HomeMy WebLinkAboutI Downtown Dublin SP ULI Rpt i
G`^.~ OF ppe~y
~9r~r~~~ STAFF REPORT CITY C L E R K
~ DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL File # ?Q /?O?-?2 0?
~crrve~
DATE: October 24, 2011
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager
SUBJECT: Report from City Staff and the Urban Land Institute's Technical Assistance Panel
Regarding Proposed Ideas/Recommendations for the Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan Area
Prepared By: Linda Smith-Maurer, Economic Development Director and Public
Information Officer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In June 2011, the City retained the services of the Urban Land Institute's Technical Assistance
Panel (TAP) to provide feedback on the recently adopted Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. The
study session will provide an opportunity for City Staff and the TAP to present the reported
findings and recommendations to the City Council.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the report.
1 ~
Submitted By view d By
conomic Development Director Assistan i y Manager
Page 1 of 2 ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION:
In early 2011, ,Staff contacted the Urban Land Institute (ULI) after learning that they were
offering Technical Assistance Panels to provide strategic advice to communities on complex
land use and real estate development issues. The ULI is a unique organization in that there are
many disciplines represented including planning, developers, architects, economic developers,
local government, etc.
The Technical Assistance Panels (TAP) links public agencies and nonprofit organizations to the
knowledge and experience of ULI and its membership. ULI San Francisco began holding TAPs
as a way to bring together the public and private sector and to provide an outlet for members to
give back to the community. The ULI's deep experience in working with cities on downtown
development and issues was a major reason that Staff sought their feedback and input on the
Downtown Dublin.
Staff asked that the TAP assist in providing responses in the following areas:
Identify ways to spend Community Benefit Program in-lieu funds to attract business and
customers
Prioritize physical improvements necessary to make Downtown Dublin vibrant (attract
business and retail) and pedestrian friendly.
Evaluate the current mix of retailers in Downtown Dublin and provide suggestions on
retail categories that will improve the vitality of the downtown.
Evaluate emerging technology trends to determine whether the use of technology will
further enhance the Downtown Dublin area (ex. Wifi, apps, etc.)
In July 2011, the TAP spent two days in Dublin examining these issues. The TAP toured the
area, met with key City staff and the Economic Development Ad-Hoc Committee
representatives, as well as conducted interviews with stakeholders. The TAP panelists included:
Ron Golem, Principal at BAE Urban Economics (Economic Development)
David Cropper, Managing Director of TMG Partners (Developer)
David Johnson, Christiani Johnson Architects (Architect)
Keri Lung, Senior Development Consultant, MidPen Housing Corporation (Housing)
Patrick O'Keefe, City Manager of Emeryville (Local GovernmenUEconomic Development)
• Gerry Tierney, Senior Associate, Perkins + Will (Architect)
Iman Novin, Assistant Project Manager, Bridge/Build (Housing)
The Report (Attachment 1) is a culmination of the various disciplines represented on the Panel.
There are a diverse set of ideas and suggestions that are part of the recommendations.
Several of the recommendations are items that the City is currently working on and others, while
worth exploring, may not be appropriate for Dublin today. The ULI team makes no
representation that all of these ideas must be implemented to ensure a successful downtown.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Not applicable.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Report from the Urban Land Institute
- Page 2 of 2
Urban land
Institute
DOWNTOWN
DUBLIN,CA
Technical Assistance Panel
• About ULI's Technical Assistance Panels
ULI San Francisco Technical Assistance Panel Program (known as "TAP") is an
extension of the national Urban Land Institute (ULI) Advisory Services Panel Program.
ULI's Advisory Services Panels provide strategic advice to clients (public agencies
and nonprofit organizations) on complex land use and real estate development issues.
The program links clients to the knowledge and experience of ULI and its membership.
Established in 1947, the Advisory Services Program has completed over 500 panels
in 47 states, 12 countries, and on 4 continents. The Advisory Services Program has
been successful due to its comprehensive, pragmatic approach to solving land use
challenges.
Each panel team is composed of highly qualified professionals who volunteer their
time to ULI. They are chosen for their knowledge of the panel topic and screened to
ensure their objectivity. ULI's interdisciplinary panel teams provide a holistic look at
development problems. A respected ULI member who has previous panel experience
chairs each panel.
Local San Francisco Bay Area TAPS are held over the course of two days in the
client's community. A detailed briefing book is given to each TAP participant prior
to the day of the TAP. The TAP begins with a tour of the study area either by bus and
on foot, is followed by a briefing by the client and others, and then transitions into
private interviews and panel discussion regarding the client's issues and questions.
