. ..,.,- ~-
.
.
impetus for the transition of this area away from the
industrial/outdoor storage uses which currently exist.
2. Define the size of the General Plan Amendment study to be study
Area #2. Expanding the study area to allow t~e incorporation of
these four additional parcels provides the project with a physical
connection to the corner of Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard.
In addition, it is beneficial to plan for a larger project
initially so that the individual developments work together as the
entire area is built.
The City is allowed to process four General Plan Amendments within
a ca!endar year. This request, if initiated, would be the second
amendment to the General Plan processed in the calendar year 1993. The
first amendment was the adoption of the Eastern Dublin specific Plan on
May 10, 1993. .
3
l:i '\.f~ r.-.i ::; ..11. ~') - \I 'I'~ :.0----.-- -.."1'.'1
'" . , ..... ,-, 1 I.
~; 1-'"1. r--r--r-,'-"I. "
,,~ I '.._J ! I l i i~
, ! " I - ", ( I
_~~ ~;,--::'/'::;:-::-,~! :..... .._~~ w~'_'.._'~'~'''~ -::.....~:..;-.:-:. ~u.
o
.<(
o
a::
o~
> a::
....Jw
COI
zO
-::)
....Jo
COo
::)
OLL
o
r-
Cf.)
<(
w
.
~
'CJll"'~1
......-....~
-=: CD ~
~ ~~
~,
.
..-
ATTACHMENT :L
.
.
Dublin Commercial Center
Project Owner: BJ Dublin Commercial, a California Limited Partnership
Project Applicant: J. Patrick Land Company, 5627 StQneridge Drive, Suite 320, Pleasanton,
CA 94588, (510) 463-1688. Contacts: John Moore, Cindy Guyon.
History: The 7 acre site is located near the intersection of Dougherty Road and the Dublin
Boulevard Extension. The property has been vacaIit at least 16 years. A prior owner had graded
the property in 1977 intending to build a subdivided industrial park. After grading, construction
was never undertaken and the property changed hands a number of times.
In 1988, the current owners of the Property began working with the City to create a reasonable
development plan for the site. Eventually, the City's circulation plan in the east end of Dublin was
changed to eliminate Sierra Lane and to instead extend Dublin Boulevard as the frontage road along
Interstate 580 to the Hacienda and Santa Rita interchanges.
With the completion of the Dublin Boulevard extension on August 17, 1993, the site is served with
a 200 foot frontage on Dougherty and a :tl,OOO foot frontage on Dublin Boulevard.
Land Use: The property is in a large area east of Dougherty Road currently designated at
Business Park and Outdoor Storage. Most parcels to the north and south of the parcel are
developed in accordance with this general plan designation. (Borchers Bros., Admiralty Van
Lines, V-Haul, Schork/EI Monte Recreation Vehicle, Busick, Dolans Lumber). Several parcels
were developed under this designation but are currently unoccupied (Lemoine, Scotsmans,
Corallo, Vangelatos). Immediately to the north of the subject site, the City has approved a
ministorage facility which is currently under construction.
Planning Considerations: Regional Planning in the East Dublin Planning Area has been
underway for several years. Although a plan has yet to become effective allowing development in
this area, good planning principal dictate that growth is likely to occur in this area were urban
services and facilities can be efficiently and economically provided with a minimum of
environmental impacts.
The extension of Dublin Boulevard (with related utilities) and the construction of the new BART
station between Hopyard and Hacienda are the beginnings of the public infrastructure that will
serve the East Dublin Planning Area.
Planning studies in this area have projected that Dublin Boulevard extension will soon become a
major arterial road carrying in excess of 20,000 trips per day. City Staffpredicts that the change in
circulation patterns will revitalize the area and support an upzoning of the properties along the new
Dublin Boulevard extension.
