HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.2 Grafton Plaza GP
CITY CLERK
File # D~[[][Q]-[3J[3J
/..fZO' 30
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 6, 2007
Initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Study for a portion of property known as Area H of Dublin Ranch, or
commonly known as the Grafton Plaza site.
Report Prepared by Michael Porto, Project Planner
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS: 1)
RECOMMENDATION:
6)
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
COPIES TO:
Applicant
Property Owner
2)
Resolution to approve the Initiation of a General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study, including direction from
the City Council as to the appropriate mixture of land uses and the
appropriate building height range (Attachment 1).
Resolution to approve the Initiation of a General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study for the project as proposed
by the Applicant (Attachment 2).
Resolution to deny the project request (Attachment 3).
City Council/Planning Commission Joint Study Session Staff Report
dated August 14, 2007, without attachments.
City Council/Planning Commission Joint Study Session Minutes
dated August 14, 2007.
General Plan Lmd Use Map.
3)
4)
5)
6)
5)
Receive Staff presentation;
Receive presentation from Applicant;
Receive public comment; and
Adopt a Resolution to approve the Initiation of a General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study, including direction
from the City Council as to the appropriate mixture of land uses and
the appropriate building height range (Attachment 1); or
Adopt a Resolution to approve the Initiation of a General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study for the project as
proposed by the Applicant (Attachment 2); or
Adopt a Resolution to deny the project request (Attachment 3).
The costs of preparing the General Plan and Specific Plan
Amendment Study shall be borne by the affected property owner
who has requested this amendment.
Page 1 of 13
ct. 2
ITEM NO.
G:\PA#\2007\07-006 TIle Plaza\CC Mtg 11.6.07\Plaza CC SR GPA SPA Initiation Request 11.6.07 - RA 2nd Set of Comments. doc
~
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Site Context:
Dublin Ranch Area H is bordered by the extension of Dublin Boulevard on the north, Area C of Dublin
Ranch to the east, 1-580 on the south and property of the Dublin Land Company (DiManto) to the west.
The project area was originally 70.8 acres (including the Dublin Boulevard right-of-way) in size.
Subsequent project approvals and Parcels Maps have been approved on Area H. The site area of this
application encompasses the 12.23 acre Water Quality Basin property and the 12.23 acre site generally
referred to as Grafton Plaza for an overall project area of 24.46 acres. Overall, Area H has two land use
designations; General Commercial and Campus Office. In February 2000, the ,City Council approved a
General Plan (GP) and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) Amendment and Stage One Planned
Development Rezone for Area H. The Vicinity Map below provides a visual context for the overall area.
VICINITY MAP
The GP/EDSP amendment in 2000 allowed for the flexibility to develop Campus Office uses on land
designated for General Commercial uses pursuant to a Planned Development Stage Two Rezoning /
Development Plan application. Lowes/Grafton Station was approved and is under construction on the
westerly 26.1 acre portion of Area H designated for General Commercial (GC) development.
The remaining portion of Area H designated for Campus Office (CO) development encompasses the
Grafton Plaza site, the Water Quality Basin, and a portion of the future Kaiser Hospital. The overall
development area is 40.46 acres with a maximum development potential of 793,097 square feet. The
Stage One Development Plan provides some flexibility to develop individual parcels with additional
square footage but ultimately caps development square footage at 793,097.
Page 2 of 13
The City has not received an application for the Kaiser Hospital property. However, on an acreage basis,
Kaiser would be entitled to 313,632 square feet of development. This report discusses the Applicant's
proposal for the Grafton Plaza and Water Quality Basin site only. Therefore, the land area in question
has a maximum development potential of 479,465 square feet. The Applicant's proposal exceeds this
maximum and, therefore, a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment would be
required.
Applicant's Proposal:
The proposed Grafton Plaza project is located in
Area H of Dublin Ranch (please see Vicinity Map
above). The site is bounded by the south side of
Dublin Blvd., east of Grafton Station and north of
the area of the Water Quality Basin. The site is
currently vacant and relatively flat. The Water
Quality Basin is currently under construction and
the Dublin Boulevard Street Improvements are
constructed.
The Grafton Plaza site encompasses the Water
Quality Basin site for an overall site size of 24.46
acres. The Applicant is proposing the intensity of
development on the northern portion of the overall
site, or on 12.23 acres. The Master Development
Agreement for the Dublin Ranch area, which
includes this property, allows the development
potential on individual parcels, regardless of
whether a portion of a parcel is not developable
because it is to be used for wetlands or other
environmental mitigation.
The 12.23 acre Water Quality Basin site does not include any developed area in terms of buildings, only
at grade improvements for the water treatment facility which is environmental mitigation (this is not
considered "development"). Therefore, the gross development area encomp~sses both properties. As the
Water Quality Basin is utilized for environmental purposes the development intensity for the Water
Quality Basin parcel is added to the Grafton Plaza site for a net density available for development. The
maximum development potential of 479,465 square feet would be available, as noted above.
Page 3 of 13
The proposed Grafton Plaza development includes the following components:
Table 1: Project Proposal
Quadrant Number USE Dwelling Square Footage Number of Stories
Unit # (retail/office) (height unknown)
1 (SW Quadrant) Boutique Hotel, spa 100 Rooms 55,000 sq. ft. - 1 Building, 5 Stories
and sports club hotel square
footage unknown
Luxury Condos 20 Units 1 Building, 7 Stories
2 (NW Quadrant) Shopkeeper Units 24 Units 16,000 sq. ft. 2 Buildings, 19 and 16 Stories
Podium Flats 82 Units
Residential Flats 191 Units
3 (NE Quadrant) Live/W ork Units 13 Units 15,161 sq. ft. 2 Buildings, 5 and 21 Stories
Podium Flats 71 Units
Residential Flats 160 Units
4 (SE Quadrant) Class' A' Office 181,000 sq. ft. 2 Buildings, 8 and 20 Stories
Residential Flats 159 Units
Podium Flats 12 Units
Live/Work Units 17 Units 19,839 sq.ft.
TOTAL 749 287,000 sq. ft. Retail
Residential & Office plus a
Units tOO-Room Hotel
Building Massing:
The proposed building massing is depicted by the four quadrants of development as shown below.
SW Quadrant: Boutique
Hotel/Spa: 5 stories (4-story hotel over 1-
story spa and I-story parking)
.;
20 Luxury Condominiums: 7 stories (2-
story podium parking, 5-story condos)
Total Units: 20 condominiums.
...-
8uruJING Oi
..:
SW QUADRANT
Page 4 of 13
RESIDENIIAI
lOWER 4
NW QUADRANT
NE Quadrant: Podium Flats over 30
Live/Work units: "Tower 2" 21 Stories (5-story
podium parking edged with live work units, 16-
story residential units).
Total units: 160 residential flats, 13 live/work
and 71 podium flats.
RESIDENTIAL
rowEl<' I
SE QUADRANT
Page 5 of 13
NW Quadrant: Shopkeeper Units and
Residential Towers: "Tower 3" 19 stories (3-
story podium parking edged with shopkeeper
units and residential flats, 16-story residential
units), "Tower 4" 16 stories (3-story podium
parking, 13-story residential units)
Total units: 191 residential flats, 24
shopkeeper units and 82 podium flats.
PODIUM
HATS,
NE QUADRANT
SE Quadrant: Office building: 8 stories (3-
story parking podium wrapped with flats
over live work units, 5-story office building),
"Tower 1" 20 stories (3-story podium
parking, 17-story residential)
Totals: 159 residential flats, 17 live/work,
12 podium units and 181,000 SF of Office.
DISCUSSION:
Joint Planning Commission and City Council Study Session -August 14,2007
At the City Council/Planning Commission Joint Study Session on August 14,2007, the City Council and
Planning Commission heard from Staff and the Applicant and discussed the project (Attachments 4 and
5). At the meeting, the City Council and the Planning Commission indicated a willingness to look further
into the Applicant's proposed project. A General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
would be needed to accommodate the current proposal by the Applicant; therefore, the next step in the
process would be for the City Council to consider a request from Staff to move forward with a General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study based on the Applicant's proposal. There
currently is no General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use designation that would accommodate
the Applicant's proposal.
A variety of issues were brought up at the joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session of
August 14, 2007, including the location of the proposal, the mixture of uses, the height and massing,
density and intensity, affordable housing and parks and open space. While several of these issues may not
require a General Plan or Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Staff is seeking direction on two of
the issues: the mixture of land uses and building height/massing which may require General Plan or
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments.
Mixture of Land Uses:
The Campus Office land use designation is designed for the development of campus office buildings with
ancillary uses that support the campus office uses. Additionally, the. General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan does allow for the development of up to 50% of a project on Campus Office designated land
to be residential, provided that the City Council can make the required findings as noted later in the
report. The Applicant is proposing both a residential and a commercial/retail component as a part of the
project. If residential development and commercial/retail uses (that are not considered ancillary to a
Campus Office proposal) are included in the development, then the amount of office square footage
would be reduced.
Based on the information provided, this project would exceed the allowable development under the Mixed
Use Category of the EDSP, as noted earlier in this report. Under the Mixed Use Designation, residential
development is applied towards the overall development of the site by the use of the same measurement
tool that is used for commercial and office development, floor area ratio. Since this project exceeds the
development intensity of the Mixed Use Category of the EDSP, Staff seeks a clarification if floor area
ratio should be used to measure the residential portion of the proposed development.
Commercial/Retail:
The current land use designation for the site is Campus Office. The following list includes uses which are
allowed within the Campus Office Land Use designation:
· Professional and Administrative Offices
· Administrative Headquarters
· Research and Development
· Business and Commercial Services
· Limited Light Manufacturing, Assembly and Distribution Activities
Page 6 of 13
The Campus Office Land Use designation also allows ancillary uses which are defined as providing
services to businesses and employees in the Campus Office area. Ancillary uses typically serve the
Commercial Office development of the same project. Ancillary uses include the following:
· Restaurants
· Gas Stations
· Convenience Shopping
· Copying Services
· Branch Banks
The Applicant has proposed the following types of commercial/retail and office uses as a part of the
project: .
o Boutique Hotel
o Spa
o Sports Club
o Retail (not necessarily ancillary to campus office uses)
o Office
While some retail uses, as described above, may be appropriate as an ancillary use, a hotel, spa, and sports
club (which are included as a part of the Applicant's proposal) are not referenced as ancillary uses in the
Campus Office designation and generally, would not be permitted. The Stage One Zoning does allow a
Hotel as a conditionally allowed use. Typically, ancillary uses are considered a minor portion of an
overall campus office project.
The intent of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is to provide a balanced mix of uses that will create a
community that has a mix of jobs for all income levels as well as a diversified tax base. As noted above,
the Applicant is proposing 181,000 square feet of "Class A" office and approximately 106,000 square-feet
of other uses (retail, live-work and shopkeeper commercial/office space, hotel, spa and sports club).
The existing land use designation for a Campus Office Project would have provided for business-to-
business sales and possibly 1,917 jobs. While the (service oriented) hotel, spa, sports club, shop keeper
and live work units would create jobs, the jobs are different (office job vs. service jobs) than what is
found in a Campus Office environment. It will be necessary to analyze how this change affects the
existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Since several of the proposed uses are not
consistent with the Campus Office designation, a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment may be necessary.
Staff is asking the City Council for direction on whether or not:
1) Are the uses (not necessarily ancillary to a Campus Office land Use) that are proposed by
the Applicant appropriate for the site? If so, which are appropriate:
a. Hotel
b.Spa
c. Sports Club
2) Is the amount of Office square-footage appropriate? And
3) Are there any other uses that have not been proposed by the Applicant that should be
included as a part of the project?
Page 7 of 13
Residential:
The approved Stage One Development Plan for Area H states that residential uses may be considered for
Area H as long as the City Council can make certain findings of the Stage One Planned Development
Plan. These findings are stated in the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the original Area H
Development Plan. These findings are included below for review:
1. Established traffic levels of service are not exceeded. Appropriate traffic study(s) may be
required to make the proper determination regarding traffic level of service;
2. That the Project is consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan and does not result in
adverse environmental or service impacts; and
3. Residential uses may not occupy more than 50% of the developed area.
For this project, the Applicant is proposing a total of 749 residential units, including shopkeeper,
live/work, luxury condos and tower and podium flats.
Based on the number of residential units proposed within the Campus Office designation, a General Plan
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment may be necessary.
Staff is asking the City Council for direction on:
1) Are residential units appropriate on the site? Ifso, which types of units are appropriate:
a. Shopkeeper units?
b. Live/work units?
c. Luxury condos?
d. Tower flats?
e. Podium flats?
2) Should the building square footage of residential development be considered as part of the
maximum floor area ratio?
3) What percentage of the total building square footage on the site should be residential?
