HomeMy WebLinkAboutI Eastern Dublin SP Study Session
CITY CLERK
File # D~[2][Q]-~[5J
tf2-0-3D
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
MEETING DATE: August 19, 2008
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
RECOMMENDATION:
STUDY SESSION - PA 07-056: General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Land Use Designations and Densities.
Report prepared by Jeff Baker, Senior Planner and Laura
Karaboghosian, Associate Planner
1) City Council Staff Report dated April 3, 2007 with
Attachments.
2) City Council Meeting Minutes from April 3, 2007.
3) City Council Staff Report date October 16, 2007 without
Attachments.
4) City Council Meeting Minutes from October 16,2007.
5) Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 27, 2007
without Attachments.
6) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from November 27,
2007.
7) Planning Commission Resolution recommending the City
Council not approve a General Plan Amendment and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (Exhibit A) to change the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use
Designation for the Medium Density portion of the Croak and
Jordan Properties to New Medium-Low Density and Medium-
Mid Density Designations.
8) Planning Commission Resolution recommending the City
Council not adopt an Ordinance (Exhibit A) approving a PD-
Planned Development Rezone with Amended Stage 1
Development Plan for the Croak and Jordan Properties.
9) Map of Medium Density property in the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan area.
~1 0) Tassajara Meadows Unit 1 Site Plan
~ Staff recommends that the City Council and Planning Commission
(''Y
receive presentation and direct Staff to proceed with either:
A) Alternative A and prepare the appropriate General Plan and
EDSP Amendments and Fallon Village Stage 1 PD
Amendment to create new Medium-Low and Medium-Mid
COPY TO: Property Owners
File
ITEM NO. I.
Page 1 of 14
G:\PA#\2007\07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density\City Council\CC PC Study Session 8. 19.08\ccsr 8.19.08 Density Study Session.DOC
{'J
Density Designations and minimum usable rear yard setback
requirements; OR
B) Alternative B and prepare the appropriate General Plan and
EDSP Amendments and Fallon Village Stage 1 PD
Amendment to create new Medium-Low and Medium-Mid
Density designations, net density policy, and private rear yard
and common area requirements; OR
C) Alternative C and provide Staff with other direction.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
None at this time.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background
The City Council held a Strategic Planning Session on January 12, 2007. During this Strategic Planning
Session the City Council discussed the existing General Plan and Specific Plan Residential Land Use
Designations within the City of Dublin and the need for larger private yards. Concerns were raised during
this discussion regarding the need for a variety of housing types (i.e. detached units, row homes, stacked
flats, etc.) and homes with larger private yards on undeveloped land within the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan (EDSP) area that has a Medium Density (6.1-14 dulacre) land use designation.
Staff studied the densities, residential land use policies, and the status of entitlements for the land
designated for residential development within the EDSP and prepared a Staff Report with different policy
alternatives for City Council consideration at the April 3, 2007 City Council Meeting (Attachment 1).
~~:_--_:!
.. I
Croak AC
Property
17
\~#~~9) ,J t(g1~~ti
6'AC 97.6 AC
The City Council reviewed the Staff Report and again expressed
a desire to provide a housing product type that is between a
stacked product and a larger single-family detached unit
(Attachment 2) with a private usable yard. The City Council
identified two remaining Medium Density properties (Croak
and Jordan) (Map 1) within the EDSP that do not have vested
development rights and that do not have a current development
application in process with the City. The City Council
directed Staff to study a General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment (GP AlSP A) to equally divide the
existing Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan
properties into the following new land use designations:
· Medium-Low Density (6.1-14 dulacre); and
· Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 dulacre).
Map 1 - Vicinity Map
Staff then reviewed the existing land use patterns for the Croak and Jordan properties, the concept for the
Fallon Village Center, and the City of Dublin Village Policy Statement, and prepared a Staff Report for the
October 16, 2007 City Council Meeting (Attachment 3). At the October 16, 2007 meeting, the City
Council expressed a concern over the existing policy to calculate densities based on gross rather than net
acreage. The City Council also expressed a desire to include minimum yard requirements for the proposed
Medium-Low Density designation (Attachment 4). On a motion, the City Council directed Staff to
prepare a GP AlSP A and Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment as described below with the goal to
create private usable yards:
Page 2 of 14
1. Create Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre) land
use designations to replace the existing Medium Density (6.1-14 du/acre) land use designation on
the Croak and Jordan properties;
2. Calculate densities for the two new land use designations based on net developable acres; and
3. Require usable yards for development within the Medium-Low Density designation.
Staff prepared amendments to the General Plan, EDSP, and the Fallon Village Stage 1 Development Plan
to address the direction by the City Council and presented these amendments to the Planning Commission
on November 27,2007 (Attachments 5 and 6). The Planning Commission raised a number of concerns
with the proposed amendments as discussed in the Analysis section of this Staff Report. The following is
a discussion of the proposed amendments.
Proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density Designations
Land Use Designations
Staff prepared the following definitions for the newly proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid
Density land use designations:
Residential: Medium-Low Density (6.1-1 0 units per net residential acre)
Units in this density range will be detached, zero-lot line, duplex, and/or townhouse developments
suitable for family living with private flat usable outdoor yard areas that accommodate leisurely
activities typically associated with a residence. Unit types and densities may be similar or varied.
