HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.2 Vlg Parkway Pilot Parkingor
19 82
/ii � 111
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
May 15, 2012
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Joni Pattillo, City Manager""'
Village Parkway Pilot Parking Program
Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
CITY CLERK
File #570 -20
Since the adoption of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan in February 2011, City Staff have been
working to implement the goals and policies of both the Specific Plan and the subsequent
recommendations of the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Technical Assistance Panel report. One of
the recommendations from the ULI report was to incentivize more commercial businesses in the
downtown by having greater flexibility in regulatory standards such as the City's parking
requirements. The City Council will provide direction to Staff on testing a parking reduction pilot
program in a portion of the Village Parkway District for a period of three years.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council provide Staff with direction on whether or not to amend
the Zoning Ordinance to temporarily suspend the parking standards in a portion of the Village
Parkway District for a limited term of three years.
r
�?14
Submitted By Reviewed By
Director of Community Development Assistant City Manager
DESCRIPTION:
The overarching goal of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) is "to create a vibrant,
dynamic commercial and mixed -use center that provides a wide array of opportunities for
shopping, services, dining, working, living, and entertainment in a pedestrian - friendly and
aesthetically pleasing setting that attracts both local and regional residents."
The DDSP established three distinct districts, each including its own set of design standards
tailored to the envisioned uses. The Transit - Oriented District embraces the West Dublin
Page 1 of 4 ITEM NO. 8.2
BART station and is the district where a vast majority of the new residential development in
Dublin is envisioned to take place. The Retail District includes much of the existing retail core
and aims to stimulate infill development and redevelopment of aging buildings and large parking
areas. The Village Parkway District embraces the existing successful service and retail uses
along a "Main Street" corridor, and this district has the most potential to reutilize and re- tenant
existing buildings with more intense uses such as restaurants, service retail, and other local -
serving businesses.
Background
Since before Dublin's incorporation in 1982, the Village Parkway District has been home to
many locally -owned businesses. Several of the property owners along Village Parkway have
owned their properties for many years. Through the years, these owners have expressed an
interest in being able to utilize the existing buildings more intensely. In many cases, more
intense uses are restricted by the amount of parking available on the subject parcel and whether
or not the new user can meet the parking requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
Some property owners have suggested that the Village Parkway District cannot achieve greater
vibrancy and intensity with the City's current parking standards. This suggestion is supported by
the reality that those uses which add vitality to an area — restaurants, bars, entertainment, retail
establishments — would not have sufficient parking on most parcels along Village Parkway due
to the existing building and development patterns in place.
In accordance with Section 8.72 (Off Street Parking and Loading), the parking requirements for
these uses are as follows:
Sit Down Restaurant: 1 parking space per 100 square feet of floor area accessible to
customers plus 1 parking space per 300 square feet of floor area not
accessible to customers.
Specialty Restaurant: 1 per 200 square feet
Bar: 1 per 100 square feet
General Retail: 1 per 300 square feet
Entertainment Uses: Parking requirements vary from 1 per 100 square feet for comedy or
night clubs to parking based on a per seat basis for theaters.
Existing Conditions
A parking analysis completed in 2010 in conjunction with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
identified 1,395 off - street parking spaces in the entire Village Parkway District. This district
contains approximately 373,652 square feet of building area, which equates to roughly 1 parking
space for every 268 square feet of building area. This average includes uses that require less
parking, such as warehouse (1 space per 1,000 square feet) as well as uses that require more
parking, such as commercial schools (1 space per 50 square feet of instructional area).
Parking in downtown commercial districts
In downtown areas throughout the Bay Area, cities have taken varying approaches to deal with
the requirement to provide off - street parking. On- street parking is also commonplace. Some
cities, including Pleasanton, have moved to a market -based approach that allows buildings in
the downtown to change uses and complete small additions without requiring additional parking.