Building Height/Massing:
Building height limits are usually established during the Stage Two Planned Development (PO) Plan
process. Area H, which includes the proposed project site, does not have a Stage Two PD; therefore,
there are no applicable design concepts for this portion of Area H at this time. Furthermore, the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Tassajara Gateway Sub-Area (of which this proposed project is a part) encompasses
all property south of Dublin Boulevard east of Tassajara Road to the southerly extension of Keegan Street
which would also be the eastern boundary of Area H. The Tassajara Gateway Sub-Area includes policy
statements that promote a gateway effect with higher buildings (up to six stories in height) located at the
intersection of Tassajara and Dublin Boulevard.
Page 8 of 13
The following table illustrates the various height allowances for Specific Plans and the Commercial
. Zoning Districts in the City of Dublin.
TABLE 2: Existing Dublin Height Policies
Specific Plans* Zoning Districts
Downtown West BART Eastern Dublin EDSP: Transit C-t C-2 C-O
(EDSP) Center
Hei'ght 6-Stories or 8-Stories 6-Stories ** 1 O-stories**, 35-feet 45-feet 35-feet
75 feet transitioning to 6-
Limit stories at Dublin Blvd.
*The specific plans address building mass in terms of "stories" not building height.
** The EDSP provides for a maximum number of building stories at key intersections and at the transit center, otherwise the
plan is silent in relation to height or "stories,"
In a typical office building, generally floors can be between 12 to 20-feet per floor in height. For office
buildings, the first floor is always taller than the rest of the floors of the building. Residential buildings
typically have stories that are 10 to II-feet high.
Dublin's development, to-date, has primarily been characterized by lower buildings surrounded by
parking fields and landscaping with the exception of the height and massing of buildings adjacent to the
two BART stations which allow buildings up to 10-stories in height. The rationale for allowing the
increase of height around these two BART stations was that these areas should be an area for increased
density to capitalize on the proximity to BART.
The Applicant's proposal includes 4 buildings ranging from 5 to 21 stories from grade that include
parking facilities and residential units with no height specified. The proposal also includes an office
building with a height of 8-stories and the hotel building at 5-stories. Since the project is flat and
surrounding streets are existing (Dublin Boulevard) or under construction (Grafton Street), the proposed
buildings height would be considered to be from the existing grade on-site.
The scale of the proposed project would be different than the surrounding development. Staff has
provided several examples of projects within the community that range from 4- to 7-stories and/or 50- to
lOl-feet in height. The project examples include, the two BART Parking Garages currently under
construction (one located at the terminus of Golden Gate Drive and the second one located at the Transit
Center along 1-580); the Avalon Bay and Elan residential buildings located in Transit Center along Dublin
Boulevard; the Sybase office building located at the northwest comer of Dublin and Hacienda, Regal
Cinemas located at Hacienda Crossings at Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive, and the Terraces
residential buildings located on the north side of Dublin Boulevard, directly to the north of the proposed
project area. These are the tallest buildings that are built or under construction within the City of Dublin.
Page 9 of 13
: Ul mg elgJ s
Project Building Height # of Stories
(in feet)
Transit Center BART Parking Garage 68' 7
West Dublin BART Garage 472 5
Avalon - Residential 62 5
Elan - Residential 87.5 6
Terraces - Residential 50 4
Regal Cinemas (Hacienda Crossings) 833 n/a
Sybase - Office 101 6
Hypothetical 10 story residential
building (underground, surface or 1294 10
interior parking)
Hypothetical 10 story office building
(underground, surface or interior 1565 10
parking)
TABLE 3 B 'ld' H' ht
Tower Element is 30-feet higher than the bUlldmg.
2 Elevator shaft is II-feet higher than building.
3 Building architectural feature is II-feet higher than the building.
4Assumptions based on Elan.
5 Assumptions based on Sybase.
The following photographs are of the projects listed in the above table:
jTRANSIT CENT~R~' BAR .~..
i PARKING GARAGE
t. , '
f '
1':' !!!'!!
ELAN RESIDENTIAL
.. .. ..,.....'.,._^c""'c.._
Page 1 0 of 13
'.
A General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment may be necessary to accommodate the
proposed overall number of building stories or height.
Staff is asking the City Council for direction on the appropriate building height that would be
appropriate for this project, including:
1) Is the Proposed number of stories (5~21) as proposed by the Applicant appropriate?
2) .Would it be appropriate to Study a proposal with the overall building heights no higher than
the highest building within the community (Sybase at 101-feet)?
3) Would it be appropriate to Study a proposal with the overall building height no higher than
the highest number of stories allowed in any Plan, City-wide which would be 10-stories
(could be between 129' -156' high)? or
4) Provide other direction.
Other Issues ProposedforStudy:
Other issues were brought up at the joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session of August
14, 2007, but may not require a General Plan or Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment. Additional
study in the area of Affordable Housing, Parks/Open Space which would be reviewed and analyzed as a
part of the project if the City Council initiates the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment Study. If amendments to either Plan are required, those amendments will be brought forward
with the project.
CONCLUSION:
City policy requires that the City Council approve the initiation of any General Plan and/or Specific Plan
Ame~dment Study prior to Staff accepting a development application that would include a General Plan
and Specific Plan Amendment for a project.
The Applicant's proposal does not appear to be compatible with the Campus Office Land Use
Designation of either the General Plan or the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. In an effort to determine if the
mixture of uses are appropriate and what is appropriate for the building height/massing, Staff has outlined
the following seven questions to aid the City Council in the discussion of the project:
CommerciaVRetail:
1) Are the uses (not necessarily ancillary to a Campus Office land Use) that are proposed by
the Applicant appropriate for the site? If so, which are appropriate:
a. Hotel
b.Spa
c. Sports Club
2) Is the amount of Office square-footage appropriate? And
Page 11 of 13
3) Are there any other uses that have not been proposed by the Applicant that should be.
included as a part of the project?
Residential:
4) Are residential units appropriate on the site? If so, which types of units are appropriate:
a. Shopkeeper units?
b. Live/work units?
c. Luxury condos?
d. Tower flats?
e. Podium flats?
5) Should the building square footage of residential development be considered as part of the
maximum floor area ratio?
6) What percentage of the total building square footage on the site should be residential?
Building Height/Massing:
7) Is the Proposed number of stories (5-21) as proposed by the Applicant appropriate?
8) Would it be appropriate to Study a proposal with the overall building heights no higher than
the highest building within the community (Sybase at 101-feet)?
9) Would it be appropriate to Study a proposal with the overall building height no higher than
the highest number of stories allowed in any Plan, City-wide which would be 10-stories
(could be between 129' -156' high)? or
(
10) Provide other direction.
As a follow-up to the discussion of the above questions, Staff has prepared three alternative Resolutions
for the City Council's review.
Resolution Alternatives:
The first Resolution allows the City Council to determine: 1) what mixture of commercial/retail uses are
appropriate; 2) how many and what types of residential units are appropriate; and 3) the appropriate
building height for the project. Based on City Council direction, page I of this Resolution (Attachment I)
includes three bolded statements regarding the commercial/retail land use mixture, residential units and
building height. If the City Council determines a certain land use mixture for commercial/retail,
residential and/or appropriate building height, Staff will include this information as a part of this
Resolution for the Study of the project.
The other two Resolutions are straight-forward and either allow or deny the Study of the Applicant's
proposal, as submitted.
The three Alternative Resolutions for the City Council consideration include:
.
A Resolution to approve the Study of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment, including direction from the City Council as to the appropriate mixture of land uses
and the appropriate building height range (Attachment I); or
Page 12 of 13
· A Resolution to approve the Study of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin. Specific Plan
Amendment for the project as proposed by the Applicant (Attachment 2); or
· A Resolution to deny the project request (Attachment 3).
If the City Council authorizes the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment, Staff will:
1.
2.
3.
Determine the appropriate land use designation;
Determine the appropriate environmental review;
Prepare a Voluntary Development Agreement if General Plan Amendment is
required; and
Analyze all project issues including, but not limited to, building height, affordable
housing, Parks/Open Space, the loss of Campus Office designated lands and any
other additional direction given by the City Council.
4.
Initiating or not initiating a General Plan Amendment Study is totally within the discretion of the City
Council. If the City Council initiates the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Study, the project
will come before the Planning Commission and the City Council for a General Plan and Specific Plan
Amendment, PD - Planned Development Rezone with Stage I and potentially Stage 2 Development Plan,
Development Agreement and other entitlements, as needed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: I) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Receive presentation from
Applicant; 3) Receive public comment; and 4) Adopt a Resolution to approve the Initiation of a General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study, including direction from the City Council as to
the appropriate mixture of land uses and the appropriate building height range (Attachment I); or 5)
Adopt a Resolution to approve the Initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment Study for the project as proposed by the Applicant (Attachment 2); or 6) Adopt a Resolution
to deny the project request (Attachment 3).
Page 13 of 13
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 07
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
** * * ** ** ** ** * * * **** * * ** * ** * * * * ** * * * * * * * *
i~6
APPROVING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY WITH DIRECTION
FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT TO BE STUDIED FOR THE PROPERTY
COMMONLY KNOWN AS GRAFTON PLAZA, A PORTION OF
DUBLIN RANCH AREA H
WHEREAS, Stanforth Holding Company,. LLC has submitted a request to consider an
amendment to the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to allow for development
of a Mixed Use project consisting of a 100 room Hotel, Day Spa/Sports Club and associated Retail uses,
181,000 square foot Class A Office Building and 749 Residential Units consisting of24 Shopkeeper units,
30 Live/work Units, 20 Luxury Condominiums and 675 Tower and Podium Flats in a series of buildings
ranging between 8 and 21 stories on land designated as Campus Office within a portion of Dublin Ranch
Area H located at the southwest comer of Dublin Boulevard and Grafton Street; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a joint study. session on the project with the Planning
Commission on August 14,2007, to discuss the proposed Grafton Plaza project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public meeting on November 6, 2007, to discuss whether to
proceed with the Initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Plan Amendment Study for the project; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was prepared presenting three alternative resolutions, one of which
would approve the initiation of the Study, with modifications to the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council after reviewing the Staff Report, receiving public testimony and
deliberating, determined that the Gen~ral Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Study should be initiated,
within certain parameters as follows:
A. Commercial/Retail
The mixtures of uses ofthe proposed project can include...
B. Residential
The project can include...
C. Building Height/Massing
The height of the proposed project...
WHEREAS, .the City Council desires to explore what community benefit this project would
include and therefore has requested that a voluntary Development Agreement be part of the application;
and
WHEREAS, the initiation request has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt under Section
15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines for basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation
activiti~s; and
II -~~o 7 "B . z..,
ATT ACHMENT 1
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all snch reports, recornmendationr ~ l.f~
testimony hereinabove set forth, and supports the ihitiationof a General Plan Amendment and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study within the parameters identified above.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby approve the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study for
the site within the parameters identified above along with a Voluntary Develppment Agreement.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin on this 6th
day of November 2007, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Mayor
. City Clerk
"'
G:\PA#\2007\07-006 The Plaza\CC Mtg 11.6.07\CC reso Approval GPA-SPA Initiation with Modifications MJW.doc
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 07
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * ** * * ** * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * ** * ** ** ** * * * ** **
3r1/) 6
APPROVING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND EASTERN
DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY FOR THE PROPERTY COMMONLY
. KNOWN AS GRAFTON PLAZA, A PORTION OF DUBLIN RANCH AREA H
WHEREAS, Stanforth Holding Company, LLC has submitted a request to consider an
amendment to the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to allow for development
of a Mixed Use project consisting of a 100 room Hotel, Day Spa/Sports Club and associated Retail uses,
181,000 square foot Class A Office BUIlding and 749 Residential Units consisting of24 Shopkeeper units,
30 Live/work Units, 20 Luxury Condominiums and 675 Tower and Podium Flats in a series of buildings
ranging between 8 and 21 stories on land designated as Campus Office within a portion of Dublin Ranch
Area H located at the southwest comer of Dublin Bouh~vard and Grafton Street; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a joint study session on the project with the Planning
Commission on August 14,2007, to discuss the proposed Grafton Plaza project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public meeting on November 6,2007, to. discuss whether to
proceed with the Initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Plan Amendment Study for the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to explore what community benefit this project would
include and therefore has requested that a voluntary Development Agreement be part of the application;
and ·
WHEREAS, the initiation request has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt under Section
15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines for basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation
activities; and
WHEREAS, a staff report was submitted outlining the issues surrounding the request; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all such reports, recommendations, and
testimony hereinabove set forth, and supports the initiation of a General Plan Amendment. and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby approve the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study for
the site and Voluntary Development Agreement.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY the City CouncifoftheCity of Dublin on this 6th
day of November 2007, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
G:\PA#\2007107~006 The PlazalCC Mtg Il.6.07\CC reso Approval GPA-SPA Initiationjr.doc
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 07
46b ~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
DENYING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND EASTERN
DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY FOR THE PROPERTY COMMONAL Y
KNOWN AS GRAFTON PLAZA, A PORTION OF DUBLIN RANCH AREA H
WHEREAS, Stanforth Holding Company, LLC has submitted a request to consider an
amendment to the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to allow for development
of a Mixed Use project consisting of a 100 room Hotel, Day Spa/Sports Club and associated Retail uses,
181,000 square foot Class A Office Building and 749 Residential Units consisting of24 Shopkeeper units,
30 Live/work Units, 20 Luxury Condominiums and 675 Tower and Podium Flats in a series of buildings
ranging between 8 and 21 stories on land designated as Campus Office within a portion of Dublin Ranch
Area H located at the southwest comer of Dublin Boulevard and Grafton Street; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a joint study session .on the project with the Planning
Commission on August 14,2007, to discuss the proposed Grafton Plaza project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Staff Report and heard public testimony at the City
Council meeting of November 6,2007 and was concerned with the overall scope ofthe project; and
WHEREAS, the initiation request has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt under Section
15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines for basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation
activities; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted outlining the issues surrounding the request; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all such reports, recommendations, and
testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Bublin does
hereby deny the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin on this 6th
day of November 2007, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:IPA#\2007\07-006 The PlazalCC Mtg II.6.07\CC Reso Denial GPA-SPA Initiation the Plazajr.doc
ATTACHMENT 3
CITY CLERK
File # [][Q]..~
5t Lf6
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
MEETING DATE: August 14, 2007 5:00 p.m.