Residential: Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 units net residential acre)
This density range allows detached, zero-lot line, duplex townhouse, and/or garden apartment
developments suitable for family living with private flat usable outdoor yard areas that accommodate
leisurely activities typically associated with a residence or usable common areas that accommodate
recreational and leisurely activities. Unit types and densities may be similar or varied.
Location oj Proposed Land Uses
The existing Medium Density sites on each property are proposed to be equally divided into Medium-Low
and Medium-Mid Density as shown on Map 2. The proposed I' "'''---=-C ----~ ""......~""...- J
land uses maintain the transition from the more intense High I ~ p Croak
Density Residential and Mixed Use at the core of the Fallon ~. 'j LOR' roperty
Village Center to t?e less intense Low Density Residential uses ), I~;D:C l,,"'~,~ AC ~ ~~~~?j
that surround the VIllage Center. . 6N;C'! Ii ".>.-
..l&:.,~f t I(
,
..
Development at the midpoint of the proposed density range
would result in the same number of units (104 units on Croak and
234 units on Jordan) anticipated for the existing Medium Density
that was studied in the Fallon Village SEIR and would continue
to ensure the existing jobs/housing balance (Please refer to
Attachment 3, Tables 2, 3 and 4 for a unit comparison). The
units would simply be redistributed across the proposed Medium-
Low Density and Medium-Mid Density designations and no
additional environmental review would be required.
Map 2 - Proposed Land Use Designations
Densities and the number of units are determined based on the gross acreage of the site. However, if the
Council were to adopt a Net Density policy it would reduce the number of units on both the Croak and
Jordan properties. Please see the Net Density discussion below for further information.
Page 3 of 14
Conclusion - Land Use Designations
The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations would ensure that a variety of
different housing types are constructed on the Croak and Jordan properties. The Medium-Low Density
designation would also ensure that the homes have private yards. However, the land use designations do
not guarantee the size of these private yards. A policy that requires a minimum rear yard setback, as
discussed in the Policy Alternatives section (Page 12) of this Staff Report, could define the size of the yard
areas.
Proposed Net Density Calculation
Gross VS. Net Density
Densities are typically based on either the gross or net acreage of a project site. The gross or total acreage
of a site includes areas where development is not appropriate or feasible such as creeks, steep slopes and
streets. By contrast, net acreage excludes those areas where development is not appropriate. The General
Plan currently uses gross acreage to determine density. This enables the development of the maximum
number of units, clustered in the developable area of the site.
The following examples illustrate the difference between using the gross and the net acreage of a project
site to determine densities. The 6.51 gross acre site is constrained by a creek and the right-of-way for
public streets. As a result, the net or developable portion of the property (which excludes the hills and
streets) is 3.99 net acres and is highlighted in orange in the net density example. The following table
(Table 1) identifies the permitted number of units and density based on the gross and net acreage of the
site. In both examples, the units are located on the same developable portion of the site (i.e. outside the
creek area). The gross density example has more units because the density is calculated based on the
overall (gross) area of the site. Similarly, the average lot size is smaller using the gross density calculation
because more lots are clustered on the developable portion of the property. The smaller lot sizes would
impact the size of the private yards unless maximum lot coverage and minimum rear yard setback
standards are applied to the project. Using gross density allows more units to be clustered on the
developable portion ofthe project site when compared to the project with a net density.
Gross Density Example
Net Density Example
GROSS
62 UNITS
9.52 GROSS D.U.jAC.
N ET 38 UNITS
9.52 NET D.U.jAC.
5.99 GROSS D.U.jAC
NET AREA .. 3.99 AC.
GROSS AREA = 6.51 AC.
GROSS AREA = 6.51 AC.
~ GROSS AREA
-......". PROJECT BOUNDARY
~ NET AREA
-..-....- PROJECT BOUNDARY
Page 4 of 14
6.51 acres 3.99 acres
Calculations
Gross Acres Net Acres
Gross Density
9.52 units/acre
Net Density
5.99 units/acre
Proposed Net Density Calculation
As previously discussed, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a net density policy for the proposed
Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations on the Croak and Jordan properties. Therefore,
Staff prepared the following definition for the net acreage calculation:
Net Acreage Calculation: Residential densities for the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density
land use designations shall be calculated based on the total developable area of the site excluding
public and private streets, parks, open space, common areas, environmentally constrained areas, and
areas with slopes that exceed 30%. Development shall not be clustered on one portion of the project
site where such development would exceed the maximum density for that portion of the site even if
the overall project remains within the permitted density range.
Conclusion - Density Calculation
The proposed net density calculation would reduce the overall density of future projects by reducing the
area of the site used to calculate the permitted number of units. However, the natural features that
typically constrain development sites such as step slopes, creeks and other environmentally sensitive areas
have already been designated as Open Space on the Croak and Jordan properties. The constrained areas of
the Croak and Jordan properties are primarily related to topography (i.e. rolling hills) and streets. In
addition, the net density calculation would not achieve the goal of providing larger private yards because it
would not restrict the size of the home constructed on each lot. However, a minimum rear yard setback
requirement, as discussed in the Policy Alternatives section (Page 12) of this Staff Report, would define
the size of the rear yard areas.