The project owner is responsible for repayment of a significant portion of the Assessment District
bonds which funded the Dublin extension and Dougherty improvement work. .::Current economic
realities suggest that as a single parcel, the sheer size of the assessment puts the bond repayment at
some risk, both now as an undeveloped parcel, and in the future, if the project had to wait to
develope as a single parcel. Splitting the property into several parcels, each with its pro rated share
of assessment lien, will dilute the potential for default on the assessment liens by expediting the
R E C 'E 1'1~9~ment of the parcels. I r "
\~6~W/TA,LJ)\in etvcL ATTACHMENT 2.
:l 1993 ~ I I u
\ q3- OS d-- ~'..r rr 7
~IJBLlN PLANNIl'-Ir.
.
.
Dublin Storage Center
Submitted August 24, 1993
Page 2
Application: The applicant seeks the following:
A. General Plan Amendment from Business Park and Outdoor Storage to RetaiVOffice and
Automotive
Ii
~B. Rezoning to Planned Development with an allowed list of uses. (See attached listing)
C. Subdivision of the site into 9 parcels of varying sizes.
Project Description: The proposed project will include 9 parcels for varying uses. The
applicant intends to subdivide the 7 acre property and sell parcels to end users who each process
their own Site Development Review through the City. As of the date of this submittal, no actual
end users are identified. Therefore, a list of permitted uses is provided as a part of this submittal
package.
The project is roughly divided in half to take advantage of the Dougherty Road Frontage and the
Dublin Boulevard Frontage. The plan calls for a small pad user at the western end of the project
with a mini-box retail user immediately behind. Then, fronting on Dublin, but still with good
visibility from the DublinlDougherty intersection, another large retail use is anticipated.
The balance of the site consists of 6 parcels that are intended to house owner/user businesses. In
accordance with Staff's condition under the Parcel Map 6571, these parcels are shown as :1:1/2 acre
lots. (As specific users become known, lot lines may be adjusted to taylor lots to the purchaser's
needs. Reduction in size of some lots would increase size of others. The number of lots will be
maintained) The site plan for this portion of the project includes building envelopes that would
allow a maximum building coverage of 31 % for a single story or 35% with a second story
mezzanine option while still providing requisite parking for the intended uses. It is intended that
these buildings would be positioned as zero lot line to the rear and on one side so that the
appearance from the street will be three buildings on the six parcels. The end user is not required
to utilize the entire building envelop. Given the end users actual use, parking dictates may require
a reduction in square footage for the building itself. This issue will be addressed during the Site
Development Review for the actual user.
Circulation: The project parcels will each have good access to Dublin Road and Dougherty
Boulevard. During an interim period prior to the construction of the south lanes of Dublin
Boulevard, all points along Dublin Boulevard would be Right and Left In and Out. However,
assuming the completion of Dublin Boulevard improvements, the following permanent access
points are shown: .
1. Fully signalized Four Way intersection at Dougherty Road and Sierra Lane.
2. Right In/Right Out curb cut at southwest corner of the property to service the small pad
user (could be a quick lube or a fast food where easy traffic flow through is important).
3. Right In/Right out curb cut at the retail user parcel on Dublin Boulevar~.:~- .
4. Right and Left In/Right and Left out curb cut at Dublin Boulevard at the location of the
existing median break (which would have to be modified slightly to allow an acceleration
R E C lane for eastbound exit).
EIYFn "
AUG 26 1993
ATTACHMENT 2-
r~ z 6f'l
~IJBlIN PLANNINr-
, r, '}_ /"C- Cf-
.
.
Dublin Storage Center
Submitted August 24, 1993
Page 3
5. Right In/Right Out curb cut between median break and "Chabot Road" intersection. CWe
understand that the City intends to officially name this street something else, but for
purposes of this statement, Chabot Road is used.)
Internal circulation is provided across the entire site through properly sized driveways. Parcels
will each include easements for ingress and egress benefiting the other parcels in the project.
Ii
Parking: A total of 340 parking spaces are shown on the PD exhibit to this submittal. Actual
parking will depend on actual uses. A breakdown of parking spaces shown per parcel is as
follows:
Parcel 1
Parcel 2
Parcel 3
Parcel 4
Parcel 5
Parcel 6
Parcel 7
Parcel 8
Parcel 9
Pad
Mini box
Retail
OwnerfU ser
OwnerfU ser
OwnerfU ser
OwnerfU ser
OwnerfU ser
OwnerfU ser
8 spaces
139 spaces
66 spaces
18 spaces
13 spaces
27 spaces
24 spaces
16 spaces
29 spaces
Parking spaces are owned in fee by the owner of the parcel. No cross parking is provided.