At the end of the TAP, the panel provides a Power Point presentation to the client and
invited guests summarizing the panel's observations and recommendations. Within
ten weeks, a final written report is delivered to the client. The final report presents
highlights of the panel's independent review and contains a diverse set of ideas and
suggestions that mayor may not ultimately make sense for the community for which it
was prepared.
About ULI
The Urban Land Institute's mission is to provide leadership in the responsible use of
land and in creating and sustaining thriving communities worldwide. Founded in 1936,
the ULI is anon-profit organization of land-use professionals with 27,000 members
. ~ in 95 countries (www.uli.org), including 1,800 in the greater San Francisco District
f ~ _ .~,r~-~, Council (www.ulisf.org). ULI San Francisco serves the greater Bay Area with pragmatic
~ ~ land use expertise and education.
Team Assignment and Process
The City of Dublin, using their recently passed Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
(Specific Plan) as a guide, aims to improve the vitality of their downtown. The panel
was asked how to prioritize the execution of the Specific Plan. The TAP process
consisted of a day of site tours, stakeholder interviews, a panel discussion, and a
~ ~ presentation the following morning.
Site Context
The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area is bounded generally by Village Parkway
on the east, Amador Valley Boulevard on the north, San Ramon Road on the west,
and Interstate 580 on the south. The Specific Plan is an aggregate of all or a major
portion of five existing plans: San Ramon Road Specific Plan, Dublin Downtown
Plan, Downtown Core Specific Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and the
Village Parkway Specific Plan.
Collectively, these plans are zoned for the additional development of nearly 3.2
million square feet of non-residential development, 740 dwelling units, and 150
hotel rooms. Since 2000, when a majority of these plans were adopted, 258,734
square feet of non-residential development and 54 residential units have been
constructed. In addition, 617 multi-family residential units have been entitled and
309 of the units are currently under construction.
This Specific Plan focuses on strengthening the development standards and design
guidelines and providing greater direction as to future land uses, creating three
distinct districts in the Plan -Transit-Oriented District, Retail District and Village
Parkway District. Most of the attention has been directed to the Transit-Oriented
District south of Dublin Boulevard. Specifically, transit-oriented developments are
encouraged within walking distance of the recently opened West Dublin/Pleasanton '
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station.
At present, Downtown Dublin largely functions as a regional retail area comprised
of a number of large-format "power centers" with ancillary smaller specialty
retail sales and services. These retailers (such as Target, Ross, and Marshalls)
represent a unique niche in the regional marketplace and attract patrons from the
entire Tri-Valley region which includes the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore,
San Ramon, and Danville. The Specific Plan encourages new development
and improvements to existing developments to create a more walkable, urban
environment and to enhance the City's tax base.
Proposed New Development
Several new projects are either under construction or have been entitled in the
Specific Plan Area. The most significant development is the opening of the West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. The station is located within the median of
Interstate 580, with pedestrian access north and south over both sections of the
freeway. By 2013, the project is projected to accommodate 8,600 users per day.
Within the City of Dublin, a 713-space parking garage has been constructed at the
southern terminus of Golden Gate Drive for BART commuters. As part of the BART
project, a joint development project with a 150-room hotel and 7,500 square feet
of retail space has been planned (Stage I Development Plan), in addition to the
309 multi-family residential units (Essex) which are under construction west of
Golden Gate Drive. Adjacent to and west of the BART station project is an existing
225,500 square feet one-story warehouse facility (the Prologis site, formerly
AMB). This property has been entitled for development of 308 multi-family
residential dwelling units and a 150,000 square feet office building. Associated with
these developments, St. Patrick Way will be extended, providing a vehicular and
pedestrian connection between Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street.
Other various residential, office and mixed-use developments have been
conceptually discussed with the City of Dublin, but no formal applications have
been submitted.
The Vision
The goal of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan is: Downtown Dublin will be a vibrant and dynamic commercial and mixed-use center
that provides a wide array of opportunities for shopping, services, dining, working, living and entertainment in apedestrian-friendly and
aesthetically pleasing setting that attracts both local and regional residents.