SUBJECT:
STUDY SESSION: Grafton Plaza, a multi-story mixed use
development located in Area H, Dublin Ranch including 4 low to
mid'-rise podium buildings, 3 residential towers combined with
office uses, shopkeeper and liveh.york units, luxury condominiums,
a bouti<lue hotel, day spa an4 associated open space recreation
areas and parking, proposed by the Un family (P A 07-006).
Report PreparedbyA1ichael Porto, Project Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Applicant's Project Description.
Eastem Dublin Specif1c Plan - Residential Uses Permitted.
))
/l cl2)
! , l)\M
ifECOMMENDATIO~\ 1)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background
The Eastem Dublin Specif1c Plan (Figure 1) was adopted by the City of Dublin in January of 1994, and
established land use designations for approximately 3,300 acres of land east of the Camp Parks Military
Reserve. A large component of the plan (Dublin Ranch) was annexed to the City in 1995, including 1,037
acrcs owned by the Jennifer Lin Family and 304 acres O\vncd by Pao Un. The Pao Lin property
comprised planning Areas F, G and H of Dublin Ranch.
Receive Staff presentation and provide direction.
Figure 4.1
land Use Map
r:'~~~:::::::.~~~'-==-l
i
!
~ ."~...im' ,
Figure I: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Map
COPIES TO: Applicant
Property O\.vner
File
~ _ _ud
Page 1 of 14
(;:,p Aif\200T07-006 The PJaza\FJnal Study Session Plaza 8-8.doc
Attachment 4
Upon annexation, theltll.. 46
Dublin Ranch properties-U
were prezoned to a
Planned Development
overlay zone. A portion
of Area II (Figure 2) is
the subject of this
application. Dublin
Ranch Area H IS
bordered by the
extension of Dublin
Boulevard. on the north.
Area C of Dublin Ranch
to the east, I-580 on the
south and property of the
Dublin Land Company (Dirvlanto) to the west. Area H is approximately 70.8 acres (including the Dublin
B{}Ulevard right of way) in size (Figure 3). This area has two land use designations; General Commercial
and Campus Office. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designated 35.9 acres as General Commercial and
36.7 acres as Campus Office
Between 2005 and 2007, several Parcel Maps have heen processed t<Jf Area H which created the
f()llowing sites which exist today and are shown on Figure 3 below:
Figurc 2: Arcas F, G, H
1.
12.2 acres
16.0 acres
12.2 acres
11.1 acres
2.8 acres
12.2 acres
1. 0 acres
\Vatcr Quality Basin
Future Kaiser Hospital Parcel
Lowes Home ImprovementW archouse
Grafton Station Retail Pads A-C2
Grafton Station Retail Pads D-E
Graton Plaza
Grafton Street Right-of-Way
")
..,
-) .
4.
5.
6.
Figure 3: Area H
In February 2000, the City Council rcviewed and approved a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendment (GP and EDS!>) and Stage 1 Planned Development Rezone for Area H, to increase the
2 of 14
acreage to 43.9 acres designated as Campus Office and reduce the acreage of General Commercial to 16.4
acres. The rem. aining 10..5 acres 1...5 de.s. ignated.as e.i.ther...GeneraI C.olllJ.l1ercial or Ca.mp.us Office. If the 1 o.5...1i5U-t~
acres were to be developed, the amendment required that the entire 10.5 acres either be General U
Commercial or Campus OfTice, not f1 combination of both land use designations.
.r.he GP/EDSP amendment allows the flexibility to develop Campus Office uses on land designated Il.)r
General Commercial uses pL1rsuant to a Planned Development Stage 2 Rezoning! Development Plan
application.
In addition, the amendments included that the midpoint of the density [(lnge of the floor area ratio (FAR)
for Campus Office uses would be increased from 0.35 in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to 0.45. The
proposed increase is consistent with the maximum of the range of 0.60 FAR allowed in the General Plan.
.This allowed the flexibility to exceed 0.45 FAR for some parcels; however, the amendment proposed that
average FARs for all Campus Office (CO) parcels would not exceed 0.45 FAR
Based on the above described amendment, the maximum development of Area II with both General
Commercial and Campus Office uses was capped at 1,244,945 square feet.
Under certain circumstances, the Eastcrn Dublin Specific Plan allows for mixcd use developments
including residential uscs within areas designated for General Commercial and Campus Office uses. The
Stage I Development Plan states that residential uses may be considered for Area II as long as certain
findings of the Stage I Planned Development Plan are met. These findings are stated in the original Area
H Development Plan and included for your review below: 'J
1. Established traffic levels of servicc are not exceeded. Appropriate traffic study(s) may be
required to make the proper detennination regarding traffic level of service; and
2. That the Project is consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan and docs not result in
adverse environmental or service impacts; and
3. Residential uses may not occupy more than 50% orthe developed area.
Existing ,f)'ite COItditions and Uses for Area H
Since the GP/EDSP A.mendment and Stage 1 Planned Development Rezone approval in February, 2000,
several subsequent actions have occurred on Area H. On October of 2005, The City Council approved a
Stage 2 Phlnned Development Plan and Site Development Review for the development of a Storm Water
Quality Control Basin to be located adjacent to 1-580 at the approximate geographic center of the
property. The 11.13 acre site is currently in the process of being developed into a state of the art regional
w~lter quaIity control device.
The City Council, at the meeting of August 15, 2006, approved a Stage 1 Planned Development
Amendment and a Stage 2 Planned Development Plan along with a CEQA Addendum for development of
the Grafton Station retail shopping center. This action also served to create the necessary zoning for the
development of the Lowes Home Improvement Center previously approved through a Site Development
Review application by the Planning Commission 011 July 25, 2006. This action served to create
development standards for the 12.24 acre Lowes site and the future 11.11 acre Grafton. Station retail site
and Parcel 3 (2.85 acres for future restaurant uses) located on the westerly edge oJ Area H.
Lastly, the Planning Comrnission, at the meeting of March 27, 2007, approved a Conditional Use Penuit
for a :Minor Amendment to the Stage 2 Planned Development Plan and a Site Development Review for
the four proposed retail buildings to be located on the northwesterly portion of Area H known as Grafton
Station.
3 of 14
Propo.'.;al
The proposed GraltOIY Plaza project is located in Area H of Dublin Ranch.
The site is bounded bv the south side of Dublin Blvd., east of Grafton
, .
Station and north of the area of the Water Quality Pond. The site is
currently vacant and relatively flat Dublin Boulevard street
improvements were constructed and a signiJlcant amount of till material
was brought to the site to raise the property from the flood plain and to
create a flat area f()r the construction of the Water Quality Pond.
The site size is approximately 12.23 acres in size, excluding the Water
Quality Pond and 25.20 acres w.hen the land m'ea of the Water Quality
pond is included.
Figure 4: Project Site
I'he General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Land Use designations 1(.)1' the
property are both Campus Office (CO) and
General Commercial (GC). As indicated
above, a Stage 1 Planned Development
Zoning was approved far Area H in 2000.
Fil.!ure 5: Grafton Plaza
The proposed development includes the f()lIowing components:
Table I: Proposed Development
Spa "t"' Retail Sports Club
Class 'A' Office
Shopkeeper Units
24 Units
30 Units
Luxury Condos
20 Units
Tower & Podium Flats
675 Units
TOTAL
749
Residential [i nits
211.000 Retail & office
square feet and 100
room hotel
Buildingl\bssing:
Figure 6
q~lf~
S\V Quadrant: Boutique Hotel/Spa; 6 stories
(4 hotel; I spa; and 1 parking level). Luxury
Condominiums: 7 stories (2 podium parking;
and 5 condos).
Total units: 20 luxury condominiums + toO
hotel rooms
N\V Quadrant:Shopkeeper Units and Residential
Towers: "Tower 3" 19 stories (3 podium parking
cdged\Nith shopkeeper units and residential single
story units (flats), 16 levels of residential units),
"Tower 4"16 stories (3 podium parking, and 13
levels of residential units). Shopkeeper units are
residential uni Is that also allow tl1r an area set
aside t<)r commercial/retail use, This provides for
. an atmosphere that creates 1110re pedestrian
activity. In addition, it allows tor a type of
residential unit that is different and does not
currently exist in Dublin.
Total units: 1 ()l + 24 shopkeeper units
Fi<yure 8
b
5 of 14
Figure 7
NE Quadrant: Podium Flats over 30
Live/Work units (Live/Work units arc
residential units that include a separate area
for office or other uses that typically have
little or no outside traffic to the home). This
type of residential ~l11it has been approved,
but not yet built at the Groves ttt Dubli11
Ranch: "Tower 2" 21 Stories (5 podium
parking levels edged with live work units, 16
levels of residential units)
T otai. units: 160 + 30 Jive/\vork units.
Figure 9
ID U()l,f~ .
SE Quadrant: Office building: 8
stories (3 parking podium levels
wrapped with flats over live-work
units; 5 oHice), "To\ver 1" 20 stories
(3 podium parking levels, 17
residentiallevcls)
Totals: 188 units + 181~OOO SF of
Office use.
This Staff Report has been prepared to provide information to the City Council and Planning Commission
le)r the joint Study Session, Because the project \~ould require an amendment to the Planned Development
zoni~lg for Area H, and potentif~l1y ?encr~l ~~dl.Specific Plan ame~dments (aItho,ugh f~rther ar~aJysis i.5
reqUlred to make such a deternll1latlOn), StaH \\fIll not commencelomJal processmg ot the project until
the City Council authorizes Staff to proceed with the project. Because of the complexity of the project,
however, Staff and the Applicant dctennined'hat a concept-based joint study session was the most
appropriate manner in which to proceed. The Study Session is an opportunity for the City Council and
Planning Commission (and the public) to disCllS~ whether the project concept is one that should be further
studied and, if so, what particular aspects of n+ project concept should be altered or further explored.
Staff proposes to make a brief presentation regarding the proposal, and the Applicant will also make a
brief presentation regarding the merits of the pn~posaL Staff and the Applicant \\'ill then be available to
answer questions about the project. Input froml the City Council and Planning Commission on several
important discussion topics (listed below) willi aid Staff and the Applicant with the ultimate project
review, if Staff is directed to move tonvard with the Applicant's request
DISCUSSION TOPICS:
Staff and the Applicant desire input on the 6:JIlO\ving issues, each of.which is discussed in more detail in
the sections that j()lIow: .
l\I Location/Mixed Use
. Height/Massing
. Density/Intensity
It Aftordable Housing
It Parks/Open Space
Appropriateness ofthe Location/Mixed Use: I
I
The project site is bounded by Dublin Boulevard to the nOlih, 1-580 to the south, the future Kaiser
development area to the east and the recently a~~proved Lowes/Grafton Station development to the west.
~j of 14
I
I
I
The site is gcogra!)hicallv located mid-wav betteen Fallon Road and Tassajara Road. The extension of
~ ~" -' - I '
Gra,ftC,)n Street fCmns,th,e p"rojcct sites "vestern boLindary. Thc approved Water Quality Pond is 10catedl\"1.~G'
between the development site and 1-580, I U
Most of the l;md uses south of Dublin Boulevard in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan boundary area arc
comprised of General Commercial, Campus IOffice or Industrial Park land uses, The Applicant is
proposing to introduce a mixed use concept of land uses that would include limited commercial uses as
support to the proposed rcsidential and office development. The residential development would be
comprised of several different types; standard condominiunl flats, luxury condominiums, live/work units
and shopkeeper units. Additionally, campus office development, a boutique hotel, day spa and restaurant
are also proposed on land that was proposed and approved for Campus Office development.