OwnerfUsers will have the ability (but not the obligation) to contract with each other for shared use
of parking spaces with neighboring parcels. Each user must provide assurances through their
individual Site Development Review that the parking provided is sufficient for the actual intended
use.
Commercial Property Owners Association: The six owner/user parcels will have
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("CC&R's) creating a Commercial Property Owners
Association to provide for architectural control and landscaping and driveway maintenance. The
other parcels in the project will not be a part of the Association. The pad/retail uses are sufficiently
different in terms of traffic, greater maintenance needs, and architectural dictates of potential
"franchise" buyers, that they can not fairly be incorporated into the Association.
A. Architectural Control. The submittal package includes schematic elevations for the
buildings containing mandatory elements for the buildings which will provide uniformity to
this portion of the project (e.g. exterior wall construction type, colors, signage panels,
accent tiles, metal trellis, window treaunents). Parcel buyers are expected to submit their
own architectural plans in connection with Site Development Review which comply with
the schematics provided in the submittal. The buyer is allowed flexibility in whether to
position the building to front on or side on to Dublin Boulevard.- Also, the Buyer can
rearrange the various elements of the building (e.g. increase glass area, extend trellis, add
the second story mezzanine, etc.).
B. Landscape. The submittal package includes a schematic landscape plan for the
owner/user end of the project. The palette of plants and trees is establis!'fea to create
uniformity in design, however, owners will submit their specific landscaping plans with
their Site Development Review application. Subsequent to installation, irrigation systems .
and landscaping will be maintained by the Association. Landscaping easements will be~R E eEl V ffluded in the plan and will ~,commonly owned by the associ~tion. - .
.AUG 26 1993
ATTACHMENT 2
r,? :I ,f 'I
!)l)BLlN PLANNINr-
,).,. n" -r\c:::. d-
..
.
Dublin Storage Center
Submitted August 24, 1993
Page 4 ;
C. Driveways. The driveways in the owner/user end of the project will be maintained by the
association following installation by the individual lot buyers. The easements over the
driveways will be commonly owned by the association.
Benefits to City: The city benefits from the proposed project in a number of ways:
f
A. The project furthers stated objectives of upgrading the uses along this future gateway to the
City.
B. The project allows for the dilution of risk of default on assessment district assessments.
C. The project allows for introduction of additional sales tax base through potential retail uses
within the project.
....-
-,,'.
RECEIVED
AUG 26 1993
,
,
ATTACHMENT 2-
r~& f,f 'I
!)UBLlN PLANNIN~
)~q Ci "'J ~ os:r-
.-"',,-
<> z
~] <x::
- ! .J
'" 0- N
~
:> ~ .J a>
0'1 ~ a>
Z,: <x::
<<SOl.. g a: ~
.. W "
-' i ~
WI-' a>
-c w Z &I
(/)<x:: c ! W "
::::>.J c ...
~ ~ (!J "
0::::> '" ..
~ Z .!!!
zO >
" ..
<x::Q; ~ Hi .J II:
.JO :i: CO
'" n
~ ::::>
0 '"
.
~
.
c
,g .
~ ~
u ~
.
" ..
"
2 u
" .g
'" !
"
0. E
" " c
en
0; .... ,g
. U
0. " "
0. ~ !
0. '" U
C " "
0. a:
! ....
. .
~ " "
"
~ "
0 I- 0.
.. . "
'" " "0 ;:
en
W
I-
0
Z
,
"
~
" "
" ;
.. 0.