~ t
1~ 1~ ~ ' ~ ~ ! F~, F - LEGEND ~
~~.s r~ ~ J SWdflc %an Boundary
,rte ,
1~ 1!. ~ - Gly Limil line
. :,i'~, a~•r~-!'- ~ ! Siss Of Ptl?c~l (Awa)
~ ~
_ 1
'i' ~ i'" 0.01 • 0.25
~rN ~.-`y 0.2A - 0.50
j y~~., 1 ~ ~ ~ , ? -
} 1~ ~ ?
~.::'ik ~ ? 0.51.1.00
?
~ lAl -2.00
~ ~
y_'_ - - 2.01 - 5.00
i
~ - 5.01.10.50
~ ~
~ ~
~ s
r t~ ? -
! ~ ~ rr ~i
!
~ \
..i 'J'_ _
i~
l ~ ~
t ,
i ~ 1 •
~ ~~a
l
1 ~
?7. i ~
_ ~
. _.S City of
~ Pleasonton
- -
Parcel Size and Building Footprint-Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
'r Stakeholder Interviews
- - The immediate area has a number of institutional
stakeholders and individual property owners. Due
=r.~ to the time constraints of this process, individual
- ~ _ ~ resident stakeholders were not consulted by the TAP,
~ • L but local retail experts and property owners were
'1~r.A t interviewed. Stakeholders engaged by the TAP:
' - ~ -
~ P al
`.L , Councilmember Don Biddle
~
Mike Costa, Terranomics
• John Eudy, Essex Development
r ~ Mayor Tim Sbranti, City of Dublin
- - Michael Schafer, 8uriington Coat Factory
- Felicia Studstill, Mayfield Gentry, Dublin Place
- Sandra Weck, Colliers
Issues to Be Explored
The panel was asked a series of questions by the City of Dublin
- ~ during the process that helped to guide the analysis and final
y~.,C_ ,~~`Y,~~'•, recommendations. The City posed four specific issues for the
~ , , ~ , ~ ~aa panel to address:
_ , ~
1. Identify ways to spend Community Benefit Program in-lieu
funds to attract business and customers.
y : _ - mss,,
~ - 2. Prioritize physical improvements necessary to make
, ~ Downtown Dublin vibrant (attract business and retail) and
~ ~ pedestrian friendly.
~p
• 3. Evaluate the current mix of retailers in Downtown Dublin and
T " ' ~ - provide suggestions on retail categories that will improve the
` i = vitality of the downtown.
1:~~ . 4. Evaluate emerging technology trends to determine whether
.1 ~ the use of technology will further enhance the Downtown
a Dublin area (eg WiFi, apps, etc)
_ ~ . =
1. Identify ways to spend Community Benefit Program (CBP) in-lieu funds to
attract business and customers.
Currently, the CBP is structured to apply to development that is in excess of the permitted amount. The panel suggested the City
consider application of the program to all development, including development in East Dublin. The funds could be best invested on
catalytic projects preferably within the TOD subarea first. While a movie theater would be a goad nighttime use, it is very expensive
to construct, and the panel suggested that the funds could help incentivize a theater or other entertainment venue perhaps through
the subsidy of development costs. Another good use of funds would be a downtown park or outdoor event space located on or
adjacent to Golden Gate Drive as it leads to BART. Funds could also be used to subsidize small tenant improvement through grants
or loans. Lastly, CBP funds could help clean up store fronts and fa~atle improvements.
~ r..
1--
.yet ~ i
a 1 .
-
TAP on Site
~I~~M1~tJI?';f'~•-~ ~ ~ ~ :'I-~. 1!fdlC~l. aS11~~~':~
2. Prioritize physical improvements necessary to make Downtown Dublin vibrant
(attract business and retail) and pedestrian friendly.
The City should explore how to create a community activation point downtown in addition to the existing senior center, preferably
in partnership with Chabot-Las Positas College, a major downtown land owner. The community center could be funded using park
and recreation fees and may be a joint venture opportunity with Chabot-Las Positas College.
r ~
Yet
~ O ~
. ~ 4 ~ .
a o d-o e
~ ~ ,l
• b f 5 12 12 ~ 5 ~2 1~ (0-5 ~ $
X00 Iz.O.4.~
Potential Configurations for Dublin Blvd. Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Friendly 6esign
-bV~t~lN ~L.g,VPcQO _
• 10o re.o • tia
° ~GJ~ t'1~TDbi•~ } C1~~~ D~VIQ~
0 `Z X 12~ `tC2.£tJ~l., \_.Ps~.Y~TS ~ja • a1CSCt5C.T~01J
e 7 X t9~ $1K`C L~'E LI•e• O12~nC9tJ
e -Z b yJ~TL1~.-$ °O' S\~K ~~r • SLDLT,
I
3. Evaluate the current mix of retailers in Downtown Dublin and provide
suggestions on retail categories that will improve the vitality of the downtown.