Dublin has traditionally had sufficient parking in the downtown to meet the parking requirements
outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. As properties in the downtown districts intensify, the ULI
Page 2 of 4
study (Attachment 1) recommended examining whether the traditional parking requirements
should continue to apply in all cases. There appear to be property owners in Downtown who
support a market -based approach to parking instead of a regulatory approach.
Under a market -based approach, the DDSP would continue to regulate the use types, but
parking requirements of the use types would not be a consideration. Under this approach,
parking supply and demand would be managed by the property owners and tenants, and not
regulated by the City. It would become the responsibility of the property owners, property
managers, and businesses to lease tenant spaces to the right combination of users to ensure
that there is sufficient parking to serve the businesses and their customers.
Proposed Pilot Program
A pilot program to test a market -based approach for parking is one way of testing the concept to
see if it could be successful in Downtown Dublin as a whole. Staff has discussed the pilot
program concept with two property owners on Village Parkway who have experienced
limitations on their ability to lease their property due to the City's parking requirements. The
area to test a proposed market -based parking reduction pilot program is shown on Figure 1
below.
Figure 1
The address range of the proposed
study area is all of the even
numbers between 7016 and 7150
Village Parkway.
The 4.3 -acre area consists of four
properties owned by two owners.
Each building has multiple tenant
spaces that house a variety of uses
including retail, indoor recreation,
bar /restaurant, auto repair and
service, warehouse, and personal
service. There is a total of 76,160
square feet of building area and
160 parking spaces spread
throughout the properties.
Staff believes that this section of
Village Parkway would be an
interesting location to test a pilot
market -based parking program for
several reasons:
i . i ne bumaings on these
properties are located close to the street, which makes them good candidates for more
active uses.
2. There is on- street parking in front of these buildings that could be utilized by customers.
3. The four parcels are fairly self- contained. If the pilot program leads to more intensive
parking demands, it is expected that there would be limited spillover parking onto other
Village Parkway properties.
Qage a 0F4
4. The property owners have expressed a willingness to try a market -based approach.
If the City Council would like Staff to pursue a pilot market -based parking program for these four
parcels on Village Parkway, Staff would:
1. Prepare amendments to Chapter 8.72 (Off Street Parking and Loading) of the Zoning
Ordinance to temporarily waive the parking requirements on the parcels noted above
during the pilot program;
2. Meet with the two property owners to review the proposed amendments and program
details;
3. Send a notice to all property owners and businesses within the Village Parkway District
notifying them of the pilot program and seeking their input on the concept;
4. Prepare the appropriate environmental review;
5. Send out Public Hearing Notices to all property owners and businesses within the Village
Parkway District and within 300 feet of the District; and
6. Prepare Staff Reports for the Planning Commission and City Council.
It is estimated that Staff would spend approximately 40 hours on research, meetings, and
preparing the necessary documents and outreach materials. The City Attorney is estimated to
spend approximately 8 hours on the project.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Public notices are not required on items where the City Council is providing feedback or
direction. Staff met with the two affected property owners and they expressed support for the
pilot program described in this Staff Report.
Notification of the meeting and a copy of the Staff Report was provided to the two subject
property owners. Future public hearings on this topic will be noticed in accordance with State
Law.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Urban Land Institute Technical Assistance Panel Report, July 2011
Page 4 of 4
Urban Land
I nsfif ufe
MT(IWN
D U L I
Technical Assistance Panel
Ally 2011
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 may or 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 ULl is a non- 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
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 foliowing 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 mufti- 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- forrnat "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 a pedestrian - friendly and
aesthetically pleasing setting that attracts both local and regional residents.
r
ltiGENo
SpatllG PIQn 8oundory
Oty Limit Line
It 3lW of PWCA (ACM)
,rt
r 0.01.0.25
0.26-0.50
0.51 - 1.U0
y
1.01 _100
'r:. .`, fx• ^; - 201 - 5.00
5.01. 10.50
Parcel Size and Building Footprint — Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
TAP
City of
Meaaanion
Stakeholder Interviews
The immediate area has a number of institutional
stakeholders and individual property owners. Due
to the time constraints of this process, individual
resident stakeholders were not consulted by the TAP,
but local retail experts and property owners were
interviewed. Stakeholders engaged by the TAP:
• Councilmember Don Biddle
• Mike Costa, Terranomics
• John Eudy, Essex Development
• Mayor Tim Sbranti, City of Dublin
• Michael Schafer, Burlington 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
recommendations. The City posed four specific issues for the
panel to address:
1. Identify ways to spend Community Benefit Program in -lieu
funds to attract business and customers.