" III
c ~ "
,g " . ,
E ~ ; --
" -.;<
u '" '" -,
. '-c
:;; c E ]
- " "
" :s :;-
" '"
0. C ?:
'"
e ~ 0
0. 2 ~
c
~ .D
" 0. ~
III 0 0
"0
= ~
E _ "
l\l .2
.. ,
.!ri
'"
.=.;,
f/)e
"-
:;~
c c
" "
O~
~ "
.~ ~~
~
c
"
"
0;
"
a:
"
>
c
"-
" "
o;u
" "
a: "
,,~
:::: If;
E E
" ,
"0
".0
E~
en-
"
c
"
"-
'iij ell
" ;:;
II: "
~~
"
c c
" ,
00
;::
" "
u
"
C
~ ~ ~
~ .c
~=' fI')
z~ -5 0
E~ .5 "-
~ '-
0.
E
.
~
<
..
"
u
" "
" "
~ ,
" "
c c.
.... .... '"
t ~ ~
l\l ~2
0. "'en
" ,,~
" "0.
" .o.
=: c::'C
en -;;
~ ~ 0
"
" u
"
~ c: ~
~ ~.t:J
.....1tI 0 :J
~ en ..... ~
~~ ~ ~
'" 0 ~ ~
~~ 'El ~
en 0 ~
~...I ~ D..
~
D
:>
a.
c
.
0.
~
0.
U
"0 "0"":
~~ ~=
2
"
a:
"
!
u
"
a:
....
"
t
.
'"
"
"
c
..
...
,g
"
~
..
0.
~ ~ e
'C u; U; flI
:; 0 ~ ,.. 0
- VI flI Co
~ u 0 ~ In
... GJ a. CD c::
Q,l 0 ~ GJ ~
< U ~ LL I-
o
....
"
u
"
0.
en
c
"
0.
o
0.
~
:;
u
E
"
"
I~
'"
C
0.
"
u
c:
Ql
~
en
Ql
a: __
co 2
'(3 ~
Q;
E"
E! i
o i i
0' '
~'.'.'-' II
;;.":i
-.'.'"1
n:i -
8:::::~
.......-.
:.:.:.:.:
.:.:.:.:-
..-......
c:
.0
to
:>
.~
o
III W
lCtNNT :5
~
z I~
0
U1
z ~
W
f-
X
w
!~
~
0
;;
!
i
\
RECl:IV~D'
~ ~,Or>-\) -ADG&1993..
~:~i e(' Y)lln
\)O\.\Gr\( , \Ujnf)UBti<j PLA NIN~
/~ ?A C/0-- OSd--'
~ : i.
- ...- ==
::~a i~ y'// /
q -b" /
~N - .-- I /
Hlav. ..... l , /
- /'t-O- :/.
~//.. /
!' /?/ /
." "L/
/ //)'f/ /
//'/
,'/o;,#:t
~_ /~. /1/
/'/ ;," / /
/ / .7//
/ /1'// /
/ '/.,/// /
/.0"// /
I // I/~// /
<B~ol'//!
~ // ~
!' // /
, //
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~I
i i\
I
I
~-----I
I
I
I
i " ~
I'~
>-
~~...
,:).
t\~ .
~B
~~
-~'
'"
z
~
u
:0
..
'!(
o
IX:
<(
:>
w
..J
:J
o
CD
~
.
I )
.-j 1
I
..
;:
~
z
w
1:
o
cZ
WW
l3a
~~
!E~
15;l
en a:
~w
-z
~w
..JC>
;
I
, '! !7
, A~
i U !
'3 i
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
}
I
,
~
!'" 0.
P
~ .:
. .
~
,
'"
L-
~ ~
U~i
~ ~ t!
I ~ ~ I
~ ~ ~
~ 5
w
<:}
: I
~
~
~
~
..
~
z
iii
IO! i:
~ ~~ ~
CII ~:. ~
~o 2~~O ~
~~ ~~~~ ~
~~ ..~~~ ~
1fJ~ ;:~~ ~
~e J~~.e z
~
e
a ~
n ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
i 0 ~
" :i ~
" w 0:
0: U ~
-< i: 0.
~ ~ m
" ..... ~
~',! w ~ w
"' ~ ~ ~
> CD IX 0.
.....
0:
i
o
ffi
z
z
~
.....