The panel recognizes that the current big box retailers are valuable to the City. At the same time there are a lot of opportunities
to create variety with regards to the size of retailers. Similar to what was done with the REI, Sprouts and Elephant Bar parcels,
integration of large format and smaller scale retail would provide more variation. The panel recommends bringing in an economic
firm or retail broker to conduct a detailed gap analysis or. at minimum, explore potential entertainment and dining uses.
4. Evaluate emerging technology trends to determine whether the use of
technology will further enhance the Downtown Dublin area (eg WiFi, apps, etc).
The panel supports implementing free WiFi in the downtown. The panel also feels that the City should introduce a requirement
that developers of new projects implement a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) reducing minimum parking
requirements and traffic congestion. Aspects of the TDMP should include City Carshare or Zipcar (with development incentives
or reduced parking requirements granted to projects incorporating such car-sharing programs), electronic vehicle preferred
parking and charging stations, and potentially BART ticket and Clipper card validation at the paint of sale at various local retailers.
Mobile smart phone applications similar to "DashMob" or "Punchd" could also help drive traffic to local retailers. These mobile
technologies will help supplement and could be synced with the existing upgraded electronic signagefor Tri-Valley Transit bus and
BART services that shows real time transit information.
1 ~ ~ ~
-
~ -
R_~
BgRT -
- -
I~
- b
9
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats
Strengths Weaknesses
The Specific Plan demonstrates the City's awareness of the One of the major implementation challenges of the Specific
implementation issues that need to be tackled. The panel was Plan is that it includes multiple property owners with different
particularly encouraged by the fact that the City recognizes that motivations. Furthermore, the Specific Plan covers a large and
accommodating traffic should not drive the planning exercise. A more diverse area than a traditional downtown, meaning a single
willingness to tolerate congestion is key to being able to realize set of strategies cannot be applied to the entire area. The creation
the vision of a vibrant downtown. of districts within the downtown that have their distinct character
will be beneficial in the long run,
The Specific Plan area is conveniently located immediately
atljacentto the intersection of two major freeways, I-580 and While there may be a desire to see transformative change in the
I-680. The planning area also benefits from proximity to the newly area, garnering city-wide buy-into the notion of public investment
built West Dublin / Pleasanton BART Station. as a catalyst may be challenging. The challenge of the Community
Benefit Program is timing, If the program is relied on to fund
The planning area benefits from strong demographics both from some of the key improvements that need to take place it may
an income and education standpoint. Furthermore, the City's take too long or never happen because the money won't come
budget is in relatively good shape and there is a strong set of in until development is well underway. The challenge remains:
existing tenants in the downtown area. The re-tenanting that has How can desired new development get underway without the
come out of the recession further demonstrates that the area has required infrastructure? If there is a sincere city-wide desire to
retail strength. The panel did not perceive resistance from citizens see transformative change it requires utilizing public resources
in the immediate area to what the City is trying to accomplish. to get it going, including consideration of the appropriate use of
debt to finance up-front infrastructure. Lastly, this is an infill area
and how it is approached from a development standpoint is very
different from the greenfield development that has occurred on
the east side of Dublin.
Opportunities Threats
Opportunities abound in response to these challenges. The City The Specific Plan calls for fiscal self-sufficiency, requiring
benefits from a fairly open landscape with a lot of property owners a different approach to public finance, specifically one that
and few buildings. While the abundance of parking is part of the includes upfront public investment and a closer look at some of
retail area's success, some of this "sea of parking" has the potential the available tools including debt financing, which the City has
for development into new structures (some of which may contain historically been averse too. The panel also believes that there is a
parking as mentioned in the Specific Plan). Several opportunities need for more collaborative engagement with developers.
for public-private partnerships with various principals are currently
at play. The panel suggests that the area near the West Dublin City-wide support to invest in the Downtown may be problematic
BART Station has the most immediate potential for development, in given the perceived east and west division. Finally, real estate
contrast to the rest of downtown, such as the Village Parkway area. capital markets are currently fragile. While there is financing for
multifamily and other projects, that window of opportunity may
close soon so there is an impetus to act now.