Private Yard Requirements
The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations permit a variety of attached and
detached product types as discussed above. The Medium-Low Density designation requires each unit to
include a private usable yard. The Medium-Mid Density designation would allow either a private usable
yard for each unit or shared common areas. The following is a discussion of the proposed development
standards for private yards and common areas within the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density
designations.
Yard Requirements
The following are current private yard requirements for the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid
density designations. These requirements are based on the existing Stage 1 PD Development Standards
that are currently applicable to the Croak and Jordan properties. However, a minimum "common yard
area" requirement has been added for attached projects in the Medium-Mid Density that do not have
private usable yards. Typical "common yard areas" include grass area, playgrounds, and swimming pool
facilities.
The development standards for the exiting Stage 1 PD for the Croak and Jordan properties are tiered based
on the size of the lot as illustrated in Table 2 below. It should be noted that the minimum rear yard
setback dimension of 8' is the same for both lot sizes. This existing minimum yard dimension ensures that
private yards have a dimension of 8' in at least one direction. These requirements would apply to private
yards within the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid designations, but may not be a sufficient
dimension to provide usable rear yards.
Page 5 of 14
Table 2- Private Yard Requirements - Medium-Low & Medium-Mid Density*^
Lot Size 1,800+ s.t. 2,500+ s.t.
250 s. t. 300 s.t.
Yard area may be provided in Yard area may be provided in
Private Yard Minimum Area Per Unit more than one location wlin a lot: more than one location wlin a lot:
Min. rear yard area: 170 s.t. Min. rear yard area: 170 s.f.
Min. courtyard area 80 s.t. Min. courtyard area 80 s.f.
Private Yard Minimum Dimension 8' 8'
*These are existing standards for the Low and Medium Density Land Use Designations for the Fallon Village PD.
^Can substitute common area equal to 150s.f. per unit in lieu of private yard area in the Medium-Mid Density.
A yard with a minimum depth or length of 8' would be fairly limited in size. Examples of what could
occur in a yard of this size include a small patio and garden, a bistro table and chairs or lounge chairs and a
barbeque. However, these amenities would leave very little room for a children's play area or play
equipment. Please see the following photos from Roxbury for an example of what can occur in a yard
with a depth of 8' .
The following plot plan and photos illustrate the type of home and private yard that has been achieved on a
1,800 s.f. lot. The plot plan below depicts a unit is a single-family detached home located in the Roxbury
development and inch,ldes 3 bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms, and a two car garage.
Plot Plan - 1,827 sJ. lot
(43.5% Lot Coverage)
! I , ....... - '~
i!rr- ---t-.. -
"._ ..___. i
II -- "'lo-_
t;...."";{-..~.., I .... 1.;......l~ ~ I ~
I~t}ili~l r ~.' . ,,'~ trnr-j-I,i,;j';, --- !
1 j.j'j':"' II !~-u-,4---J!1t: ~Hr: r
~' .b 1...--1" )
,; .. ':.......Yo5il' . =1 r 1
f , 1/ :1 f.. ~f
I ' , ,:' ! . ~., I 1 I
r-', i.:, :i I:' I !, 1,,.- U !
(' .~, . " ~"'.,
~;, " Ij ..__...~:< )1.
l . .::'.J
" I \
I \._- DO'
r
l !
._L.i,"
; , 11
Detached Home at Roxbury I
Page 6 of 14
Yard: 8'x13.5' pad plus
side yard (108 s.f.)
J:t12IDIlCCARI
L.
I Private Yard at Roxbury (8' depth)
Conclusion - Private Yard Requirements
The existing minimum 8' yard dimension contained in the existing Stage 1 PD development standards will
not provide a large enough yard to accommodate many common leisurely activities often associated with a
rear yard. However, a minimum rear yard setback dimension can be established to ensure larger yards.
Please refer to the Policy Alternatives section (Page 12) of this Staff Report for a discussion of rear yard
setback requirements.
ANALYSIS:
Planninf! Commission Action
On November 27, 2007, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to review the proposed
amendments to the General Plan, EDSP, and Stage 1 Development Plan for the Croak and Jordan
properties (Attachments 5 and 6). During the Public Hearing the Planning Commission expressed a
number of concerns with the proposed amendments. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to
recommend that the City Council not approve the proposed GP A, SPA and Fallon Village Stage 1
Development Plan Amendment (Attachments 7 and 8). The following is a discussion of the concerns
that were raised by the Planning Commission:
Concerns Raised by the Planning Commission
Existing Product Type
Planning Commission Concern # 1 :
The Planning Commission felt that a product type that is in between a condominium and a larger single-
family home already exists and they cited examples of such products in mature Single-Family
neighborhoods in the Primary Planning area as well as in Medium Density neighborhoods in the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan area.
Discussion:
Primary Planning Area - The homes referenced by the Planning Commission are generally located in the
area bounded by San Ramon Road to the west, the Iron Horse Trail to the east, the northern City Limits
and Dublin Boulevard to the south. The detached homes in this area have a General Plan Land Use
designation of Single-Family Residential (0.9-6.0 dulacre). This is a less intense land use designation
than Medium Density (6.1-14 dulacre). Development on land designated Medium Density in this area
primarily consists of apartments and condominiums.
The detached homes are located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) zoning district. The R-1 zoning
district has development standards that allow a maximum 35% lot coverage for a 2-story home and 40%
lot coverage for a single story home, and a minimum rear yard setback of20'.