0:
W
W
z
i3
~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
"' "'
g g
in "
w ...
o Q
~ ~
~ it
t t.
f5 ~
z z
~ ~
~
w
U
~
..
..
~
~
~
" 0
z w
"' ..
.. 0
;i- is
w 0:
..
i
,
&
II
/., ~
r:y/
cT
o
/
~-mACHMfNT '-I
:::o!p
:2h
i~;
~ ~i~
E;; iH
0\ ~1t1
.; ;; ...
~ : ;.
:~~"i ~:
~:~~ i~ y /
... . -<, I. III
0- I
/'1' y/,
,'/" /
rI' ~/ / I
~" A I~
/ //11
/1/'/
//~.')-
, .Ji /
~.. /~ /!
/':/.~o/ / /
, 1."111
, Ill'l I
/ If II I
I..~ II I
I ,'I,t'11 I
<B1,,-l"111
4-- 1/ Ii
""#/~
" /1
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I ~I
i :;
UIWN 7
-
~-----I
I
I
I
I
---J
!7
'r
I! ~
~ i
t
L_--:o-
i, .
in
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
-1
:" cio
~ ~
~ .:
r'
~ ;
.
.
I
i
~
. .
';,...
'-
~ ~
I ~ 1 i
~ ~ ~ i
i ..J <C
~ ~ ~ i
< a:: ~
~ 8
ill
o
ill
.J
.<(
()
.en
z
o
iJi
z
W
l-
X
W
II
~
d
~
~
..
z
:>
..
~
i ~
'"
..; Z
<J 15
o~ <J
~ ~
NZ < Z
n< ~
~~ <
15 <J
,,~ <
"'.. Z >
:5 ~ ~ ~ ~
Z " "
j < " < g
z 15
.. ;; ~ ~
~ B Q Q
Z ~
Z ~
<3
~ g ~
<
'"
Z ~
; lj "
" Q
~ w
~
Q
B ~
..
o
ct:
<{
::>
w
...J
:J
o
en
;
/~
vi
;:-/
(I;;J _
v'"
o
\ /
"'-ATTACHMENT 5
RECEIVED'
-" kD ---...
_ - SO AULl . 7 1993
G~(~" ., tiAne (+-v\~ 011 n
\)0\.\ v ~J f)UBL~ PLANNING
_~ PA- [/0-- 05d-
~I.
=:~~!
~lm
E:;i~H
. Cl2IW
0\ ~r:t
l
.
~
~~
I ill
.J
.<(
()
i .en
I
i
z I~
0
iJi
z ~
W
l-
X
W
.
I~ ~
~
0 z
:>
N ..
~ ~
.. ~~ ~
..
"
~ '!i: ...
wo
..; 0;-1 ~~
0 "., Qu~
~~ 1s ,~ "0:
ct: ;~ ~ -~'1' ~~
<{ zn ~~~
::> <" :cz:~ '''is
~. "0
w ~2 ~zo 15~
...J ~ ~" ~~e z<
..-
:J
0 ~
en z
~
~
z
<3
~
;
'-
~ !
i ~ ~ i
~ ~ ~ ~
i j ~ ~
~ ~ ~ 5
o <! S
<a:: ~
~ 8
ill
o
:1
lj
~
'"
~
e
il ~
"
~ a
0: ~
~ ~
o 0
~ ~
~ l:l
< ;;:
~ ~
~ ~ ....
z W j
..c % .c
" iil _
< " W
> .. ..
~~t(.~~~
o cz: ;:) ~ ~ &:
Z <( Cl < .c: ~
~ ~*~~
~ B~~~
~ ~ ~ :J.
3 ~ ~ ~
~ i. :J.
W 0: "
~ W W
'" Z Z
<( ~ ~
" 0
z W
" '"
~ 0
;0 is
... 0:
..
~: A0
iIV\~! j~!
'}~~. ~ 11) ~
l/ . :
I ~ l
,.
vi
-<:-/
(I;;J
cT
o
~ACIIMfNT 6
I
;
!
\
\
~I.
<.