1
Strengths Weaknesses
• Pr ngressive Specific Plan Multiple property owners with ditterent motivations
• RecogniUun that traffic should not he a [;onstraint Lack of public funding im-esimenl
on market opportunities Cornnrunrty Benr~ht Program issues
' City a~r~ate of implementation isstties 1 ilnulg hlnd; huilif over hnle but In~~eshr.ent ~s naederi
• (irBat IOCa11011 Llp f1011f
• Ai the intersection of tt-vo freeways No ledevelclpment urgency
• fvto RAPT stations Potential conceurs Duel deploring public lasouleF,s cit~;-
• Mnt:oclimate conditions in rlowrttown are conducive ~~aide spe~~iiically to ine dov,~nto!:m area
to recreation and outdclnr activities Multiple and fragmented o~.,~nership could pus~=
• Cllr in ~:~trong financial condition challenges to de~<<elr~ping public-private palm?rslllt~;
infill development and levitali~atiun of the area
• f liuh-un:ome area: sal+;s tax revenue and hlyh mr [fian
utctnn~~. luur~.ehatds
• Stlonn rliv~~lse and long-standin[~ tenants
• Perceived as b~ing husmess-friendly
• I o~:~ vacanr,„~
• No or little resistance to development in the
Uownto4•,n area
Opportunities Threats
• Low density and surplus parking creates development City's relucrance to rsu~- drhl fUl publir~ ir,lpi o~~enl~:?nt~
nppnrtlllllt~;' srtns Can ~nl!~hlf i d_~.~=: ~1~•ne"~i ; I~_",~c,l~lll f'~!'~'I : I1~!i~'_ .111:1+
!1 I7~_IU1- i ~ r, •,i , r, tai.,.. ,~,.li
• h.~~{n,~r~uhlic-pr"~1te~~arfn?I~,hit'r~ppnf~i~r~tid: -
• n(,i;i I~?lr= tit it i.rt?il t'~a~ f(~I )-('lI I ~'icn t _i-, a I~~ .I' ~n I - . ~J_`. f
, -I~~ ~j"U II'~.i'1 ' ii~l1 I ~ ~ i ~
• iui'f l;'; t,J ri ri ~.~~n,~c~ ~n rl~,.., r
• ~ _ _ _ - C ~il.'It-.~
- -
Recommendations
After the consideration of the stakeholder questions, SWOT analysis, site tour and interviews, the team identified what they felt were the
most pressing issues and resulting recommendations. Many of the panel's ten recommendations focus on improvements needed in the
transit-oriented district and uniting the City's vision with the property owners'.
1. Focus on TOD District, especially
4-5 key parcels as a catalyst
The City should take a step further than specific planning and
actually bring together the property owners and interested
parties to try and generate a coordinated plan for key '
catalytic properties. These owners include Essex, BART,
Chabot-Las Positas and Safeway. The City should playa '
proactive role in creating a unified design vision by funding
the design plans for these blocks and by helping address
how financial implementation will occur. The City will need to
go beyond what is spelled out in the Specific Plan to create
successful projects that advance the vision for downtown.
The panel suggests the City sit down and have some design
exercises with the owners of the key parcels to try and ~
paint a shared vision. As part of that, the City may have to
think about public investment that goes along with private
investment, as well as flexibility from a regulatory standpoint
in order to stimulate the private sector's desire to invest.
y
2. Leverage current opportunities
.
for Public-Private Partnerships
The City should continue to work with BART to explore
alternative near term uses for the BART hotel/restaurant t"''~z'~"`~~`-`~"~-- l
site as part of a shared vision. BART's focus on a hotel i +.w~ _ , *^w+w-
for that site does not match near-term market potential; it
would benefit both parties to explore how that parcel can be ` ~..:A,~
developed sooner rather than later. The panel also suggests ~ ~.o ~
discussing with BART shared use of their parking garage ~,~~`e ~
~ with nighttime uses that activiate the area focused on the -
upgraded Golden Gate Drive / St. Patrick Way TOD, for ~
example a movie theater. roD DistrictEssetdia~s
3. Simultaneously work on _
redevelopment of Dublin Place r
The TAP spoke with the manager of the Dublin Place and 1 ~C
believe that they have a sincere interest in redeveloping their ~..-J w
property. The City should simultaneously be talking with ` i r
them and offering the same type of collaborative planning ~ wxx
effort as would occur elsewhere in the TOD District (see ~
Recommendation #1). - i
Gxa~- --r
~ yZAt+C ~ , - , -
TDD District Essen61815
4. Explore opportunities for
entertainment and civic center to
~ ~ animate public realm and activate
night-time activity in TOD District
The City should investigate future opportunities to activate ~
~ _ the area with additional civic (City, County, other agencies,
= - - etc.) and entertainment options. Evaluate partnership
_ options with Chabot-Las Positas College District on the
Crown Chevrolet site to create a public plaza/gathering
space which could be jointly used, Additionally, if and when
- the City needs to expand its own footprint, it should consider
the downtown first.