The homes within this area were mostly built during the 1960's and 1970's and tend to be smaller homes
built on larger lots than homes that are built today. Thus they are generally built below the maximum lot
coverage requirement for the R-l zoning district. Table 4 below provides average development statistics
for these single-family homes in this area based on information obtained from the Alameda County Tax
Assessor's data and is followed by an aerial view of a typical neighborhood.
T bl 4 A
D
t St f f
a e . veraf!e eve opmen a IS ICS
.
Lot Size House Size Lot Coverage
6,862 s.t. 1,478 s.t. 22%
Page 7 of 14
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan - Approximately 4,434 Medium Density units are anticipated in the EDSP.
Please refer to the map included as Attachment 9 which shows the location of the Medium Density land
in the EDSP. Table 5 below provides a breakdown of the number of constructed attached and detached
Medium Density units as well as the amount of remaining units to be determined in the EDSP.
Table 5 - Medium Density Unit Type in the EDSP
Unit Type Number of Units % of Total Units
. Detached 1,893 units 36.4%
Attached 1,615 units 42.7%
To Be Determined 926 units 20.9%
Total Number of Units 4,434 units --
Lot sizes for Medium Density detached products average approximately 3,650 s.f. Examples of projects
with lots sizes consistent with this average include Tassajara Meadows Unit 1 and Roxbury. The
Tassajara Meadows Unit 1 subdivision provides an example of a typical Medium Density detached
development. The following table provides average development statistics for the Tassajara Meadows
Unit 1 development and is followed by an aerial view of a typical neighborhood.
ment Statistics - Tassaoara Meadows Unit 1
House Size Lot Coverage
3,579 sJ. 1,897 sJ. 53%
Page 8 of 14
Staff spoke with a local real estate agent about the market for single-family homes in the portion of the
Primary Planning Area bounded by San Ramon Road to the west, the Iron Horse Trail to the east, the
northern City Limits and Dublin Boulevard to the south, and in the Medium Density portion of the EDSP.
The real estate agent indicated that while the homes in both areas are similar in size and price, the homes
in the subject portion of the Primary Planning Area attract a different buyer than the Medium Density
homes in the EDSP. The homes in this portion of the Primary Planning Area attract more first time home
buyers who want a large yard, while the Medium Density homes in the EDSP tend to attract current
condominium owners and buyers that want to downsize their home and do not want to maintain a large
yard and an older home.
Conclusion:
The homes in the Primary Planning Area as described above are not a Medium Density product. These
homes in the Primary Planning Area satisfy a different market need than the Medium Density homes
located within the EDSP. The detached Medium Density homes that have been constructed in the EDSP
tend to cover a large portion of the lot with smaller yard setbacks, therefore resulting in fairly small yard
areas.
Usable Yards
Planning Commission Concern #2:
The Planning Commission felt that the City can achieve private usable yards within the existing Medium
Density Designation.
Discussion:
Private usable yards could be achieved within the existing Medium Density Designation. However, the
EDSP has PD zoning with development standards (i.e. minimum setbacks, maximum lot coverage, etc.)
that are tailored to each development. Therefore, there is no minimum rear yard setback requirement to
guarantee usable private yards. Rear yard sizes in the Medium Density Designation in the EDSP typically
range from 5'-15'. Without a specific rear yard setback requirement Staff cannot ensure a private usable
rear yard.
Page 9 of 14
Conclusion:
Private usable yards can be achieved within the Medium Density Designation. However, the size of the
yard can fluctuate within this density range. The required maximum lot coverage and minimum rear yard
set back playa significant role in determine the size of the yard. The size of the yard will be the primary
driver of what type of amenities can be accommodated in the yard. However, without a specific minimum
rear yard setback Staff cannot ensure the homes achieve a usable private rear yard.
Net Acreage Calculation
Planning Commission Concern #3:
The Planning Commission expressed concerns about the use of a net acreage calculation and the potential
loss of developable units and the fairness of applying the net acreage calculation to select land uses and
properties.
Discussion:
The owners of the Croak and Jordan properties have not submitted development proposals for review by
Staff. Therefore, Staff cannot evaluate the full impact of using a net density calculation on these
properties. However, the land use plan (Map 3 below) for Fallon Village (which includes the Croak and
Jordan properties) was created using information in the Resource Management Plan (RMP) that was
prepared for the project area. The RMP identified environmental constraints within the plan area. These
constrained areas were designated as Open Space or Rural Residential! Agriculture in order to limit their
development potential. Therefore, the impact of a net density calculation on the Medium Density portion
of these properties would generally result from land dedicated to public streets and common areas, as well
as slopes to a certain extent.
I/~~;~~~---- ~
jf Ranch
Map 3 - Fallon Village Land Use Plan
Staff used the Tassajara Meadows Unit 1 development, located at the northwest corner of Tassajara Road
and Gleason Drive, to illustrate the potential impacts of a net density calculation (Please refer to
Attachment 10 for the land use plan). Tassajara Meadows consists of 109 Medium Density detached
units on 13.3-acres. The following table illustrates the Gross and Net Density calculations for the site.
Table 4 - Tassa.iara Meadows Unit 1 Density Calculation
I Gross Acres Net Acres Gross Density Net Density.