::::II~;I
~rl
.1.
E';j,i!\
. C(1[=U
01~fl
RECEIV~D'
k' o~\) IULl{ 7 1993,
-.-- SI'< e ('f.-V\ /J~~~,YJll n
\)o\.\Gr\( .~ \UjrhUBL~ PLANNING
/~ PA- C10-- 05d--
t1~NERAL- ~ I.AN'Y Vst VEF//Jrrlts
Primary Planning Area
Residential (Note: Assumed residential household size is based on data
contained in the 1990 Housing Element)
Residential: Low-Density Sinqle-family (0.5 to 3.8 units per gross
residential acre). Detached units with assumed household size of 3.2
persons per unit.
Re~dential: Single-family (0.9 t:o 6. Ouni tsper gross residential
acre; assumed household size of 3.2 persons per unit.). Detached and
zero lot line (no side yard) units are within this density range.
Examples are recent subdivisions in Dublin's western foothills at about
2.0 units per acre and ponderosa village at 5.8 units per acre.
Residential: Medium Density (6.1 to 14.0 units per gross residential
acre; assumed household size of 2.0 persons per unit.). The range
allows duplex, townhouse, and garden apartment development suitable for
family living. Except where mixed dwelling types are designated, unit
types and densities may be similar or varied. Where the plan requires
mixed dwelling types, listed policies specific to the site govern the
location and distribution of dwelling types. Recently reviewed
projects in the medium density range include Parkway Terrace (7.8) and
Amador Lakes west of the Dougherty Hills {13.5}.
Residential: Medium-High Density {14.1 to 25.0 units per gross
residential acre; assumed household size of 2.0 persons per unit.}.
Projects at the upper end of this range normally will require some
under-structure parking and will have three or more living levels in
order to meet zoning ordinance open space requirements. Examples of
medium-high density projects include The Springs {17.8} and Greenwood
Apartments (19.8).
Commercial/Industrial
Retail/Office {FAR: .25 to .50; employee density: 200-450 square feet
per employee.}. Shopping centers, stores, restaurants, business and
professional offices, motels, service stations, and sale of auto parts
are included in this classification. Residential use is excluded
except in the Downtown Intensification Area described in Section
2.2.l.A.
[Retail/Office
* to 490 square
retail/office
similar uses.
and Automotive (FAR: .25 to .50; employee density: 220
feet per employee). This classification includes all
uses and adds auto dealerships, auto body shops, and
Residential uses are not-permitted.'
Business Park/Industrial (FAR: .30 to .40; employee density: 360-490
square feet per employee.). Uses are non-retail businesses (research,
limited manufacturing and distribution activities, and administrative
offices) that do not involve heavy trucking or generate nuisances due
to emissions, noise, or open uses.
Residential uses are not permitted. Maximum attainable ratios of floor
area to site area (FAR) are controlled by parking and landscaping
1 - 6
ATTACHMENT 7
t?r4E 1. ~~ t..
.
.
requirements and typically result in .35 to .40 FAR's. Examples: Clark
Avenue, Sierra Court.
*
Business Park/Industrial: outdoor storage (FAR: .25 to .40; employee
density: 360-490 square feet per employee.). In addition to the
Business Park/Industrial uses described above, this classification
includes retail and manufacturing activities conducted outdoors such as
mobile home or construction materials storage. Example: Scarlett
Court.
i
Public/Semi-Public (FAR:
employee)
.50; employee density: 590 square feet per
Public/Semi-Public Facilities. Uses other than parks owned by a public
agency that are of sufficient size to warrant differentiation from
adjoining uses are labeled. Development of housing on a site
designated on the General Plan as semi-public shall be considered
consistent with the General Plan. Determination as to whether housing
should be permitted on a specific semi-public site and the acceptable
density and design will be through review of a Planned Unit Development
proposal under the Zoning Ordinance. Examples: Public and private
schools, churches, Civic Center.
Parks/Public Recreation. Publicly owned parks and recreation
facilities.
Open Space. Included are areas dedicated as open space on subdivision
maps, slopes greater than 30 percent, stream protection corridors,
woodlands, and grazing lands.