Downtown Dublin BART
_ 5. Focus first on residential and
horizontal mixed-use developments,
. - - ~ w then retail and office
The City should focus on residential and horizontal mixed
• use on Golden Gate Drive and St. Patrick Way to provide
more residents to support diversified retail. Current limits
s on the allowable number of housing units within the 70D
area should be removed. The Prologis (formerly AMB) site
r
4~ ~t~-~--~'''" should be allowed to increase its residential count, with office
development, given the surplus of office space along the 680
_ corridor, being optional or driven by market needs. In the
_ ~ ~ panel's experience, vertical mixed use can be problematic,
particularly in the early phases of transforming an area
- through TOD. Tao often "4-over-1" (4 levels of residential over
• 4 1 level of retail or commercial) scenarios maintain their for-
e lease signs in the windows of the ground floor retail for years.
Downtown Dublin
_ 6. Undertake streetscape redesign
_ for Golden Gate Drive to enhance
- the pedestrian experience and for
r
~ `t~_ calming traffic
,6~: On Golden Gate Drive allow for one 12' travel lane and bike
_ ` - ~ lanes in each direction, add on-street parallel parking and
- ~ increase the 4' sidewalks to a 10' minimum. Village Parkway
Entrance to Dublin Place can serve as a pilot project by reducing travel lanes to one-way
in each direction and simply re-striping to allow for diagonal
parking.
7. Assess downtown public 9. Dedicate staff to manage
improvement financing strategies Capital Improvement Plan
More public improvements and public investment are Redevelopment agencies often implement capital
needed on the front end. To do so the City needs to identify improvements in a very efficient way by identifying
and weave together a multiple range of funding sources. capital needs for an entire downtown area and assigning
Some of these sources may include Assessment Districts a dedicated project manager to implement the various
or Infrastructure Financing Districts, which may evolve capital improvements (CI's) within their individual project
under California law to replace redevelopment project areas. area. Improvements include streetscape improvements,
The City has had discussions in the past about Business undergrounding of utilities, extending trolley lines, building
Improvement Districts but should also explore how to pedestrian bridges and upgrading infrastructure, making
restructure the Community Benefits Plans so those funds are way for future development. The panel recommends the City
more targeted into the downtown area, including potentially create a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the Downtown
capturing funds from the larger City and then focusing them Dublin Specific Plan area and dedicate time and resources,
into downtown. i.e. a project manager potentially housed within the Economic
Development Department, to implement the CIP. Once a CIP is
approved, this person would function independently from the
Further reduce fees for targeted uses, City's Building and Public Works Department to implement the
especially restaurants, in downtown capital improvement projects within the Specific Plan area.
The City has done a great job reducing fees in the downtown
area as an incentive, however even at reduced levels they 1 Q, Exempt residential development
can be too high and create an impediment for some uses from C B P a mentS
especially restaurants and dining uses. The City should p y
further reduce fees to attract restaurants. Exempting residential development downtown from the CBP
payments could help further incentivize housing where it is
needed most, thereby providing more retail customers within
walking distance.
~ ~ ~
! -
~ ~ - was
~ ~\r..\
p~t~or+ O ~ Cx~~ttiJ E~~ W \?Fr ~ ~ 1
o bo' a.o w. `
- 1 7. 12' -7~w\+~tl. L~?~ E# ~ oia~8-Zb~.) ~ .P~ - + - ~
• 4~ " cam WO.~S 1- C'D~ ~a*1.1M~sC `2~a- vim' ~ 4 ~ 9 1~ Lf IE' 'TS 7-d ~2' U 4 4's 4 b'
' j ~ r ~ too ~xa~w~
1I ~ VltlJ~sl~ F~w~Y
{ j ~ .400' Re-lJ.