Directly across Dublin Boulevard from the site is the proposed "Promenade", a retail shopping street
comprised of small shops, restaurants and activity centers proposed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to
become the "Town Center" area for the eastem portion of Dublin, including Dublin Ranch. Also, directly
across from the site are the Terraces condominiums. The TCITaces dcvelopment includes 636 high density
condominiums clustered around interiorly oriented central courtyards/open space. The density of this
development is 60 dwelling units to the acre. The Terraces buildings present a Jour-story frbnt facade to
Dublin Boulevard with some entry doors facing Dublin Boulevard. Approximately half of this project is
still under construction.
A12m:'QPd?Jf.1]~~.~U!.f the location
The proposed project would place residential development south of Dublin Boulevard, a six lane arterial
street, in an area that is not adjacent a BART station. To the north of the project is the planned town
center (the Promenade). City parks with children's play areas and schools are also located across Dublin
Boulevard and through the Terraces. Residents of the Plaza project would need to cross Dublin
Boulevard to access the town center arca and parks.
Mi~~g..11..0.t;~.
The project proposes a mixed use development of several types of residential units, retail/commercial
uses, an oHice building and a hotel with day spa. The project site is divided into 4 quadrants with four
tower elements ranging between 6 (md 21 stories. Most of thc towcrs arc constructed over podium
. parking structures. The podium is ringed \vith live/work, shopkeeper and residential flats to hide the
parking structures and to "activate" the streets. The preliminary concepts indicate that recreation
<Ul1enities, including pools and gardens, are located on the top floors of the podium stl11ctures Jor the
residents of the project.
Jobs/Housing B;:1Jn.nQ..~:'
Part of the foundation of the EDSP was to try <Uld achieve a jobslhollsing balance. It was anticipated that
most of the housing in the Plan area would be north of Dublin Boulevard and the job ccnters would be
south of Dublin Boulevard, adjacent 1-580. At present, much of the housing in Duhlin Ranch has been
developed, but no job centers have been completed. This proposed project includes 181,000 square feet
of campus office, 30,000 square feet of spa and a hotel on 12.23 acres. However, the Plan allows for
239,000 square feet of campus office at a mid range calculation. This project would reduce the amount of
Campus Office by 58,732 square feet and increase the residential unit count in the Plan area by 749.
Appropriate mix of use
The Applicant has proposed an extensive range of uses including;
· 181,000 square feet of commercial oft1ce development
III 100 room boutique hotel with a day spa and restaurant
. 4 eli fferent types of residential units:
7 of 14
() condominium flats
u luxury condominiums
() live/work units
\2~~
o shopkeeper units
Do the Cit}. ('ouncil ClIzdPlanning CommissionJ(.'el thai:
.. The site is the appropriate location for a nu~\'ed use residential/commercial/o.flice
development?
41) nIL: development is appropriatef(.J}' Campus qfflce designated land?
.. The mixture of uses is 5il!lficient~v balanr.:ed?
. A reduction in the nurnber otjobs and a change in ajob center area is appropriate?
.. 5,'pec(fic uses (retail, residential, office. commercial, ete.)
elirninated/redueed?
should he added or
Height/Massing:
One of the central issues that StafI is recommending the City Council and Planning Commission discuss
is the height and massing of the proposed Project Dublin's development to date has primarily been
characterized by lower buildings surrounded by parking fields and landscaping. The City Council has
made policy decisions t() increase the height and massing of buildings adjacent the two BART stations,
The table belm.\' illustrates the current policies regarding height:
Table 2: l-leight Policies
Do"ntown \V cst Eastern Eastern C-1 Zoning C-2 Zoning c-o
Specific BART Dublin Dublin I>istrict District Zoning
Plan Area Specific S(Jecitlc Specific District
Plan Area I'lan Arca Plan Area
Transit
! Center
----.--.......-.........-.. - , .-.....--...............-. ; .-.-."."....",- -.""...
Height 6-Stories 8-Stories 6-Storie5 10-stories. 35-feet 45-fcct 35-feet
Limits (or 75 feet) I transitioning l
; 6-s1ories l
__L_ to
at Dublin
Blvd.
>--__m.....'..".."._..w ........... m.."..._...m._'" .....-.---
The rationale f()!' allowing for the increased height at the transit centers at the two BART stations was that
this area should be an area for increased density to capitalize on the proximity to BART. In addition, it
was important that views through the site to the hills and Dublin be preserved, In addition, when the
increased height was approved at the East Dublin BART station it was noted that one of the reasons was
to increas'e tbe amount of affordable housing that \vould be available in this location. It should be noted
that the proposed project site is not close to BART nor arc the Applicants proposing to provide any
aff()rdable housing.
Building height limits are usually established during the Stage 2 Planned Development (PD) Plan process.
/\rea H, the proposed project site, does not have a Stage 2 PO; therefore, there are no applicable design
concepts for this portion of Area H at this time.
8 of 14
\3'bt1~
The Avplicant's prop()sal IS
conceptual: however, the
drawings indicate that tbe plan
is to try and reduce the massing
at Dublin Bl vel. by stepping up
tbe height. from 5 stories at
Dublin Blvd to the higher
towers. In some instances the
massing along Dublin
Boulevard would begin to step
away from Dublin Boulevard at
the tbird Hoor. The project is
ringed by shopkeeper units or
live/work units which would
provide a human scale to the
adjacent sidewalk. HO\vever,
the height of the towers would
likely be visible from. many
areas in Dublin.
-l'here are three tower elements as a part ofthe project.
.. Tower I is proposed to be 19 stories (3 stories of podium parking \vith 17 floors of residential
development above).
.. Tower 2 proposed to be 21 stories (5 stories of podium parking edged with Live/work units
and 16 stories of residential development above).
.. Towcr 3 is proposed to bc 19 stories (3 levels of podium parking edged with shopkeepcr units
and residential f1ats with 16 stories of residential units above).
.. Tower 4 which is proposed to be 16 stories is comprised of 3 levels of podium parking ringed
with live/work units and 161100rs or residential units above.
.. Boutique hotel and spa arc proposed to be 5 stories with subterranean parking.
.. Luxury condominium tower is proposed to be 7 stories.
.. The office building is proposed to be 5 stories of office over one Hoor of residential flats and
two Hoors of live/work units (a total. of 8 stories with 2 stories of subterranean parking below
grade).
9 of 14
When the City Council and Planning Commission consider the Project, itis important to consider that'this
project will be of a different scale than the surrounding development. Consider the photographs below. l4~"l;
The two photographs show the TelTaces project, \vhich is across Dublin Boulevard from the proposed -lJ
Project and Dublin Gateway one of the newest office projects in the City. The next photographs show
projects of similar scale (21 stories) to the proposed Project. From an urban design perspective, one could
say that this project would either be out of scale with the existing development or. create a urban design
shilL
The Terraces
Detroit rvfl.
Gale\vayMedical Center
San Jacinto Center, Austin, TX
Landscape Setback Adjacent to Dublin Blvd.
'rhe proposed setback along Dublin Boulevard and the other surrounding streets, in relation to this project,
is currently unknown. Existing high density projects fronting Dublin Boulevard have setbacks that vary
between 15 and 20 feet to the structures with a minimum 5 foot landscape area. Generally speaking,
smaller setbacks and landscape areas do not create much of a buffer f{)r either pedestrians or automobiles
to the building. A larger landscape setback would be more in scale \\lith the size of the building and help
to reduce the impact of the size on Dublin Boulev,ard.
10 of 14
~~jew CorridS:.'TIi
While the project is conceptual, it is impOl1ant to note that Staff has not been provided adequate
information to address the possible impact on the view shed from 1-580 or other parts of Dublin. The
EDSP policies are that views into the site and to the hills beyond should be protected by not developing a
\vaLl of buildings along 1-580. Should this project go forward, the project would need to be designed to
ensure these policies are followed.
In addition to this general EDSP policy, there are also specific view corridor requirements. The view
corridor requirements of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan indicate II.\'? poinls of reference. One is at the
'rassajara over-crossing of 1-580 looking 1101iheasterly and the second one at the Fallon over-crossing of 1-
580 looking northwesterly. The view cones from these two required vantage points do not intersect with
this proposed development.
1igbJ. Shade. ShadQy.Y_......Glare and Wind
j 56[)#
Undoubtedly a project incorporating buildings of the height and mass proposed will create impacts.
Prirnarily issues of shade and shadow need to be considered as well as potential glare from the structures
themselves. The architecture shown in the Applicant's packet is conceptual. Actual architecture is not
proposed at this time. Design parameters can be fommlaled for the actual architectural designs as a part of
the Stage 2 Planned Development. A Site Development Review can then address these issues building on
the architectural guidelines in the Stage 2 Planned Development Plan in the future. The Applicant has
oriented the structures so that their short sides face the existing developments in Dublin. therefbre,
reducing the impact of the towers. Unique micro-climates can be created in open area.s, especially given
the ,vinds in Dublin_ The,wind impact will nced to be addressed.
Do the City Council and Planning Commissionf(:el that:
. The proposed pN~ject height and Inassing is the appropriate .ff);' Dublin and this location in
particular?
.. The scale q{"the structures (lc(jacelll to Dublin Boulevard and the interior streets in relation to
height is appropriate?
. The landscape setback should be studied to ensure that it is commensuratevl'ith the size (~/ the
building to offset the impact q(the building on the street?
. n,C orientation of'the tower elements WOrkk'i with the proposal and the visual impacts to the
e:x;isring community?
Hensity/lntensity:
As the Project is a mixed use one. it creatcs a number of complex issues relative to measuring the
pennitted density. Typically, as the EDSP does, non-residential development .density is regulated by
rninimum and maximum floor area ratios, and residential development density is regulated by units per
acre. Where residential uses are introduced into non-residentially designated land, it creates.a number of
difficulties that Staff and the App1icant have been inhmnally discussing and attempting to resolve. Rather
than asking the City Council to resolve those issues. at the outset, which \\iould have required a substantial
amount of Staff analysis. Staff determined that it would be most efficient to have the City Council cUld
Planning Commission look at the density of the Project in the abstract and as a concept..
Iril.Cfi9..1I.)l pac~
The Easlcm Dublin Specific Plan allows 50(l~) of the developed arca to be utilized for residential
development and further states that a decrease of traffic impacts t(Jr mixed-use projects is a necessary
I I of 14
finding f{)r allowing it. ft would, thcret(m~, seem appropriate that a traffic study be conducted that
analyzed the proposed project against the existing traffic analysis tix the Eastern Dublin Specilic Plan. A 4(
determination ~an the.n be made as t.o project ~1~lpacts on ,the adj:lCent street~. TI~e Eastern Dublin Speciflc \tt> q)
Plan and assocIated EIR assumed Campus OUlce uses, rheretore, the retml offIce components would be
expected to generate certain levels of traffic. H()\vever, residential units were not analyzed.
Do the City Council and Planning Commissionfeel that:
. 'lhe proposed number 0/ residential units coupled with the other non-residential use,,; in the:.'
Project in the cOI?figuration proposed by the applicant. are appropriate?
o The vertical placement of the residential uni IS in 16 to 21 stmy tmvers is preferable to the
{>ypical horizontal layout now experienced in Dublin?
Affordable Housing:
Pfhe Applicant has not proposed any affordable housing for the site. Section 8.68.030A of the City of
Dublin Zoning Ordinance, under "General Requirements", states that any development over 20 units
"shall construct l2.5(Vo of the total number of dwelling units within the development as affordable units,
except as otherwise provided by the Chapter". Applicants can pay in-lieu fees to satisfy a portion of this
obligation, but at least 7.5% of the units in a project must be af[(mlable units. However, Section 8.68.040
allows the City Council to consider exceptions such ;:IS building a portion ofthe required units and paying
fees lor the remainder of the required units, construction of affordable units either partially or totally off-
site, dedicating land to a City-designated local non-profit in-lieu of construction of all or a portion of the
units, credit transfers and lastly the Council may waive wholly or partially the requirements of the
Ordinance if it can be determined that alternate methods meet the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Applicant will either have to comply with the lnclusionary Zoning Regulations by some combination
of constructing units and paying fees or proposing an altemate method of compliance.
Do the Ci(y Council and Planning Commission/eel that:
" IUrordable units should he includedvvithin the Project. or
. An alternate ntethod of compliance ivould be appropriate?
Parks/Open Space:
.rheApplicant is not proposing any publicly dedicated park land or open space in this project. This will
increase the City's parkland deficit.
The approved land use fix the site is Campus Office. Park land dedication is generally associated with
residential development. There \vas no residential development proposed flJf this site. ]'heref{)re, park
land has not been set aside for this site. The City of Dublin Parkland Dedication Ordinance sets a parkland
standard of 5.0 acres of park land for each 1,000 in population. The development of residential units on
this property would create the need for additional parkland since the additional population would reduce
the number of acres per thousand in population. Even if the Applicant does not or is not required to
dedicate park land as part of the Project, the Applicant would be required to pay fees in-lieu of dedication.
Does the Cit)' Council and Planning Commission/ice/that:
. Additional parkland, commensurate with the number oj'residential units. should be provided
on-site or ofl-site?
. Alternatives. to provide parkland. be negotiated through the development revie\v process as
appropriate?