2. Prioritize physical improvements necessary to make
Downtown Dublin vibrant (attract business and retail) and
pedestrian friendly.
3. Evaluate the current mix of retailers in Downtown Dublin and
provide suggestions on retail categories that will improve the
vitality of the downtown.
4, Evaluate emerging technology trends to determine whether
the use of technology will further enhance the Downtown
Dublin area (eg WiFi, apps, etc)
1. Identify ways to spend Community Benefit Program (CBP) in -lieu funds to
attract business and customers.
g
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 good 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 facade improvements.
ilk
.. �a
TAP on site
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 Rand owner. The community center could be funded using park
and recreation fees and may be a joint venture opportunity with Chabot -Las Positas College.
i
41[
b 'F (9 -'�; 12
Z.s Z S
too F_.Q .
Potential Configurations for Dublin Blvd. Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Friendly Design
1
A06 r —O.w
Ic' nkE-U t� I Cr is b.V tis
o 2- 7C t2' • Tr-i� L. 4P�rlk�S �2, • DtiR CTl4tJ
o � X l0� T�1,1C'C` �� Stil4- 'C��F2.�TCCAJ
a
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 WiFit 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 point 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 signage for Tri- Valley Transit bus and
BART services that shows real time transit information.
West Oubfin /Pleasanton BART
Strengths, 'Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats
Strengths
The Specific Plan demonstrates the City's awareness of the
implementation issues that need to be tackled. The panel was
particularly encouraged by the fact that the City recognizes that
accommodating traffic should not drive the planning exercise. A
willingness to tolerate congestion is key to being able to realize
the vision of a vibrant downtown.
The Specific Plan area is conveniently located immediately
adjacent to the intersection of two major freeways, 1.580 and
1 -680. The planning area also benefits from proximity to the newly
built West Dublin / Pleasanton BART Station.
The planning area benefits from strong demographics both from
an income and education standpoint. Furthermore, the City's
budget is in relatively good shape and there is a strong set of
existing tenants in the downtown area. The re- tenanting that has
come out of the recession further demonstrates that the area has
retail strength. The panel did not perceive resistance from citizens
in the immediate area to what the City is trying to accomplish.
Opportunities
Opportunities abound in response to these challenges. The City
benefits from a fairly open landscape with a lot of property owners
and few buildings. While the abundance of parking is part of the
retail area's success, some of this "sea of parking" has the potential
for development into new structures (some of which may contain
parking as mentioned in the Specific Plan). Several opportunities
for public- private partnerships with various principals are currently
at play. The panel suggests that the area near the West Dublin
BART Station has the most immediate potential for development, in
contrast to the rest of downtown, such as the Village Parkway area.
Weaknesses
One of the major implementation challenges of the Specific
Plan is that it includes multiple property owners with different
motivations. Furthermore, the Specific Plan covers a large and
more diverse area than a traditional downtown, meaning a single
set of strategies cannot be applied to the entire area. The creation
of districts within the downtown that have their distinct character
will be beneficial in the long run.
While there may be a desire to see transformative change in the
area, garnering city -wide buy -in to the notion of public investment
as a catalyst may be challenging. The challenge of the Community
Benefit Program is timing. If the program is relied on to fund
some of the key improvements that need to take place it may
take too long or never happen because the money won't come
in until development is well underway. The challenge remains:
How can desired new development get underway without the
required infrastructure? If there is a sincere city -wide desire to
see transformative change it requires utilizing public resources
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.