. >5 rmur.~ j ~ t~ onrm~
. 1'S y,~ l£' ,ti VS k D-$ . t X t2'-RJMtI. IJO.YF, ~'ia 0~2LCZ17~
Q'~~J ~ ~ GOIFSN CwR'f6 m2NQ W~ ~\ME ~ 'Y X
u~1SPl~ LUFFt'K ~ ~ S1dR
g\K~ Lh~1E ~Itr • D\QdC'[\pU
1 lc 17; -\cr1+.+EL Vw1i \~sy. Tssc~c.Z\VJ - 4 -mill +9R1-S + ti Siod4+M.1C ~ s.o~
• 1 Y V 5 3111J~ 11s~1E D\R~~l1a.>
• 4 ~lYdl~ LJEV..i i b~S s~ac*\.,~rr.K t''A -S~Gd
Relevant Case Studies
Milipitas Transit Area Specific Plan
The City of Milipitas, CA's Transit Area Specific Plan, adopted The Milpitas Transit Area Specific Plan includes an implementation
in June 2008, is a 437-acre mixed-use plan area that calls for chapter that outlines every capital improvement, the department
up to 7,100 new dwelling units and approximately 1.4M square responsible, the timeframe and the geographic area that benefits
feet of commercial space built over four phases. Phasing will from the improvement. Studies were completed to identify all
depend on residential market factors. The City staff and their road and utility improvements and public services. Detailed
consultant worked extensively with property owners, public infrastructure plans for sewer, wastewater, storm-water, recycled
agencies, community members and other stakeholders in the area water and utilities allowed for the preparation of a detailed
to develop along-term plan that is visionary and yet grounded in financing and phasing plan and determination of appropriate
market reality. impact fees. This implementation strategy ensures funding for
capital improvements will be available and provides confidence
Two rounds of interviews were held with property owners to to the City and property owners that the Specific Plan will be fully
ascertain each owner's goals and constraints. Contentious issues, implemented.
about the allocation of parks and streets across property lines,
and the distribution of land uses and densities, were resolved Property owners began to implement the Specific Plan even
through ongoing discussions. before it was adopted, suggesting that they had enough
confidence to submit project applications. Together, the City
and project sponsors were able to identify issues and propose
refinements to the Specific Plan.
Applicability to Downtown Dublin
• Transit-Oriented Development
• Property owner buy-in
dl 1 rl
i
"1
-_i.:
Piper/Montugue Subarea
e ~ ~ ~ i
~ ~
r ~ - ti ~V ~ i ~
't
. _ V~.. `~i
McCandless Drive
Before and After-Mllpitaa Trait Area Specific Plan
Station Park Green, San Mateo
Adjacent to the Hayward Park rail station, Station Park Green
is a 12-acre transit-oriented development with open space, 590
a
units, 10,000 square feet of office space and 60,000 square feet of `
commercial/retail. I
Apedestrian-friendly street grid connects the different uses,
much the same way that the intersection of Golden Gate and St. ' , _ ~
Patrick's could be at the Dublin TOD district. Stakeholders worked Y ' ~ ' '`'='i ~
closely with the City staff and San Mateo community through ~ ~
~ - ~ ;
public workshops and meetings, ensuring community consensus _
1~• ~ ,
and timely approvals of the master plan. i ~ '
V
Applicability to Downtown Dublin - r
- _ ~
• Similiar area to site ~ ~ ~ ~s.d..~
• Mixed-use "green" transit-oriented development
-
r {
I f
- .
i
i
~ L 5
r T•
`"--1
~ ~i
~ i ,
f
I
i
~
Participants
Panel Chair Ron Golem of BAE Urban Economics specializes in Patrick iJ'Keete is the City Manager for the City of Emeryville, and
project management for complex assignments. including real Executive Director of the Emeryville Redevelopment Agency. He
estate transaction support. transit-oriented development. strategic is responsible far the oversight of eight departments including
huranr,ss pl.uuunit and pirulr,uu dev~~lopnii;nl far public purpnses Police Iiic- Publir, Walks. Community Servir.es Fi:nnr~mi~.
I'iii~r tr^ luuunu hAL 17i!n s~~iveil as Real [slalr~ til~~r.cialisl lo, [he I?e~^alnpnient & Ilousmy. Atlmnustratnie Services Planiun~t
Nato^n,rl rank San-ire foinnilalinq strategies 1oi publiciprivate Building and City Clerk_ Prior to the 20DG appointment as Grt:.'
par tnei ships and negotiating numerous agreements in the Golden Manager. he served as the Director of the Emei}+ville Economic
Gate National Recreation Area. Ron has also 4vorked for private real Development and Housing Department since 1995, Mr O'Keeffe
estate development companies as an Asset Manager. completing currently oversees a staff of 1$5 and a S64.4 million annual
successful negotiations for over 150 commercial leases. He has operating budget. including a S34.4 million annual Redevelopment
managed diverse portfolios of all types of commercial properties Agency budget that funds Economic Development and Capital
totaling in excess of two million square feet. Improvement Programs.