12 of 14
PUBLIC NOTICE: 11i~~
Public noticing l~)r this project was expanded to include a broader radius than required and a ~:; page
public hearing notict>in the Tri-V;tlley Herald.
NEXT STEPS:
Based on the direction gathered at the Study Session, Staff\vill proceed with analyzing the appropriate
processing path necessary to move this proposal further. It is anticipated that Staff will bring this project
before the City Council sh01tly f()r direction regarding further processing, including potentially
establishing processing a priority level and potentially authorizing a General Plan and Specific Plan
Amendment Study.
If this project does go fOf\vard StafT will need to do a fiscal impact analysis to determine if the findings in
the EDSP can be made regarding fiscal neutrality. In addition, as a result of some of the requests by the
Applicant for special consideration, a voluntary development agreement vvould be appropriate.
CONCLUSIONS:
l'he Applicant has made a proposal for a significant development on a portion of land within Area H of
Dublin Ranch. It is important to get direction from the Planning Commission and the City Council with
respect to their desires when considering a project ofthis nature. Staff has restated the questions under the
various headings above for your consideration.
Location/Mixed Use
Do the City Council and Planning Commissionfi:!el that:
.. The site is the appropriate location for a mixed use residential/commercial/office
development?
.. The development is appropriate for Campus Q{1lce designated land?
.. The mixture o(uses is sl({1lciently balanced?
. A reduction in the number (~fiobs and a change in ajob center area is appropriate?
.. Specific uses should be added or eliminated/reduced?
Height/Massing
Do the Ci~y Council and Planning Commis5;ionfeel that:
o The {.If'oposed project heighl and massing is the appropriate for Dublin and this location in
particular? .
. lIle scale ()f the structures Cl({jacent to Dublin Boulevard and the interior streets in relation to
height is appropriate?
. 111e lands'cape setback should be studied to ensure that it is commensurate with the size (;Ohe
building to ofFset the inlpact olthe building on the street?
. The orientation of the totver elemems lvorks H.uh the proposal and the visual impacts to the
exLvting comnumity?
13 of 14
Density/Intensity
Do the ('ity Council and Planning Commissionjc.'el that.'
l1>Jb L6
. The proposed number 0/ residential units coupled with the other non-residential uses in the
Project in the configuration proposed by rhe applicant. are appropriate?
. . 71u.' vertical placement of. the residential units in 16 to 21 storr tov...ers is preferable 10 the
Ivpical horizontal layout neHV e...tperienced in Dublin?
Affordable Housing
Do the City Council and Planning Commission/eel that:
.. Affordable units should be included lvithin the Pn~ject?
. An alternate method (?( compliance would be appropriate?
Parks/Open Space
Does rhe City Council and Planning Commission feel that:
. Additional parkland. commensurate lvith the number olresic/ential units... should be provided
on-site or (?!l:"site?
. Alternatives to provide parkland. be negotiated through the development review process as
appropriate?
RECOlVIMENDATION:
Receive Staff presentation and provide direction.
14 of 14
ltt Db6'
Minutes of the City Council
of the City of Dublin
SPECIAL :MEETING - August 14. 2007
A special j oint meeting of the Dublin City Council and Planning Commission was held on
Tuesday, August 14,2007, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The
meeting was called to order at 5 :00 p.m., by Mayor Lockhart.
.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Council members Hildenbrand, Oravetz, Sbranti and Scholz, and Mayor
Lockhart.
Planning Commissioners Biddle, King, Wehrenberg and Chair Schaub
ABSENT: Commissioner Tomlinson.
............
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited by the Council, Commission, Staff and
those present.
GRAFTON PLAZA
5 :00 p.m.
Mayor Lockhart welcomed all in attendance and stated that the City Council would hold a
Study Session with the Planning Commission. Mayor Lockhart explained that there would
be an introduction by Staff, a presentation by the Applicant and then public comment.
There will then be a discussion between the' City Council and Planning Commission and
an opportunity for Staff and the Applicant to answer questions and, if there is time, there
will be another opportunity for public comment.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
August 14, 2007
PAGE 316
Attachment 5
~ () 6fJ 4-~
Mayor Lockhart asked for the presentation from Staff.
1 STUDY SESSION: Grafton Plaza, a multi-story mixed use development
located in Area H, Dublin Ranch including 4 low to mid-rise podium
buildings, 3 residential towers combined with office uses, shopkeeper and
live/work units, luxury condominiums, a boutique hotel, day spa and
associated open space recreation areas and parking, proposed by the Lin
family (PA 07-006)
Mr. Mike Porto, Project Planner presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the
Staff Report.
Mr. Porto explained that the overall FAR for the project should not exceed .45 FAR but in
some instances it may approach up to .60, as long as the overall FAR does not exceed .45.
Mayor Lockhart asked Mr. Porto to defme FAR for the audience. Mr. Porto responded
with the defInition and gave an example.
Mr. Marty Inderbitzen, Representative of the Applicant, the Lin family. Mr. Inderbitzen
has represented the Lin family for 20'years for the Dublm Ranch Development. Also in
attendance is Jim Tong, representative of the Lin family real estate matters, Dave
Chadbourne, Principal Planner for the Dublin Ranch project, as well as Rick Aiken, from
William Hezmalhalch & Associates.
Mr. Inderbitzen presented a detailed description of the project on behalf of the Applicant.
Mr. Inderbitzen indicated he would like to discuss some issues he had with the Staff
Report. He stated that the Water Quality Basin and the Grafton Plaza should be
considered together. He said that it was important because of FAR and density issues. He
stated that considering the two parcels together was allowed under the Development
Agreement and the Planned Development zoning. He added that residential uses are
specifically permitted on this site as long as certain fmdings can be met. He said that the
question of whether this was an appropriate location for a residential project has already
been asked and answered. He commented that the zoning is in place and the rezone that
would be required is meant to deal with the retail, hotel and spa uses. He felt, in his
opinion, that a rezone was not necessary for the residential component of the project.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
August 14, 2007
PAGE 317
llO() 6
Mr. Inderbitzen stated that he was confident of the appropriateness of the mix of uses and
the orientation to the other uses.
Mr. Inderbitzen went on to state that there are many policies in the development plan that
support mixed use. He was confused by the idea that a project like this only belongs next
to a BART station. The high density project adjacent to BART caters to residents that
commute to work elsewhere. Grafton Plaza does the opposite by catering to the resident
who wants to live and work in Dublin. If there is a demand for access to BART then they
would provide a shuttle service. The goal of the project is to reduce traffic load by
keeping residents out of their cars.
He further stated that he thought the jobslhousing balance goal of the City has little to do
with whether or not jobs and/or housing are north or south of Dublin Blvd. The
Applicant's goal is to provide opportunities to reduce traffic because the jobs are matched
with housing in a way that should minimize traffic.
Mr. Inderbitzen stated, in regards to the Density/Intensity section of the Staff Report, the
Applicant has taken the residential uses and stacked them above the non-residential uses in
a vertical framework. He felt that the project was a more true mix of uses then side-by-
side.
Mr. Inderbitzen asked that the Council and Commission not consider the pictures in the
Staff Report on page 10 of 14 as he feltthey were misleading and not an accurate
representation of the project. He indicated that he was not aware of any height limit that
applied to this site. He thought the real issue.is "how high is high in Dublin" and at what
point is it tall enough. He wanted to focus on the issue of height and resolve it so they can
move the project forward.
Mr. Inderbitzen stated that the Applicant would like to work with the City. He indicated
that it was not their intention to force something on the community that was not welcome.
Mayor Lockhart asked if the City Councilor Planning Commission members had any
questions for Mr. Inderbitzen.
Chair Schaub asked, "where did you get the fact that there was no height limit when the
Specific Plan says its six stories?" Mr. Inderbitzen responded that he didn't think that it
applied to this part of Dublin Ranch. Chair Schaub asked Mike Porto and Staff to help
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
August 14, 2007
PAGE 318
22VVLf~
them with the answer to that question. Chair Schaub thought the answer was on page 148
of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Cm. Sbranti said that on Page 8 of the Staff Report it
talks about 10 stories but that it applied to the Transit Center. Mayor Lockhart said that
unless Mike Porto and Staff have an answer for the question right now that they would
come back to that question when the Council and Commission discuss the project. She
thought it was a good question but wanted to give them a chance to respond to it and asked
Mr. Inderbitzen ifhe wanted to show the flyover before that time.
At that point, Mr. Inderbitien introduced Rick Aiken, Lead Planner for William
Hezmalhalch & Associates who presented a detailed description of the project on behalf of
the Applicant which included a flyover showing the project.
Mayor Lockhart stopped the Applicant's presentation stating that she thought that they all
had a good idea of what the project is about and she felt that it was very important that the
public, as well as the Council and Commission, be as concise as possible in their
comments so that the meeting can be done on time. She stated that it is very important to
understand what is being discussed before everyone went on record as to what they like
and dislike about the project. She also stated that, if the project moved forward, there
would be many other opportunities for the public to comment on it.
Mayor Lockhart thanked the Applicant for the presentation and opened the public
comment period. She indicated that after the public comment period the Council and
Commission would have a discussion period. She reminded the audience that there were
people here who might have differing opinions on this project and she wanted them to be
courteous to everyone's point of view.
Ms. Rowena Morgan, resident of Dublin Ranch, spoke against the project. She said that
she was pleased to see that they were considering the views of resident but felt that the size
of the towers was too high. She stated that she paid a premium for a view lot and felt that
those views would be compromised if this project were approved. She made a suggestion
that they include solar panels as a way of using natural resources.
Mr. Rich Garienti, 8279 Rhoda Ave., Dublin, spoke regarding the need~ of our
community. He felt the project offered amenities that are nice but he was concerned about
whether Dublin had the infrastructure to support the project. He felt that not everyone who
lived in the project would work there. He was concerned about transportation and parks,
and asked if there are enough parks. He was also concerned about what the proj ect would
DUBLIN CITY COUNCILIPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
August 14, 2007
PAGE 319
2~"b1fb
look like to the surrounding area. He stated that he has heard only negative comments
regarding the project, no positive comments. He felt that there should be a height limit.
Mr. Chris Didato, 3240 Magquire Way, Dublin, Dublin Ranch resident. He spoke against
the project.
Mayor Lockhart asked the audience to stop the applause and be considerate of others'
Oplntons.
Mr. Didato was concerned about parking in the Dublin Ranch area. The other problem he
felt was Police coverage. He was concerned about the inventory of condos on the market
and that this project would add to that inventory causing property values to be lowered.
He stated that the comment "urban core" made him think of Hayward, Union City,
Oakland or San Francisco, not Dublin. He thought that lawyers and therapists would not
live and work in this kind of condominium project but they would have the means to buy a
bigger house. He was also concerned about the size of the development.
Mr. Elliot Edge, 4161 Clarinbridge Circle, Dublin, spoke with mixed feelings about the
project. He thought the project might be good for the City but would like to see other
improvements completed that were promised before this project was approved. He felt the
positives of the project are the hotel and spa, extra office space and retail stores. He
thought the height on the residential portion would be a drain on schools and cause more
back up on 1-580. He was concerned thatthe project did not help to take the traffic off of
1-580.
Ms. Leslie McClane, Dublin, spoke agamst the project. She stated that the reason she lives
in Dublin is because of the small town feeling. If she wanted to live in a city with big
buildings she would have moved to San Francisco.
Mr. John Johnson; resident of Dublin spoke against the project. He stated that he liked the
presentation but the central issue is skyscrapers in Dublin. He felt that if this project was
approved precedence would be set. He stated that the reason the Applicant came to Dublin
is because all the other surrounding cities rejected the project as too high. He and his
neighbors felt that they did not want Dublin to become the urban core of the Tri Valley.
He was concerned that the project would increase the already pver crowded schools.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCILIPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
August 14, 2007
PAGE 320
:2 ~1J Lt'b'
Ms. Leanne Marshall, Dublin resident, indicated her strong opposition to the project. She
stated that high rise buildings like this project do not belong in the Tri-Valley area. She
stated that if the City of Dublin does not have a height limit then one should be developed
that limits buildings to 6 stories. She reiterated the fact of overcrowding on 1-580 and that
people move to Dublin for the small town feeling. She asked the City Council and
Planning Commission to reject the project and not spend any more time or resources on a
project that would be a contentious issue. .
Ron Boggs, Dublin resident spoke in favor of the project.
Gaylene Burkett, Dublin resident stated that she concurs with the other speakers. She felt
the project was not appropriate for Dublin.
Mayor Lockhart concluded the public comment portion of the meeting and began the
Council and Commission discussion period.
Mayor Lockhart asked Mike Porto if he would like to respond to the question that was left
on the table before the public comment portion of the meeting.
Mr. Porto responded that the question was in regard to the height limit. Cm. Sbranti's
question was regarding the Transit Center and the "How High is High" study that was
done in 2001. Chair Schaub and Vice Chair Wehrenberg referred to the part of the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) that is relative to Tassajara Gateway, of which this
site is a part, basically says, "allow buildings up to 6 stories in height at the intersection of
Tassajara Road and Dublin Blvd." He indicated that this project is away from this
intersection, but because this issue is in this document, it would be part of future
discussions.