Threats
The Specific Plan calls for fiscal self - sufficiency„ requiring
a different approach to public finance, specifically one that
includes up -front public investment and a closer look at some of
the available tools including debt financing, which the City has
historically been averse too. The panel also believes that there is a
need for more collaborative engagement with developers.
City -wide support to invest in the Downtown may be problematic
given the perceived east and west division. Finally, real estate
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.
Strengths
^ PiuQ1esiwe Specific Plan
~ NaouQnihun that traffic should not Uouconstraint
on market opportunities
~
city awu|enA implementation issues
~
Great location
"A1 the intersection of two freeways
~
Two BART stations
~ Krundimnte conditions in downtown are conducive
tn recreation and nuldnaractivities
"
City m strong financial condition
~ High'imcomm area: sales tax mvenmmand highnieUian
konmwhqu�o�nda
~Strong, diverse and long-standing tenants
~
Perceived xo being businems'kend|y
~
Low vacancy
^
No or little resistance to development in the
Downtown area
Opportunities
^
Low density and oom&opavNoy creates development
opportunity sites
^ ManypubUc'pr|vate partnership opportunities
^Accx|emte the 0otentim/fn^TOD District asamapte/m
uwsit vIUegawi\h hurizonN[o6xed'uva
"
BART-oriented moiUantialdavo|upment
Interested owners in district
Weaknesses
• Multiple proper y owners with different motivations
• Lack of public funding/investment
• Commonity Benefit Program issues
• T|muiO� funds build over ��me but mvextmontomneeded
uphomi
• NoiedovelopmrntaQvnoy
• Potential concerns over deploying public resources city-
vvide specifically to the downtown area
• Multiple and fragmented ownership could pose
challenges 10 developing pub|ic-p/ivoto partner ships.
inlill development and revitalization of the area
Threats
~ City's eUuuanco to issue debt for puNiuimpvovemenm
can inhibit redevelopment —o revision Uoth/s policy may
Ua required to achieve the visioo
^ City'midn buy-in and financial Support (e.g. fans) may
be required to achieve Jmvntonnvision
^
Division between East and West Dublin reflected |n
planning effort
~S|mxm capture current mark*topportunities
~Fragi|byofenonomic conditions can impact
development opportunities
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'.
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 play a
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.
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
site as part of a shared vision. BART's focus on a hotel
for that site does not match near -term market potential; it
would benefit both parties to explore how that parcel can be
developed sooner rather than later. The panel also suggests
discussing with BART shared use of their parking garage
with nighttime uses that activiate the area focused on the
upgraded Golden Gate Drive / St. Patrick Way TOD, for
example a movie theater.
3. Simultaneously work on
redevelopment of Dublin Place
The TAP spoke with the manager of the Dublin Place and
believe that they have a sincere interest in redeveloping their
property. The City should simultaneously be talking with
them and offering the same type of collaborative planning
effort as would occur elsewhere in the TOD District (see
Recommendation #1).
-t -74— Q v,.ac$
TOD District Essentials
S
TOD Distract ESsentaais
g
Downtown Dublin BART
Downtown Dublin
Entrance to Dublin Place
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.
5. Focus first on residential and
horizontal mixed -use developments,
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
on the allowable number of housing units within the TOD
area should be removed. The Prologis (formerly AMB) site
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. Too often 'A-over-l" (4 levels of residential over
1 level of retail or commercial) scenarios maintain their for -
lease signs in the windows of the ground floor retail for years.
6. Undertake streetscape redesign
for Golden Gate Drive to enhance
the pedestrian experience and for
calming traffic
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
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
improvement financing strategies
More public improvements and public investment are
needed on the front end. To do so the City needs to identify
and weave together a multiple range of funding sources.
Some of these sources may include Assessment Districts
or Infrastructure Financing Districts, which may evolve
under California law to replace redevelopment project areas.
The City has had discussions in the past about Business
Improvement Districts but should also explore how to
restructure the Community Benefits Plans so those funds are
more targeted into the downtown area, including potentially
capturing funds from the larger City and then focusing them
into downtown.