13.3 9.0 8.2 du/acre 12.11 du/acre
* Excludes streets and common areas
Page 10 of 14
Similar to Jordan Ranch, the environmentally constrained creek to the west of Tassajara Meadows is
designated Open Space and does not impact the net density. However, the Tassajara Meadows site differs
from the Croak and Jordan properties in that it is relatively flat while the Croak and Jordan properties
have rolling hills. The rolling hills on the Croak and Jordan properties could result in undevelopable areas
and reduce the unit count with a net density policy.
Conclusion:
The natural features that typically constrain development sites such as step slopes, creeks and other
environmentally sensitive areas have already been designated as Open Space on the Croak and Jordan
properties. The constrained areas of the Croak and Jordan properties are primarily related to topography
(i.e. rolling hills) and streets. The rolling hills and streets on the Croak and Jordan properties would
reduce the number of units that could be constructed if the City Council adopts a net density policy.
Flexibility of Future Development
Planning Commission Concern #4:
The Planning Commission expressed an overall concern that the proposed amendments would limit the
flexibility to allow development to occur as driven by future market demands.
Discussion:
The City Council has the ability to set land use policies that will guide future development of the City. A
market driven approach is based on the economics of real estate development and current housing trends.
Developers will typically choose to develop housing product types that achieve the highest financial
returns. Whereas, the City Council can assess the long-term needs of the community, establish a vision
for the community, and then set land use policies to help achieve that vision.
The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations do allow for flexibility in the product
types. The Medium-Low would allow single-family detached homes, duets, and townhomes. The
Medium-Mid Density would allow single-family detached homes, duets, townhomes, and stacked
products such as garden apartments and condominiums. One significant difference between the Medium-
Low and the Medium-Mid Density is that the single-family lots would be smaller on the Medium-Mid
designation which would potentially result in smaller homes. The proposed land use designations allow
for a variety of product types to address future market demands.
Conclusion:
The proposed amendments would establish land use policies that address the City Council's assessment of
the long-term needs and vision for the future of community. The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-
Mid Density designations would ensure that a variety of housing types are constructed on the Croak and
Jordan properties, However, the proposed amendments would limit the flexibility to construct stacked
products with shared common areas on land designated Medium-Low Density.
Limited Application of Policy
Planning Commission Concern #5:
The Planning Commission felt that the current policies are working well and that the proposed policies
would have a limited impact on the community and result in small gains because the proposal does not
cover a large area.
Discussion:
The City Council directed Staff to study the Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties
after considering the various properties within the EDSP and the status of vested development rights and
current entitlement applications. The proposed land use change would affect approximately 33.8-acres
Page 11 of 14
which currently includes 338 units or 7.6% of the anticipated Medium Density units in the EDSP area.
However, the total number of units would be reduced if the City Council adopts a policy to use net density
policy rather than the current gross density policy.
Conclusion:
While the area to be impacted by the proposed amendments is a small portion of the overall EDSP area,
the proposed amendments would effect entire neighborhoods and ensure that the future development
meets the needs of the community. The City Council could also choose to expand certain aspects of the
proposed amendments, such as minimum yard requirements, to the Single-Family Designation on the
Croak and Jordan properties.
Needfor Additional Data
Planning Commission Concern #6:
The Planning Commission would like to see market statistics to verify that there is demand for a certain
product type that is not currently met with the existing housing stock and future development potential
under current land use policies.
Discussion:
Dublin could retain an economic consultant to prepare a market analysis of current and future housing
demand in the City. However, such an analysis would be costly and time consuming to prepare. The
construction and sale of new homes in the EDSP area is ongoing which makes it difficult at any point in
time to determine the current availability of homes.
Conclusion:
The availability of existing detached homes in the Primary Planning Area and the EDSP is fairly
constrained. The City could retain the services of an economic consultant to study the current market
conditions and future market trends in order to help develop policies to address those needs.
Policy Alternatives
The City Council expressed an overall goal to provide homes with private usable yards. While the
proposal to create Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations, combined with a net density
policy and a private yard requirement will help to achieve a variety of housing types, densities, and yards,
these policies will not directly achieve the desired outcome for larger private yards. Therefore, Staff has
identified the following policy alternatives to help achieve larger private usable rear yards. These policies
alternatives include adopting: A) Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations and minimum rear
yard setback requirements; or B) Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations, net density policy,
and private yard requirements; or C) Other direction as provided by the City Council and Planning
Commission. The following is a discussion of each policy alternative.
A. Medium-Low and Medium Mid Density and Minimum Rear Yard Setback Requirement
If the intent is to ensure that a variety of housing types (i.e. detached units, row homes, stacked flats,
etc.) and large private rear yards are constructed on the existing Medium Density portion of the Croak
and Jordan properties, the City Council and Planning Commission should consider adopting a
combination of the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations, and minimum rear
yard setback requirements.
The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations, as described on page 3 of this
Staff Report, would ensure that a variety of different housing types are constructed on the Croak and
Jordan properties. The proposed Medium-Low Density designation would include attached and
Page 12 of 14
detached units with private usable rear yards. The proposed Medium-Mid Density designation would
include either attached or detached units with private yards or usable common areas.