. Mr. Porto continued to say that Mr. Inderbitzen brought out a few issues and comments
relative to the Staff Report. Mr. Porto indicated that his goal was to get the information in
front of the Council, Commission and citizens to gauge the desire for this particular project
and receive direction as to how to proceed.
Mayor Lockhart asked if the Council and Commission had any questions for Mr. Porto.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCILIPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
August 14, 2007
PAGE 321
em. Sbranti commented that one of the things relative to the height issue was a refer~:1J 4-5"
made to Walnut Creek. He asked if Mr. Porto knew how high the tallest building in
Walnut Creek is.
Mr. Porto had asked Staff to look at some surrounding cities before the meeting and
distributed those fmdings to the Council and Commission. Mr. Porto answered that the
height limitation in.Walnut Creek is 89 feet and most buildings in downtown range
between 35 feet and 50 feet.
Cm. Sbranti asked how many feet a 21 story building would be. Mr. Porto answered that it
varies, but it would be approximately 10-15 feet per floor, therefore, a 21 story building
would be approximately 210 feet tall or more.
Cm. Sbranti asked about the Kaiser Hospital project and if there was any sense of how tall
that project could be. Because this site will be next to the Kaiser site he was trying to get a
perspective. Mr. Porto answered that, to his knowledge, no one on the Staffhad seen
anything relative to the Kaiser project. Cm. Sbranti asked Vice Chair Wehrenberg how
tall the typical Kaiser Hospitals are.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg answered that in other projects that she has worked on the range
was from 2 to 4 stories and some are at 6 stories, depending on how many beds are
planned. A small hospital could be 100 beds, at 4 stories. Cm. Sbranti asked if it could
potentially be 2 to 6 stories. Vice Chair Wehrenberg answered that it also depends on how
much land is available which would create more of a massing. She continued that in the
Los Angeles area the hospital would be taller but in Northern California they normally stay
at 2-6 stories.
Cm. Kasie Hildenbrand commented that Kaiser owns 52 acres; therefore, she would
assume that it would be a large campus with varying buildings based on what Vice Chair
Wehrenberg said.
Cm. Sbarnti asked if, under the current zoning (understanding that there are some
questions regarding the zoning) of Campus/Office, given the acreage of the site and the
FAR at its maximum, how many stories could be built if they were to build office. Cm.
Sbranti stated that he asked the question from a cost opportunity standpoint, to gauge not
only what's around the project but given alternative uses, how much would that differ.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
August 14, 2007
PAGE 322
ZlollfJ ~
Mr. Porto answered that doing the calculations and depending on how the project will be
moved forward, and also looking at how the pieces go together, it could be taller in some
areas and more linear in others, different things would be looked at, including a 6 story
h~ight limit that the Planning Commission has already referenced. The tallest office
building in Dublin is Sybase, at 6 stories, but the highest point of the building is 99 feet.
He mentioned the parking around Sybase and the open area between the building and
Dublin Blvd. He stated that if there is underground parking, then the building has to
spread out further. If surface parking is desired then the building would need to be taller.
He indicated that it would be hard to say exactly what it could be but that they would have
to look to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to give them direction.
Chair Schaub stated thatit was mentioned how this project might redefme the area but
there is very little not already underway, therefore, this does appear to be a fairly unique
spot. . He asked how many areas do not have Development Agreements associated with
them now.
Mr. Porto answered that there is the Kaiser site and the General Commercial site that it
beyond Fallon Road, the DiManto property, Fallon Village, beyond Fallon Rd ip the
General Commercial land uses that are along Dublin Blvd., the residential uses behind
that, and partial grading is being done by Braddock and Logan in that area.
Cm. Hildenbrand asked for clarification because a lot of residents are not familiar with
those parcels of land. She stated that when reviewing a project of this nature there is not
much land left for it to move forward. Therefore, there would not be an opportunity to
repeat this type ofproject over and over again because most of what Mr. Porto is talking
about are areas for residential use or smaller types of commercial and a light industrial .
area. She stated that most of what you see is residential areas.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg mentioned that.infrastructure was brought up in the Staff Report
and asked if there has been a preliminary study.
Mr. Porto answered that there was nothing on that because it is so early in the project.
Mr. Porto stated, in answer to Cm. Hildenbrand's comments regarding the Fallon Village
project east of Tassajara Road, that project has no entitlements other than the general land
use concept. There are different zoning designations in that area but the sizes are similar
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
August 14, 2007
PAGE 323
,.--
dli5fj l}.?
to projects west of Fallon Road. He stated that the entitlements for those Stage 2 Planned
Developments have not been submitted yet
Cm. Hildenbrand stated that most of those projects are residential type projects; Fallon
Village, Casamira, Wallis Ranch, Silvera Ranch, she wanted to ensure that the residents
understand the type of developments those are.
Cm. Sbranti commented on Vice Chair Wehrenberg's question regarding infrastructure.
He mentioned that he assumed that with the Sybase building in Dublin, the Alameda
County Fire Department has the capability to reach the top floor of that building. He
asked whether there were any similar buildings in their jurisdiction and if they would have
the capability to reach a taller building.
Mr. Porto stated that they would be looking at that during the land use study. The
Alam~da County Fire Department is aware of the project, but he had gotten no comments
back from them at this time.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated that Ms. Morgan brought up a good point about the Green
Building standards. She stated that we encourage that and see the Green Building
Standards in some of the developments that have been submitted. She asked Mr. Porto if
he knew if this project would be putting any Green Building standards in, especially with
the towers. Mr. Porto answered that during the preliminary conversations with the
Applicant they will be looking at that and will continue those conversations through the
process.
Cm. Don Biddle indicated that there needs to be an affordable housing component of some
kind and thought there should also be a semi-public component of some kind. He also
asked if this project would create a park land deficit.
Mr. Porto mentioned that the remainder of his presentation would probably answer any
further questions and would help the Council and Planning Commission and the Applic~t
. gather their thoughts as we look at the project.
Mayor Lockhart asked if there were any other questions.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCILIPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
August 14, 2007
PAGE 324
~1s FI()q6
Mr. Porto continued with his presentation as outlined in the Staff Report. He indicated
that there are questions for each item being discussed and he will stop after each question
so that the Council and Commission can provide feedback at that point.
Mayor Lockhart stated that she would like everyone to be able to gather their thoughts and
she will give each person an opportunity to ask and answer questions and give feedback on
them and if there are any wrap-up comments at the end of the discussion period that the
Council and Commission would like to make on the project in its entirety, then we will
make sure there is time to do that.
Mr. Porto stated the first question from the Staff Report in the Location/Mixed Use
Section which was appropriateness of the location.
Do the City Council and Planning Commission feel that:
· The site is the appropriate location for a mixed use residential/commercial/office
development?
. The development is appropriate for Campus Office designated land?
. The mixture of uses is sufficiently balanced?
. A reduction in the number of jobs and a change in ajob center area is appropriate?
. Specific u~es should be added or eliminated/reduced?
Mayor Lockhart asked Cm. Morgan King if he had any feedback on the appropriateness of
the location.
"Cm. King stated that he saw nothing wrong with mixed use, it is very consistent with what
the Planning Commission has been doing and didn't see any reason not to continue in that
direction.
Cm. Biddle stated that he saw it as appropriate and that he sees it as another version of the
village concept that we've talked about in the past but not really implemented very well.
Cm. Sbranti stated he thought it was appropriate for mixed use at that site.
Cm. Hildenbrand agreed.
Cm. Oravetz agreed.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
August 14,2007
PAGE 325
ZC1 fl{) 6
Cm. Scholz thought it may be appropriate and stated that she would like the opportunity to
discuss their thoughts before embarking on a lengthy procedure, and asked if that was
possible.
Mayor Lockhart answered that the Council and Commission will answer the questions
then have. an opportunity to wrap-up their thoughts at the end of the discussion period.
Chair Schaub thought it was appropriate.
Vice Chair vi ehrenberg agreed.
Mr. Porto moved to the next question. He stated that this project would be using
Campus/Office designated land and asked if the Council and Commission felt that this
project was appropriate to be put on Mixed use designated land.
Cm. King thought that it is appropriate.
Cm. Biddle thought that it is appropriate.
Cm. Sbranti stated that he thought it was an ideal Mixed Use site but that there was too
much residential and not enough Campus/Office in the proposal.
Cm. Hildenbrand thought that this is an appropriate use for designated land and stated a
supporting reason is, if you look at Bishop Ranch, and Hacienda Business Park, it is all
business with no housing. Pleasanton tried to provide housing in that area but it hasn't
worked. She felt that with this project the City of Dublin can do it all at one time. She
thought that to forsake some of the campus in order to get people to live there, if this
project moves forward, it would be an appropriate location.
Cm. Oravetz agreed with Cm. Hildenbrand.
Chair Schaub asked if we are trading off Campus/Office, he was not sure how much the
City is down given the FAR of Campus/Office and what was being proposed. He asked if
we were offby 20% from what is zoned there. Mr. Porto answered that he would like the
opportunity to analyze the data and submit the numbers to the Council and Commission in
order to make a good analysis of what possibly could be there. Mr. Porto continued, as
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
August 14, 2007
PAGE 326
3DU[) 6
Mr. Inderbitzen mentioned, there is the issue of the water quality pond and the FAR that
was allocated. Mr. Porto indicated that Staff and the Applicant have had a difference of
opinion on that issue. He further stated that through the analysis of the FAR data that issue
should be resolved.
. Vice Chair Wehrenberg agreed that 181,000 square feet seems appropriate, but would like
to see the FAR studied further.
Mayor Lockhart also stated that the Campus/Office designation is important if we are to
encourage people to live work and live in our community. She thought it was something
that needed further discussion but liked the fact that residential and office could be mixed
in the same building.
Cm. Biddle thought it would be appropriate to look at the overall job balance. He stated
that in the Staff Report it mentioned that our residential has moved along rapidly but the
business and commercial has not.
Mayor Lockhart stated that a lot of the residential and business growth goes in cycles. She
thought that when you talk about a jobs/housing balance it needs to be more than just a
project, we need to look at the whole east Dublin area. She stated that the City just
approved a 6 story hospital that will bring more jobs to the area than what was originally
approved for at that site. She thought it would be a good exercise in the future to look at
the whole area and see where we are in jobs balancing.
Mr. Porto stated that the last three questions go together:
· The mixture of uses is sufficiently balanced? - There were comments on the
amount of Campus/Office.
· A reduction in the number of jobs and a change in a job center area is
appropriate? - Mr. Porto thought the job center may shift.
· Specific uses should be added or eliminated/reduced?
Mayor Lockhart asked if there were any questions regarding the last question. .
Cm. King thought that the project addresses the job balance tentatively.
Cm. Biddle stated he did not think that the City needed a hotel in that location.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCILIPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
August 14, 2007
PAGE 327
31"b ~
Cm.Sbranti stated that he thought the balance was off, that there is too much housing, and
not enough office. He stated that Mr. Inderbitzen made a good point that this project by
itself has a good balance, but not if you look at the entire Dublin Ranch area which was
supposed to be the job center. He likes almost everything in the project, especially the
hotel concept, as well as the live/work units. He thought that 749 units is too high for
residential and 181,000 square feet is too low for Office.
Cm. Biddle asked what the difference is between the Live/W ork and Shopkeeper units.
Mr. Porto explained that there is a slight difference and noted the live/work units would be
a professional business office; the attorney, the architect, the civil engineer which.would
use it as an office setting. The Shopkeeper unit would be building something at that
location and selling it there. Cm. King indicated that the City had already approved
live/work units across the street from the project site.
Cm. Hildenbrand felt that the uses are sufficiently balanced, and that there are uniqlie
opportunities at this site that are not available in other areas. She indicated that she likes
the hotel's location because if you drove south on Grafton Street from Ted Fairfield Park
your experience changes as you go along ending at the boutique hotel. She stated that it
was an appropriate location for the hotel. She thought it would be interesting to see if the
Applicant could come back with a different balance in the housing and Campus/Office but
she is not as concerned about it as Cm. Sbranti.
Cm. Oravetz was more concerned about seeing a study on what the potential gain in
property tax and sales tax would be if this project was built. He would like to see that
study and if the numbers look good then they would talk about balance. He indicated that
he thought the hotel is very nice and that this would be the hotel that people will want to
stay at when they come to the area. He thought it would be just as nice as the Rose Hotel
in Pleasanton but with more amenities and a beautiful view.
Chair Schaub stated he would like to see more numbers. Mr. Porto indicated that there
would be a ~scal analysis done.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that for the Planning Commission it will come down to if
there is enough parking for the use. She thought that everything in the project is
appropriate and all that is missing is a convention center.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
August 14, 2007
PAGE 328
3 20fJ ~
Mr. Porto continued with the presentation with the Height and Massing questions:
Do the City Council and Planning Commissionfeel that:
. The proposed project height and massing is the appropriate for Dublin and this
location in particular?