David Cropper. Managing Director, joined TMG Partners in 2000. Gerry Tierney. Senior Associate with Perkins + Will. has 30 years
He has 25 years of direct real estate experience in finance, of experience in architecture have been focused primarily on
rni~r,IrurUr~n and ~~utithtr~re,rts Ile is r~,sponsible for Th/IG h~~u~inq and nthei inslifufinnal pinjar,t~ That h?~d~ ia,riiiiiar; ri..~el~
I',ii li!~~i~,' fui,inr,~~ ,uui,i~~v~~luhnir~ni ;,rlitriri~a in lh~: rli~.alr.i ('~,y ~;r,hei 1is~: in ~nnl ~inrl~a~~t,,n(linrl ~~I ~<<rtnl,,t~._~i~ hiur_, ,~s~:, ~iii~1
ll~~~~i anal r, ,i nr~:inl,n ~,l (h~~ tiini~s Invt~slun,nl Cnnu,ullr;~;. p~,~i;,trl~n~.E. ~ ~ral as rode ar,rl ~n1!rl+±mriil i~;sii~;~.. I li ; hni tfnln~
Ili' IIIUtiI I~1cl'nlly [iIIBClell I he ~IOSSIng ~ 5811 filUnO- all it:alnr,a r8nge DI p(oJer;fs trial ClefnJnStlate InIIOVaII~'F;, C;Ilent-
award-wmniny 525D million dollar mixed-use transit-oriented focused solutions across varying project types. Gerry brings
dcvelol7rnent. as !well as 650 Townsend. TMG's mixed-use office flexibility and experience to each n+~!^~ project, creating individual
and retail project in San Francisco. He has financed over $1 designs tailored to the specific needs of the client. user and site.
billion of real estate including construction loans, permanent
loans. CMBS facilities as well as tax-exempt band and tax credit Iman Novin, Assistant Project Manager /Sr. Project Analyst.
structured financings. joined BRIDGE/BUILD in 2007 and works on both investment
and nett' construction projects, conducting project due diligence
David Johnson formed Christiani Johnson Architects vdith and providing ongoing support for the redevelopment of the
Richard D. Christiani in 1994 and has been the lead designer for MacArthur Transit Village in Oakland. CA. Prior to joining BUILD.
many of the firm's residential and mixed-use projects. including Iman assisted the Real Estate and Planning Divisions of CCDC.
Bridgeview. Oceanvies^i Village. The Potrero 555 Bartlett 4th do~~mto~:rn San Diego's rede!~elopment arm ~:ith num~~iuris
llnd I1 ;;Ini F'~iCP, ~fn~a ill 'f'<,i; ,VIII ~~Iti f'ii lhii If ='~li, . ~ ~ "F", C~, ,~!"'~-'nI ~ 1~,I ,i'f-~, ~ i~f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~„i
Calrfr!i nia Fi;rkele~;~ He P,aS iletieloped pal Ur ,I_;i - ~,;c~ In i i ~ ~n' ' ~ ~ ~i'„ ~ ~ ..;I~ ,r ~.r~. ~ ~ i.~ ~~~i
pl~nniiT;1 hliJh-d~'~ls~t',' llll7ln inflli d~'lrloh~~~, n' frl?r ~iri~,l h0, nC; ~ n „ .~~i ~~.in ':.I
aver retail. office. Iman holds a Bachelor ct ~~ence deyrae,n ~uucu,~al
Engineering and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Urban Studies and
Kerr Lung, Senior Development Consultant far MidPen Housing Planning from the University of California. San Diego
Corporation, has over 20 years of experience in the fields of
Af`U!CI;'!IJ~O iinilS~rlfj ;r~,rlf7rilif, d9 ~ : I-.I
h~_fl ~L.i'- Il I~,:,D ifSlli~c tai `.f~. - - -
I~ . ~r L P~,~ r ~ r ~ - . - ~ = Michael Jameson
i - ~ -~r-,r - - -
~ ~i~ .-t~- • - - -
i t ~ .~j~~; n ~;i 1-.
scarce public funds. resulting in record growth for fui~d~~n at ; Xiomara Cisneros,. Director
time when most developers are struggling. Kate White. Executive Director