The properties in the EDSP have PD zoning with development standards (i.e. minimum setbacks,
maximum lot coverage, etc) that are tailored to each development. PD zoning with customized
development standards is intended to be more flexible and allow greater creativity than traditional
zoning with mandatory development standards. In the past, rear yards were allowed with a minimum
5'-15' setback.
The existing PD development standards for Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan
properties require a minimum rear yard dimension of 8' in one direction. The current 8' minimum
dimension provides a fairly small yard that can accommodate a small patio and barbeque but does not
accommodate a hot tub and may not provide enough room for school age children to play. If the City
Council's goal is to establish private usable yards Staff recommends a requirement to provide a
minimum 15'-20' flat usable rear yard setback. The increased minimum flat usable rear yard setback
would apply to detached and attached homes with private yards in the Medium-Low Density
designation and would ensure that each home with a private yard has enough space to accommodate
family activities. However, the rear yard setback requirement on its own would not guarantee
development of homes with private yards unless the City Council adopts the proposed Medium-Low
density designation which requires private yards because the existing Medium Density Designation
permits stacked products such as apartments and condominiums which do not have private yards.
Implementation: In order to adopt the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designation, and
minimum rear yard setback requirements for the Croak and Jordan properties, the City Council would
need to: 1) determine the appropriate minimum flat usable rear yard setback requirements; and 2)
direct Staff to prepare the appropriate General Plan and EDSP Amendments and Fallon Village Stage
1 PD Amendment to create new land use designations and minimum rear yard setback requirements.
B. Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations, net density policy, and private yard and
common area requirements
If the intent is to ensure that a variety of housing types with reduced densities and small private yards
are constructed on the existing Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties then the
City Council and Planning Commission should consider adopting the proposed Medium-Low and
Medium-Mid Density Designations, net density policy and private yard requirements as previously
discussed on pages 3-7 of this Staff Report.
The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations, as described on page 3 of this
Staff Report, would ensure that a variety of different housing types are constructed on the Croak and
Jordan properties. The proposed Medium-Low Density designation would include attached and
detached units with private usable rear yards. The proposed Medium-Mid Density designation would
include either attached or detached units with private yards or usable "common yard areas".
The proposed net density calculation as described on page 4 of this Staff Report would reduce the
overall density of future projects by reducing the area of the site used to calculate the permitted
number of units.
The private yard and common yard area requirements, as described on page 5 of this Staff Report,
would ensure that private yards would have a minimum dimension (depth or length) of 8'. The
minimum 8' yard dimension contained in the existing PD development standards will not provide a
large enough yard to accommodate many common leisurely activities often associated with a rear yard.
Page 13 of 14
Therefore, as part of this alternative Staff recommends an amendment to the existing Stage 1 PD to
require a minimum 15'-20' flat usable rear yard setback.
Implementation: In order to adopt the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designation, net
density policy, and private yard requirements, the City Council would need to direct Staff to prepare
the appropriate General Plan and EDSP Amendments and Fallon Village Stage 1 PD Amendment to
create new land use designations, net density policy, and private yard and common area requirements.
C. Other direction as provided by the City Council and Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council and Planning Commission receive presentation and direct Staff to
proceed with either:
D) Alternative A and prepare the appropriate General Plan and EDSP Amendments and Fallon
Village Stage 1 PD Amendment to create new Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density
Designations and minimum usable rear yard setback requirements; or
E) Alternative B and prepare the appropriate General Plan and EDSP Amendments and Fallon
Village Stage 1 PD Amendment to create new Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density
designations, net density policy, and private rear yard and common area requirements; or
F) Alternative C and provide Staff with other direction.
Page 14 of 14
CITY CLERK
File #
1*1(11
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 3, 2007
Review of General Plan and Specific Plan Residential Land Use
Designations for properties generally east of Dougherty Road and
including the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.
Report prepared by Jeff Baker, Senior Planner
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
8)
9)
10)
RECOMMENDATION~ 1)
"\ ~ 2)
\~ 3)
4)
COPY TO: Property Owners
File
G:\Eastem Dublin Density\ccsr 4.3.07 East Dublin Density.DOC
7)
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Map.
Village Policy Statement.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Categories.
Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan Criteria.
Table of Built or Approved Projects with Vested
Development Rights.
Map of Built or Approved Projects with Vested
Development Rights.
Map of Land with Stage 1 Development Plans, but without
Vested Development Rights.
Map of Land without Development Entitlements and without
Vested Development Rights.
Table of Land without Vested Development Rights.
Map of Land without Vested Devclopment Rights.
Receive Staff presentation;
Receive public testimony;
Deliberate; and
Direct Staffto either:
a. Prepare General Plan/Specific Plan Amendments to
include two new land use designations including
Medium-Low (6.1-10 dulacre) and Medium (10.1-14
du/acre );
b. Prepare a Specific Plan Amendment to adopt
development standards that require a minimum usable
yard area;
c. Prepare General Plan/Specific Plan Amendments to
include two new land use designations including
Medium-Low (6.1-10 dulacre) and Medium (10.1-14
dulacre) and prepare a Specific Plan Amendment to
adopt development standards that require a minimum
usable yard area; or
Page 1 of 12
ITEMNo.Ig)n~~~
ATT ACHMENT 1 ;,};.', i::t8
d. Continue to implement the existing General Plan ~ 1- 109
Specific Plan policies.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
None at this time.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background
The City Council held a Strategic Planning Session on January 12, 2007. During this Strategic Planning
Session the City Council discussed the existing General Plan and Specific Plan Residential Land Use
Designations within the City of Dublin. Concerns were raised during this discussion regarding densities
and the need for a variety of housing types (i.e. detached units, row homes, stacked flats, etc.) on
undeveloped land within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area that has a Medium Density land
use designation. Therefore, Staff has prepared this Staff Report to review the densities and the variety of
housing types within the EDSP area in order for the City Council to provide Staff with direction regarding
current residentialland use policies and future residential development in the eastern portion of Dublin.