. The scale of the structures adjacent to Dublin Boulevard and the interior streets
in relation to height is appropriate?
. The landscape setback should be studied to ensure that it is commensurate with
the size of the building to off set the impact of the building on the street?
. The orientation of the tower elements works with the proposal and the visual
impacts to the existing community?
Cm. Hildenbrand asked, when you look at the Terraces and you look at how large each.
complex is, in relation to how large or how wide the towers would be because they were
saying in their presentation that its more vertical then it is wide and when you were talking
about an office space it tends to get wider as it goes up. She thought that the Terraces are
quite wide so in relation, would they be as wide, double the size, how can we visualize
that.
Mr. Porto answered that they don't have specifics but if you look at the overall frontage of
the Terraces project, as it fronts onto Dublin Blvd., the proposed project occupies roughly.
half of the frontage. To give you a perspective, the project would occupy, from the
existing entrance point at Clarinbridge Drive, westerly to Grafton Street (a portion of
which is not developed as yet) which is where The Promenade would be located. It would
be roughly approximately % of the face of the westerly half of The Terraces which is
currently being developed. Mr. Porto asked if the answer helped with Cm. Hildenbrand's
question.
Cm. Hildenbrand answered that she knows the buildings in the project are tall, but how
wide would they be. She further stated that if they are only taking up half of the frontage
of the Terraces, it doesn't appear to be wide as the 4 story buildings there..
Mr. Porto stated that the first 3,..5 floors of the buildings are proposed to be massed along
Dublin Blvd.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
August 14, 2007
PAGE 329
-3 =$fJ~
Cm. Hildenbrand asked if they would mirror what you see at the Terraces. Mr. Porto
answered yes, that they are proposing to set them back at the 3 rd floor but they would
mirror the Terraces. He stated that the towers are set back into the project. Cm.
Hildenbrand asked if that part of the building would complement The Terraces buildings
and then go up. Mr. Porto answered that it would be similar.
Mr. Porto continued with presentation as outlined in the Staff Report and gave the
questions of Height and Massing to the Council and Commission.
Do the City Council and Planning Commission feel that:
. The proposed project height and massing is the appropriate for Dublin and this location in
particular?
. The scale of the structures adjacent to Dublin Boulevard and the interior streets in relation to
height is appropriate?
. The landscape setback should be studied to ensure that it is commensurate with the size of the
building to off set the impact of the building ,on the street?
. The orientation of the tower elements works with the proposal and the visual impacts to the
existing community?
Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that she does not feel that the massing is appropriate for
Dublin. She stated that she studied the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance and each document addresses the massing issue, and the
protection of our hills. She also mentioned that the developer did a very thorough
presentation and got everything except the issue.of massing.' She felt it was just too tall.
Chair Schaub indicated that he thought the project has all the aspects that we like and the
developers are huge.partners with the City of Dublin. He stated that he didn't know if21,
15 or 40 stories is right. He said that it was helpful that the audience wanted to know what
they would see. He stated that he didn't know what they will see from Dublin Ranch. He
. thought that it was important because of the people who bought property with a certain
expectation and he didn't think that question was answered. He thought that the project
fits. but not sure at what height. He mentioned that most of our buildings are 6 stories plus
1 and that we never count the top story.
Cm. King commented that the Lin family has brought a lot of projects to the City of
Dublin and they have all been fITst class. He wasn't sure that a building that high would
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
August 14, 2007
PAGE 330
3 t-fJ() Lfb"
be such a drastic departure from what is the norm in the City of Dublin and the Tri-Valley
Area that he would really have to listen to what the people of Dublin have to say. He
stated that the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was voted on by the citizens of Dublin and he
would not want depart from what was voted on. He stated that he likes the outside-the-
box, innovative ideas like this for Dublin.
Cm. Biddle stated that there were many positive aspects of the project but has some
problems with height. He stated that he likes that the parking is under the structure which
makes the height more acceptable. He stated that he would prefer that rather than a shorter
building and a bigger asphalt parking lot. He stated that he would compromise with a
shorter building but retain most of the aspects of the project.
Cm. Sbranti stated he liked everything about the project but thinks the height is too high.
He stated that Cm. King referenced the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan which he thought was
an important document. He stated that when people bought into that neighborhood there
was a certain expectation of a view. He commented that the Council and Commission can
look at the tower"heights because some of the buildings around the project site are 6
. stories. He stated that he would be willing to go a little bit above 6 stories but wanted to
stay within the spirit of the existing developments and would want to avoid doubling or
tripling the size of the Sybase building.
Cm. Hildenbrand disagreed with Cm. Sbranti. She the towers were kept at 6 stories this
project would not be different and innovative as Cm. King has mentioned. She thought
that looking at the height could be done. She mentioned Foster City and the tower they
built. She stated that everyone thought it was the biggest building between Los Angeles
and San Francisco and now you don't think anything of it. She mentioned when Justin
Herman Plaza was built everyone thought it was the ugliest thing there and now it's a part
of the structure of San Francisco. She stated that personally she did not have a huge issue
with the height. She thought that 21 stories is a bit tall, but she stated that she wouldn't
want to keep the building at 6 stories. She commented that the West Dublin BART
Station and the Transit Center that has a mass, they are not as tal), but are a mass of
buildings that will have a campus next to it eventually, the Lifestyle Center, Hacienda
Crossings, a hospital and potentially other campus projects, then this Project, then move on
to a hospital campus style development. She stated that she was not sure this would be the
tallest building.at potentially 16 to 21 stories, but at some point, it does not seem
outrageous to have the Project at that site.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCILIPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
August 14,2007
PAGE 331
3~ i5fJ 4-~
Cm. Sbranti clarified his point that he does not think the Project needs to stay at 6 stories.
He meant that in the context of the 5, 7, and 5 (the luxury condos, the boutique hotel and
one other building) stories that going a few stories above would be acceptable but he
thought that when it is proposed to be double or triple that height then it would be too
high.
Cm. Oravetz stated thathe would not allow the height be the issue that would cause the
Council and Commission to reject the project. He agreed with Cm. Sbranti that probably
the thought of a 21 story building has shocked some people. He stated that he thought
there were a lot of good things about the project. He also stated that he would like to
continue to study the height issue.
Cm. Scholz was concerned about the height, and felt that it was not appropriate whether it
is proposed at 16 or 21 stories. She commented that every person that the Council and
Commission had heard from during the Study Session was concerned with the height, with
the exception of Mr. Boggs. She stated that all the people that she met during the week
were concerned about the height but also about earthquakes.
Mayor Lockhart stated that she thought the elements were the most important part of the
Project, what can be brought together, the synergy that can be created, the environmental
atmosphere that can be set with the Project would weigh heavily for her. She stated that
she does not know what the right height is and that there are a lot of questions that have to
be answered. She stated that she is interested in something that is a little outside the box
and that will give people the opportunity to do what we say we want them to be able to do
but have never been able to show them how to do it. She stated that this Project would
give the City an opportunity to look at that. She stated that she is definitely interested in
finding out more about the Project but was not sure about the 21 stories, she thought that
there is a limit to what any community will accept but she stated she would like to pursue
the question and see what works for Dublin.
Mr. Porto stated that he would like to consolidate the remaining questions and thought that
the one that would be of the most interest was regarding the landscape setback. He
mentioned a few of the nearby developments and the landscape setbacks in those projects.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that she thought that the landscape setbacks would depend
on how tall the buildings are and that she would not want the building close to the
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
August 14, 2007
PAGE 332
.3(aOOtf5
sidewalk. She thought that 15-20 feet sounded appropriate but it would depend on the
height of the building.
Chair Schaub concurred.
Cm. Scholz concurred.
Cm. Oravetz concurred.
Cm. Hildenbrand concurred.
Cm. Sbranti stated that he thought the landscape setback at Sybase was a good guide. He
mentioned that Sybase is a taller building than the building by the BART station but it
doesn't look taller, therefore, he thought that was a good model for us to move forward
with the Project.
Cm. Biddle concurred and felt that the width vs. height ratio is key to the project.
Cm. King concurred.
Mr. Porto continued with the Staff Report regarding Density/Intensity
Do the City Council and Planning Commission feel that:
. The proposed number of residential units coupled with the other non-residential
uses in the Project in the configuration proposed by the Applicant, are
appropriate?
. The vertical placement of the residential units in 16 to 21 story towers is
preferable to the typical horizontal layout now experienced in Dublin?
Mr. Porto stated that the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan only considered Campus/Office uses
for this site and the residential uses were not analyzed. He stated that he thought the
Council and Commission had given good direction on how they feel about the first
question. The next question was mentioned by one of the Commissioners on this subject
but not from the rest of the Council and Commission. Currently our approach is to spread
the residential units out horizontally but this proposal is to place them vertically. He asked
for some input from the Council and Commission.
DUBLIN CJTY COUNCILIPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
August 14, 2007
PAGE 333
31~Lt~
Mayor Lockhart indicated that the thing that she likes about the vertical orientation is the
footprint that it leaves on the ground and the space around it that it leaves for amenities,
open space, air and views. She mentioned that for that reason she likes the concept of
trying more vertical housing. She thought that there are people that would like to live in it.
She also stated that on the eastern, side of the community there are the standard residential
homes but when we move into a higher density area, she thought that there were people
who would appreciate the view from a higher floor, not necessarily knowing that it is
going to be 16 to 20 stories but from a higher floor. She also mentioned that she thought
that what the project does for the footprint is good for everybody in the area.
Cm. Hildenbrand concurred
Cm. Sbranti concurred but thought that it was the same way of looking at the height issue,
generally speaking he does not mind residential towers.
Cm. Biddle concurred and stated that he likes the concept of the live/work and shopkeeper
units.
Cm: King cpncurred.
Chair Schaub concurred.
Mr. Porto continued with the Staff Report regarding Affordable Housing. The Applicant
has proposed no affordable housing in the project.
Do the City Council and Planning Commission feel that:
. Affordable units should be included within the Project?
. An alternate method of compliance would be appropriate?
Cm. Wehrenberg stated she thought that an alternate method would be acceptable.
Chair Schaub stated that he agreed with the Zoning Ordinance for affordable housing. He
stated that he thought large buildings with lots of units are perfect for that environment.
He was concerned about the total cost of affordable housing for the people who would live
there. He stated that there are areas of affordable housing where the fees are $400 to $500
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
August 14,2007
PAGE 334
. ?/6Uf)t6
per month. He stated that he wanted to make sure that it was affordable and thought that
this kind of a facility is good for affordability as long as we know that people can live
there comfortably.
Cm. Scholz concurred with an alternative method for affordable housing for the project.
Cm. Oravetz concurred with an alternative method for affordable housing. He stated that
when the Affordable Housing ordinance was initiated it was known that there would be
certain projects where the ordinance could be waived and other opportunities would be
used. He stated that he thought that this. is not an affordable housing area and not that
opportunity. He thought that the City was doing good things for affordable housing at The
Groves, etc. and rebuilding Arroyo Vista.
em. Hildenbrand agreed and thought that the City would be massing a lot of affordable
housing in one area if we required the developer to build the 12.5% of affordable housing.
She stated that going with an alternate method of meeting that ordinance would be
preferable.
Cm. Sbranti stated that he was willing to look at an alternative location for affordable
housing.
Cm. Biddle 'stated that he would like to see as many affordable units as possible on the site
and then an altematesite for what can't be filled at the site. He stated that many of the
jobs that will be created by the project will be filled by people in that income category. He
stated that with more than 750 units there should be room for affordable housing.
Cm. King stated that if the height were reduced then there should be fewer units. He asked
if these units were not affordable units. Mayor Lockhart answered that they were talking
about the median income. He asked if the units would be priced way above the median
income. Mayor Lockhart answered that she imagined they would. Cm. King asked if the
Lin family has other projects down the road that could meet the requirement. Mayor
Lockhart answered that the Lin family has done more than what they were supposed to by
massing all the affordable housing in The Groves for what's already planned and built but
this project is something different. She stated that it would be the Lin family's
responsibility to locate an alternative area.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCILIPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTESmVOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
August 14,2007
PAGE 335
~B{)L}~
Cm. Sbranti stated that he would agree to look at the credits and he thought that anything
the Lin family has built over and above what their requirement was should be applied to
this project, but if there is still a deficiency after the credits from that project are applied,
then he thought they should look at alternative compliance.
Mr. Porto continued with the Staff Report regarding Parks. He stated that there is no
public park component included in this project.
Does the City Council and Planning Commission feel that:
. Additional parkland, commensurate with the number of residential units, should
be provided on-site or off-site?
. Alternatives to provide parkland, be negotiated through the development review
process as appropriate?
Cm. Scholz stated that there definitely needs to be parks and she was concerned that she
had not heard anything about play areas for children. She stated that there would be a lot
of people in this area and there needed to be recreation areas.
Cm. Hildenbrand asked how many acres of park land would this project potentially create. .