8. Further reduce fees for targeted uses,
especially restaurants, in downtown
The City has done a great job reducing fees in the downtown
area as an incentive, however even at reduced levels they
can be too high and create an impediment for some uses
especially restaurants and dining uses. The City should
further reduce fees to attract restaurants.
q--n- (�)
I
I Y
f
tiS � �,� Iti 5111 i l.g h
4
G.oIFSl� �yt6_Y]rzt�C 41l $,mE. Lhr.'��
1 1t ,2� - z�N.Y�ti_ 1,17i.)i 1�,9+ AiRAtC�ty 7
• 1 �t L➢ �' �,'KL� lJsa€ � ota�°c,.Ztgt,
• � - Ltz�+S ,.t+rV -i t bS' Stcet"rrrk+S � 6tiyL
9. Dedicate staff to manage
Capital Improvement Plan
Redevelopment agencies often implement capital
improvements in a very efficient way by identifying
capital needs for an entire downtown area and assigning
a dedicated project manager to implement the various
capital improvements (CI's) within their individual project
area. Improvements include streetscape improvements, .
undergrounding of utilities, extending trolley lines, !building
pedestrian bridges and upgrading infrastructure, making
way for future development. The panel recommends the City
create a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan area and dedicate time and resources,
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
City's Building and Public Works Department to implement the
capital improvement projects within the Specific Plan area.
10. Exempt residential development
from CPP payments
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.
�xn3 mv�.>�nd
"W�muwws 5
f
l 4
I
ViIiAC'� t"'u�Y
1C0' Ka.w
ti � V.XWFtIC %% - Strap
Y Y.. V °1:; $ \K$ t-� grit. tAwq u,n,q .1
a tft�kl t- a Qbl
4 -TwTm ir58t5.3 * lf� stoA
Relevant Case Studies
Mili,pitas Transit Area Specific Plan
The City of Milipitas, CA's Transit Area Specific Plan, adopted
in June 2008, is a 437 -acre mixed -use plan area that calls for
up to 7,100 new dwelling units and approximately 1 AM square
feet of commercial space built over four phases. Phasing will
depend on residential market factors. The City staff and their
consultant worked extensively with property owners, public
agencies, community members and other stakeholders in the area
to develop a long -term plan that is visionary and yet grounded in
market reality.
Two rounds of interviews were held with property owners to
ascertain each owner's goals and constraints. Contentious issues,
about the allocation of parks and streets across property lines,
and the distribution of land uses and densities, were resolved
through ongoing discussions.
Piper /Montague Subarea
The 'Milpitas Transit Area Specific Plan includes an implementation
chapter that outlines every capital improvement, the department
responsible, the timeframe and the geographic area that benefits
from the improvement. Studies were completed to identify all
road and utility improvements and public services. Detailed
infrastructure plans for sewer, wastewater, storm- water, recycled
water and utilities allowed for the preparation of a detailed
financing and phasing plan and determination of appropriate
impact fees. This implementation strategy ensures funding for
capital improvements will be available and provides confidence
to the City and property owners that the Specific Plan will be fully
implemented.
Property owners began to implement the Specific Plan even
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
McCdudiess Drive
Before and After—Milpitas Transit Area Specific Plan
Stati�nn 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
units, 10,000 square feet of office space and 60,000 square feet of
commercial/retail.
A pedestrian - 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 TDD district. Stakeholders worked
closely with the City staff and San Mateo community through
public workshops and meetings, ensuring community consensus
and timely approvals of the master plan.
Applicability to Downtown Dublin
Similiar area to site
Mixed -use "green" transit- oriented development
Participants
Panel Chair Ron Golem of BAE Urban Economics specializes in
project rttanagemeni for complex assigninenis. 'inciudfnq real
estate transaction snppoi t. transit- oriented development. strategic
business planning, ;rrrd progran7 development for public purposes.