History
1993 General Plan Amendment & Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The planning effort for the eastern portion of Dublin was initiated by the City Council in 1987 in response
to proposals for development ofthe Dublin Ranch property within the City's extended planning area. The
City Council decided that, prior to acting on the applications of various property owners in this area, a
comprehensive General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan should be undertaken to evaluate land use
options for the area and the implications for the City's growth.
A comprehensive General Plan Amendment, for the area known as the Eastern Extended Planning Area,
was undertaken in anticipation of eventual development. The Eastern Extended Planning area includes
approximately 3,300-acres of land both within the City Limits and beyond its boundary within the City's
sphere of influence. Since much of the area involved large land holdings in agricultural use, a specific
plan was needed to ensure long term comprehensive planning for future development of eastern Dublin.
Much of the land in the planning area has been annexed to the City since 1993.
The EDSP was prepared and simultaneously adopted with the General Plan amendment providing for a
range of residential and commercial uses and establishing consistency between the General Plan and
Specific Plan. The EDSP envisioned a balanced community comprised of both housing and job
opportunities. The General Plan and the EDSP have been amended several times since the 1993 approval
to include new properties and allow development consistent with the General Plan. These amendments
included the addition of the Transit Center in 2002 and Fallon Village (aka East Dublin Property Owner's
Annexation Area) in 2002. With the addition of these 2 areas, the plan area is now approximately 4,400-
acres in size. Please refer to Attachment 1 for a land use map for the EDSP area.
Residential Land Use Designations
The EDSP contains a variety of residential land uses which are dispersed throughout the EDSP area.
Table 1 below illustrates the residential land use designations and densities permitted in the EDSP area.
These residential densities allow for a variety of housing types including traditional single-family homes,
cluster homes, townhouses, and stacked apartments and condominiums.
Page 2 of 12
3 o;f lo~
Table 1: Residential Land Uses and Density in Eastern Dublin
Density
1 dwell in unit du 11 00 acres
0.9-6.0 du/acre
6.1-14.0 du/acre
14.1-25.0 du/acre
25.1 + du/acre
The EDSP contains Guiding Policies regarding these residential land use designations including Policy
4-2 which states "encourage higher density residential development within convenient walking distance of
shopping areas, employment centers, transit stations/stops, and other community facilities".
The existing EDSP Land Use Map (Attachment 1) depicts the land use designations within the EDSP
area. As depicted on the land use map, the EDSP generally concentrates commercial development
(including retail, office, and industrial uses) near the DublinlPleasanton BART Station, Interstate 580 and
Dublin Boulevard. The higher density residential land uses (i.e. Medium Density, Medium-High Density,
and High Density) are also concentrated near these commercial uses. The close proximity of the
residential uses to the commercial uses allows the residents of these areas to take advantage of services
and public transportation in the immediate vicinity.
Residential densities generally decrease as you move away from Interstate 580 and proceed north through
the planning area, with the exception of the Fallon Village Center and the Tassajara Village Center as
discussed below. The predominant residential land use designations in the northern areas of the Specific
Plan are Single Family Residential, and Rural Residential/Agriculture and some medium density
development along Tassajara Road. The Rural Residential/ Agriculture land use designation has generally
been applied to areas with steep slopes in order to protect these areas from development.
The Fallon Village Center and the Tassajara Village Center contain a limited amount of land designated
for commercial use. These two areas have designated commercial uses that are surrounded by land that is
designated for Medium Density and Medium-High Density residential uses.
The Tassajara Village Center is located near the
northerly City Limits boundary. Originally, the
EDSP identified the Tassajara Village Center to
be a larger, more robust commercial area to serve
the needs of local residents surrounded by ___/
Medium Density and Medium High Density
housing. However, the plans for the commercial
component of the Tassajara Village Center have
been scaled back as a result of the
environmentally sensitive habitat in the project
area. While it is no longer possible to achieve
much commercial development due to site
constraints, the Medium Density and Medium
High Density land use designations remain in this
area. The surrounding properties that are
designated for Medium Density and Medium-High Density development include the Fredrich, Vargas,
Mission Peak and Silvera properties which are discussed later in this Staff Report.
Contra Costa County
Tassajara Village
Center - (F)
o
.....-"',...--.-------
G
Alameda County
-----1
j
i
I
;
G
~----l
I
J
iJr,
. ,:
~~ ,\
-,~-'""" '.,
o
Page 3 of 12
4 c;f 109
The commercial core of the Fallon Village Center is located
south of the future Central Parkway extension and is designated
for mixed use development (i.e. commercial and residential).