Extended Planning Area (See Figure 1-2)
Residential and Open Space
See General Plan Map and Sections 2.1.4, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3.
Commercial/Industrial
Business Park/Industrial: Low Coverage (FAR: .25 to .40; employee
density: 360-490 square feet per employee). This classification is
intended to provide a campus-like setting with open plazas and
landscaped pedestrian amenities for the uses described in the Business
Park/Industrial classification for the Primary Planning Area and to
allow retail uses to serve businesses and residents. Maxfmtlm-fleer
area_ra~fe-tbtlfldffig-fleer-area-a9-pereefi~-ef-Ie~-areat-~e-be
de~ermified-by-zefiffig-regtllatfefis-shetlld-be-between~~z5-afid-~3~~
See General Plan Map and Section 2.3~~4.
Business Park/Industrial. Same as in Primary Planning Area.
Public Lands
Large holdings such as Parks RFTA, Santa Rita, and Tassajara Creek
Regional Park.
1 - 7
ATTACHMfNT 7
~tZ~~
.. ,
~~,~
Mon, Oct 4, 1993
Mj. David Choy
Pfanning Department
CITY OF DUBLIN
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: Planning Application, General Plan Amendment
Subd. 6644
Dear Dave:
This letter serves to advise the City Council of our position regarding the area to be included in our
requested General Plan Amendment.
As you know, we have been working with the City for several years on plans for the development
of our vacant parcel. We have delayed our project five years while the City worked to design,
fund, and build the Dublin Boulevard Extension. We also provided a substantial portion of the
funding for that road. Now, with the road open and with a healthy assessment meter ticking away,
the property must be put in to productive use as quickly as possible.
At the suggestion of Staff, we have requested a General Plan change for our property that will
allow for the possibility of retail on our site. The question arises, which properties should be
considered in the General Plan Amendment study.
Our preference is that our property be considered alone or alternatively, that our property be
considered only with the City of Dublin remnant parcels.
Principally, we are concerned that involvement of any other property owners will result in delays
to our processing schedule. -We are taking all steps necessary to have our project heard by the
Council in early December to allow for a hearing on final map in early February.
If we fail to record our subdivision map prior to February 28, 1994, we will have to deposit cash
with the County to secure payment of our 94-95 taxes upon recording. This deposit amounts to
well over $100,000. The deposit does not "prepay" our taxes and assessments thereby reducing
interest on the assessment bond. The deposit does not earn interest on our behalf. It is simply
held by the County through October when the County finally uses the money to pay the taxes and
assessments that are still not due until November 94 and March 95.
In these economic times, money has to work. Languishing in a County account to fulfill a
subdivision map ordinance condition is not our idea of working. We acknowledge that there may
be some other reason that we fail to meet our processing timeline, but we certainly do not want that
reason to be the non-timely cooperation of adjacent property owners.
A TT ACllMfMT f!;
f.A6l6" ~ ~f Z.
5627 srONERIDGE DRIVE. SVITI 320, PLEASANTON. CA 94588 (510) 463-1688 FAX (510) 463-0528
David Chay
October 4, 1993
Page 2
.
.
In addition, given the list of permitted uses under the respective general plan categories, we do not
see the requested change from Business Park and Outdoor Storage to Retail/Office and Automotive
as a material change in land use. The uses of each designation are generally compatible. This
might not be the case if we were requesting a change to residential. If that were the request, a
broader review of surrounding uses were be justified.
Ii
Finally, we have a concern about the allocation of costs for a general plan study that covers more
than our property. It has been our experience more than once that the processing applicant
eventually is stuck with the full cost of the study allowing neighbors to get the benefit of the study
at no cost. This is blatantly unfair. If the City brings in additional parcels, we will expect the City
to fund a share of the study to cover all other properties and then the City can seek reimbursement
from the other property owners at a future date.
Sincerely,
J. PATRICK LAND COMPANY
~C'.~
~. Moore
President
JPM/cm
ATTACHMENT !3
fM$5 Z. f)F ~