Prior to joining BAE, Ron served as Heal Estate Specialist for the
National Park Service, formulating strategies for public /private
partnerships and negotiating numerous agreements in the Golden
Gate National Recreation Area Ron has also worked for private real
estate development companies as an Asset Manager. completing
successful negotiations for over 150 commercial leases. He has
managed diverse portfolios of all types of commercial properties .
totaling in excess of two million square feet.
David Cropper. Managing Director. joined TMG Partners in 2000
He has 25 years of direct real estate experience in finance,
construction.. and entitlements. He is responsible for TMG
Par Inei s' finance and development activities in the greater Bay
At ea and is a member of the Inni's Investment Committee.
He roost recently directed The Crossing I San Bruno. an
award - winning $250 million dollar mixed -use transit- oriented
development, as well as 650 Townsend, TMG's mixed -use office
and retail project in San Francisco. He has financed over $1
billion of real estate including construction loans, permanent
loans. CMBS facilities as well as tax- exempt bond and tax credit
structured financings.
David Johnson formed Christiana Johnson Architects vjith
Richard D. Christiana in 1994 and has been the lead designer for
many of the firm's residential and mixed -use projects. including
Bridgeview. Oceanview Village. The Potrero. 555 Bartlett. 4th
and U, Bryant Place and University Village for the University of
California Berkeley. He has developed particular expertise in
planning high - density urban infill development featuring housing
over retail.
Keri Lung Senior Development Consultant for MidPen Housing
Corporation, has over 20 years of experience rri the fields of
affordable housing. economic development. and Luban planning.
Kern has been responsible for strategic acqu srtons and 'business
development at MidPen Housing Corporation over the past five
years, initiating nine transit - oriented urban infill ;projects vJth over
800 units in construction in San Mateo, Sunnyvale. San Jose.
South San Francisco and Alameda County. Keri ':,,as instrumental
in helping MidPen win highly competitive tax credits and other
scarce public funds, resulting in record grovith for MidPen at a
time v4ien most developers are struggling,
Patrick O'Keefe is the City Manager for the City of Emeryville. and
Executive Director of the Emeryville Redevelopment Agency. He
is responsible for the oversight of eight departments including
Police. Fire. Public Works, Community Services. Economic
Development & Housing. Administrative Services. Planning &
Building and City Clerk. Prior to the 2006 appointment as City
Manager. he served as the Director of the Emeryville Economic
Development and Housing Department since 1995. Mr. O'Keeffe
currently oversees a staff of 185 and a 564.4 million annual
operating budget, including a $34.4 million annual Redevelopment
Agency budget that funds Economic Development and Capital
Improvement Plograms.
Gerry Tierney. Senior Associate with Perkins + Will. has 30 years
of experience in architecture have been focused primarily on
housing and other institutional projects that have requried deep
expertise in and understanding of regulatory processes and
procedures as well as code and entitlement issues, His portfolio
features a range of projects that demonstrate innovative. client -
focused solutions across varying project types. Gerry brings
tlexibility and experience to each new project, creating individual
designs tailored to the specific needs of the client. user and site.
[man Novin Assistant Project Manager /Sr Project Analyst.
joined BRIDGE/BUILD in 2007 and works on both investment
and nevi, construction projects, ccndurcting project due diligence
and providing ongoing support for the redevelopment of file
MacArthur Transit Village in Oakland CA. Prior to loinirg BUILD.
Iman assisted the Reaf Estate and Planning 'Divisions of CCDC
downtovin San Diego's iedevelopmentami, with numerous
redevelopment and affordable housing projects. Including the
management of CCDC's AicGIS operations. He also has previous
�:ork experience v :ith Keyser Marston Associates Safi Diego
office. [man holds a Bachelor of Science degree in 'Structural
Engineering and a Bachelor cf Arts degree in Urban Studies and
Planning from the University of California. San Diego
DLI Safi Francisco District CcrjnLd Chair
Michael Jameson. Managing Director of Prudential Mortgage
Capital Company
DLi San Francisco Panel Staff
Xiomara Cisneros Flirector
Kate White ti cuLve Director