Mr. Porto answered approximately 7.5 acres. Cm. Hildenbrand asked if we included the
Historic Park would that make up the deficit that we currently have or would we still be 5
acres short.
Rich Ambrose, City Manager answered that based on the last numbers that were given to
the Council, and those numbers will be updated as they get into the Public Facility Fee
Study update, but the City is approximately 5.3 acres in a deficit position and will be
adding approximately 4.2 acres with the Historic Park. He stated that, based on those old
numbers, the City is approximately 1; 1 acres short. Cm. Hildenbrand asked if this would
create another 7.5 acre shortage. Mr. Ambrose stated that they were still doing some
studies and looking at some areas that were on the Council's list. Mayor Lockhart
included that there are all kinds of things that might give us an opportunity for more park .
land. Mr. Ambrose stated that they haven't looked at how some of the infill projects have
impacted the numbers. He added the example of the Arroyo Vista redevelopment project
which is proposing to add another 250 units which would be folded into the park plan also.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCILIPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
August 14, 2007
PAGE 336
LfDJ()~
Cm. Hildenbrand asked if the Council will receive that information before the project
moves forward. Mr. Ambrose answered that if the project moves forward sometime
within the next fiscal year they will have better informati~n.
Cm. Sbranti commented that the 7.5 acre deficiency only applies if the City approves 749
units and if the developer cut the towers in half or more, the deficiency becomes less. Mr.
Ambrose answered that was correct and added that the City standard is 5 acres per 1,000
residents and for a project like this the Quimby Act Ordinance would look at it as 2
persons per unit. Cm. Sbranti stated that he agreed with Cm. Scholz that parkland needs to
be on site. He stated that he thought it was a different mix and that if there will be
residents in that area, especially a higher density area, then there needs to be a park land
component whether it is a plaza or a square or something similar. He mentioned that one
. of the things in the report talked about play areas on the top of the buildings but he did not
want to count those because of the wind.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg pointed out that the Water Quality Pond is a walking area. Cm.
Sbranti answered that he personally sees that as an environmental mitigation and he knows
that it was referenced as a park and he would be willing to consider how that mterfaces
with some type of a park. He stated that he did not want to say that because there is an
environmental water basin, therefore there is a park.
Mayor Lockhart indicated that she felt that they needed a lot more information on what
kinds of housing units are proposed, and who would be living in those housing.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated that in the landscaped areas, which the Applicant talked about,
there could be opportunities for some type of play structures. She mentioned the Yerba
Buena Gardens where there is a children's play area mixed in with their gardens and that is
in a denser project. She was sure that there would be ways they can get play type of
experiences for children. She added that she thought it would be interesting to see the mix
of people that they expect to have there. She also agreed with Cm. Sbranti that the Water
Quality area is not a park.
Cm. Scholz indicated that when she talked about play areas she means swings, slides,
climbing structures, and real play equipment that little children need to play on. Cm.
Hildenbrand stated that that was the kin4 of play equipment that was at the play center in
Yerba Buena Gardens.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCILIPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
August 14,2007
PAGE 337
4 lOZJ ~
Cm. Oravetz stated that the developer could build some of that into this project but he
didn't think that this was an area for a park and that it was not an area for affordable
housing either. He stated that it was a negotiating tool to work with the developer to create
a park in other areas of Dublin. He stated that he would not require the developer to build
a park at that site and that the walking area around the lake is sufficient.
Mayor Lockhart asked Mr. Porto to wrap-up the presentation.
Mr. Porto stated that the Council and Commission gave good direction on all of the issues
and asked the Council and Commission to address their comments to the Applicant.
Mayor Lockhart asked the Council and Commission to give a sense of whether they would
like to see this project back again with some of the questions answered or if they would
not want to see the project back.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that overall, everything was beautiful, she loved the
concept, but what killed the project for her was when the Applicant spoke of the "view
corridors." She sta~ed that she does not see them as "view corridor" but as tunnels and
buildings that will block our hills and that is not what she wants to see when driving down
1-580. She stated that she is in favor of the project but not at that height. She stated that
the use is fine.
t
Chair Schaub concurred and would like to see the project come back for further
discussion.
Cm. Scholz thought it was a beautiful presentation, but thought the Council should look
carefully at it. She mentioned that only one person here tonight supported it. She was ,-
concerned about the community support. She suggested that before any decision is made
we ask for some visualization. She shared an experience in San Francisco where balloons
were hoisted into the air specifically to show how high a building would be. She stated
that there was not enough input tonight and that there needed to be a study on the
shadowing effect of the buildings and that the Council and Commission need to listen to
~e citizens of Dublin. She stated that she felt the play and recreation areas are very
important so that citizens do not have to drive 3 or 4 miles to a park. She stated that she
thought the project had some good qualities but believes it needs more careful study
relevant to the height. She felt that she was not able to support the project as it is but
would like to see it back with modifications.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
August 14, 2007
PAGE 338
Lf],Vb lf~
Cm. Oravetz thanked the Staff for setting up the study session and stated he felt that the
information and input from the Planning Commission as well as the citizens of Dublin are
very important and helpful. He stated that since the meeting was televised there would be
lots of public input which will be helpful. He stated that when he makes a decision
regarding a project that he does not look at one thing but at the entire project. He stated
that there is nothing about the project that he doesn't like, the hotel, the spa and what it
will bring to the City of Dublin and what it will do for the image of Dublin. He stated that
a few years ago the Council was talking about "Digital Dublin" and considering some
good sized buildings on Dublin Blvd. Then the Dot.Com crashed and all that went away.
He felt that this project could bring the City back on the map. He thought that the 21 story
building is something that the community is going to struggle with but he stated that he
was not going to throw the project out because of esthetics. He felt that they could work
out the problems with the project. He stated that he was 100% for this project coming
back. He urged the community to look at the fly-over and look at the amenities that the
project will bring to Dublin. He stated that there has never been anything like this done in
the valley and asked "why not?" He state/d that he would like to see the project back.
Cm. King concurred and would like to see it back with changes on the height. He asked
how the project will relate to the Pr~menade as a town center, it seems there will be two
different destination points competing against each other.
Cm. Biddle concurred and would like the project to come back and address some of the
concerns stated tonight, including the height issue.
Cm. Sbranti concurred and wants to see it come back. He stated that he sees this project as
a catalyst for the Promenade. He was concerned with the height and stated that the
. Council and Commission have heard the citizens. He mentioned that he feltthat there
were too many residential units and not enough square footage of office. He wanted to
remind the Council that when the EDSP was done there was a very careful economic study
done on balancing and would be very cautious in skewing that balance. He was very
concerned that this project might skew that balance.
Cm. Hildenbrand concurred with Cm. Oravetz and does not want to see this project not
come back based on height. She stated that she took notes on all the comments and the
majority of the comments related to height, views and that this project is not what we have
here in the valley, etc. She stated that she agrees with those issues but she does not want
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
August 14, 2007
PAGE 339
Y3iJtfb'
to turn the project down simply because of those comments. She mentioned all the other
amenities attached to the project are wonderful and a unique opportunity for Dublin. She
stated that Dublin is in the forefront when it comes to building. She stated that the City
did not build when Pleasanton and Livermore built, we're building today. She stated that
they were able to build suburban communities where you build houses and strip malls, but
the City of Dublin challenged with affordable housing and building villages and pedestrian
friendly avenues. She stated that she would not want to turn do~ the project because
neighboring cities do not have buildings like these. She commented that other cities in the
area are trying to figure out how to bring housing to their business centers and that is what
Dublin is doing now. She stated that she is in favor of bringing the project back.
Mayor Lockhart stated that she wants to see it back and that there are a lot of questions.
She stated that she heard the concerns from the speakers and the audience. She stated that
that there will be many opportunities for the community to have discussion on the project
but that it is very preliminary at this point. She stated that this is the first step and that out
of a population of 44,000 there are a number of opinions that haven't been shared as yet
and she looks forward to hearing from a lot more citizens. She stated that she wanted to
make sure that we are not overloading the schools. She also stated that there is a new high
school as well as a middle school and a number of elementary schools coming into Dublin.
She also felt that we need to be more futuristic. She asked about our future of Dublin. She
mentioned that people will move to our community, live here, will have families and those
families are .going to grow up and they are going to want to stay near the schools that they
graduated from and families that they grew up with. She commented that the community
will grow and it is not just strangers that are coming into the community, but it will grow .
from within. She felt that we need to be ready for that and we need to look at housing as a
necessity not just an amenity. Not only for our families but other families that come here
to work and live in the area. She felt that we need to keep that in mind as well as saving
the environment and saving the land, saving the footprint and maybe being a little higher
than we ever thought we would be might be the answer to that. She stated that she
understands the concerns about the height and the issues around that. She commented that
the Council will look at all elements of the project and put together a project that everyone
in Dublin can be proud of.
Mayor Lockhart thanked staff and the Applicant for their presentation as well as the public
for sharing their time.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
August 14, 2007
PAGE 340
L4Lf~ ~
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned
at 6:45 p.m. to the next regular Council meeting of August 14,2007, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers.
Minutes prepared by Debra LeClair, Seretary.
ATIEST:~L &~
Intenm City Clerk .
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
August 14, 2007
PAGE 341
-~
ruo
-0
"':'N
Q) -'
...
:J>,
O'Iru
~::a:
.c
0'1
:J
o
...
.c
....
\J
Q)
\J
c:
Q)
E
ru
VI
ru
z
<:
...J
0.. 0..
...J<:
<: ~
0::
W
W
(/)
z
::>
w
a Cl
z
z
<:
...J ...J
co
~
Cl
)
/
/
'"
~
<C
'"
c
.c
~
Q:
."
~
."
g
l(
...
c
~
1;;
~
~
~.1y""'''~ ~ ..~...'""
450b Lfb
! I
I Jl ! !
1 !Ii I Ell" I II J IJ
'II lH /Jflhiulm I1mmm" 1:1I1
~ illlWfl J!lilwiHHiiijjjjji 1i WIllI
~ ..;H..; ."'......~!:=~~::!:!:::!!!:J1;:::I::l:;'llJl.."'A!l= !- _.. ....~,
ii. 1 ,I" Wi l~ IllIn
iill:,' Iii ~ iill i1h 1.llldh!UUI,!
il'-j 'j"! ',8 It!.tIIt'!!
!!m llE ~ ilillll ~ WIl i Hlh!!
g-"'" ""'..i: -.."'''''''.. ....-----
iij
"
c
S
~
'"
c
'"
~j
.E ~
::J~
a1 B
'- ,lj
<( E
Olv
c: w
.- ~
c:...
c: .
~ i
ill'IH! iilll n:l
ll.-Hi} ill.! jlll!
lllii'., Jill! .1,11
jli:l1jll It, IfIll
.IWilllilli 1l:H
1:-
il
C
~
o
.,
f~
C 01
~ .~
~ ~ l5
~~~:~~~~
~~~:g~H1,"
~~o:S~~~8~
r~~"::J" '"
.... v ~o '0 0 0 ~
- ~ ~ =,~.~,~.~ '"
ct~I..ft~~uvua.;
I ~ 0 ~DDDu]D
w
~
:m
c
~
.~ ~
'"
] "
u 0
~ '" Lri
u ?t '"
K '" v U "
:,- '"
'" :,- 0 ! v
" ~ ! '"
~ v '" " :,-
'" ..; 0 0 ..:. :g "
:t '" '" +
::. "' ~ ~
~ " !2. .; '" Lri
'" ;;;
2 0 ;,;. !2. !2. ." .~ !::!.
a E ~ 1il ~ '" ~
'C " q c
'C 0 .\: c ~ .~
01 !2. v v v ~ ~
~ ~ 0. " 'ij '" .~
'" c ~ i:- Cl
.~ ~ Vi '" .~ ~ '"
~ i:- ;,;. .~
v ~ 'f
." .~ ~ .~ Cl ~
Iii .~ '" E E- Cl
'" v Cl Cl v ~ ~
E ~ ~ ! ~ 0. '5 '\j J:.
c v '"
(lJ ~ Vi ::E ::E 'f
"0 '" w
.Vi ~..II
&
~
iE
o
v
01
~ ~
~ ~ ~
iE ~;;;
~ ~ ~ 1
w~~ ~ ~
roi!~ i~ i:-
s] ~8i ,,~~
~ ~ v ~8~ ~ ~ ~ i t
~8iEE-EU~~Q. :5e-
'e ~~~~~~~~~i:J
(lJ ~i3i3.lJ'~~~~~~'\j
E 1.:)~&Zl:)u.f~~:!:::E
~ III!]I~..I..
+(0-
(lJ
u
a
V\
c:
(lJ
Cl.
o
~
:a
:J
"r-
.E
(lJ
:s
:a
d:
ffilOOl!l1!l
c
o
."
~ ~
~ & ~ ~
~jj~~?j
15l6b~u ~
f~oV\~~~
IOILlIII
~ ~
l~
~...n ~
.n~
hd
Attachment 6