The Fallon Village Center was designed to be consistent with the
City of Dublin Village Policy Statement (Attachment 2) which
\1...
encourages a variety of housing types. This commercial core is
surrounded by Medium-High Density residential that transitions
to Medium Density residential and then Single Family .'
Residential as you move away from the village core commercial
area. The Fallon Village Center includes the Jordan, Chen, and
Croak properties.
Ii
'"
i
../
..: "
.'.
.
Housing Types in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area
Residential land use categories are defined in the EDSP and included as Attachment 3 of this Staff Report.
The residentialland use designations/densities in the EDSP allow for a variety of housing types including
single-family detached homes, detached cluster homes, townhouses, and stacked apartments and
condom'iniums. The following is a list of the residential land use designations in the EDSP, and a
description of the housing types that are typical for each of the residential land uses, followed by a
photograph of the various housing types.
.
Rural Residential/Agriculture (1 du/lOO acres)
Detached singlejamily: The home typically includes accessory structures associated with
agricultural uses.
.
Single Family (0.9-6.0 du/acre)
Traditional detached singlejamily home:
Typically located on lots that range in size 5,000-
10,000 square feet with a backyard.
~~'~~
.. ..,.}
..\.
1,t.
.
Medium-Density (6.1-14.0 du/acre)
Small lot detached single-famiZv home:
Typically with a small usable rear yard area (i.e.
rear yard depth of 10').
Page 4 of 12
· Detached cluster homes: Typically built around
a motor court area with a small usable yard area
with a depth of approximately 10'.
· Townhouses: Typically 2-3 stories in height
with garage parking on the first floor and a
small yard, patio or deck (decks typically
provide 60-100 square feet of private usable
space).
· Apartments/Condominiums*: Typically a 2-3
story stacked product (i.e. units on top of one
another) with a small patio or balcony.
5~ {09
.:..<ri
" 4'
..
~:<'.~'. _ ,';:~:::..,'~{i:, '. .,',
"'::;;;,~\,. .~lft.. .1ifr"....~:,.J ..
, ,~":- '.
Medium-High Density (14.1-25.0 du/acre)
· Apartments/Condominiums*: Typically a 3-5
story stacked product (i.e. units on top of one
another) with a small patio or balcony.
Page 5 of 12
~",;~_.,~:~f.'~,.... .'
· Townhouses: Typically 3-4 stories in height
with garage parking on the first floor and a small
yard, patio or deck (decks typically provide 60-
100 square feet of private usable space.
, * loq
High Density (25.1+ du/acre)
· Apartments/Condominiums*: Typically a 4-6
story podium building (i.e. underground parking
structure) with stacked flats (i.e. units on top of
one another) that have small patios or balconies.
* Apartments and condominiums are similar to each other except that apartments are offered for rent
and condominiums are offered for sale.
Status of Entitlements for Land Designated for Residential Use
A series of entitlements are needed in order to develop a residential project in the EDSP area. The typical
entitlements for residential projects include Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, Site Development
Review, Tentative Sub-Division Map (neighborhood of detached homes) and a Development Agreement
(DA). The EDSP requires the adoption of Planned Development Zoning Districts (PD) for all property
within the EDSP area. The City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.32) requires adoption of a PD in
a two stage process which includes a Stage 1 and a Stage 2 Development Plan as described in Attachment
4. While there are a variety of permits/agreements required for development, there are only two specific
types that vest an Applicant's right to develop, which are a DA and a Vesting Tentative Map (VTM).
It should be noted that these development rights do expire based on the terms of the DA or VTM.
Property owners with vested development rights have two choices if the development regulations change
prior to expiration of the vested development rights. The property owner can complcte the project in
accordance with the vested development rights prior to the expiration of those rights, or construct the
project in accordance with current development regulations.
Much of the residential land in the EDSP area has been constructed. However, there are a number of
properties that have received all of the required entitlements and have a vested right to develop through a
DA or VTM or both, but have not commenced construction or have not yet completed construction.
There are also a number of properties in the EDSP area that have some of the necessary entitlements (such
as a Stage 1 Development Plan) but do not have vested development rights (i.e. DA or VTM). There are
also a limited number of properties that do not have any entitlements and therefore do not have vested
development rights.
Page 6 of 12
~ ~ 107
Land that has been Constructed and Land with Development Entitlements and Vested Development Rights
Since the EDSP was adopted in 1993, a number of property owners with residential land have vested their
rights to develop their properties. In some cases these projects have already been constructed while others
have not yet started construction. A list and map of the properties that have been constructed or have
vested development rights are included as Attachments 5 and 6, respectively. These developments
include a variety of housing types as noted above. Apartments/condominiums are focused near transit and
commercial centers as well as detached cluster homes and townhomes with small yard areas along Dublin
Boulevard and Tassajara Road. Traditional single-family homes with larger backyards are located in the
northern portions of the EDSP area, away from the commercial shopping areas and transit centers.
Land with a Stage 1 Development Plan, but without Vested Development Rights
There are seven properties that have an approved Stage 1 Development Plan that establishes the maximum
number of dwelling units that may be developed. Table 2 includes a list of the properties within the EDSP
that have obtained approval of a Stage 1 Development Plan. A Stage I Development Plan is required as a
condition of annexation. The Stage I Development Plan for the Fallon Village area, which includes the
Jordan, Chen, Croak, Anderson, Branaugh, and Righetti properties, was revised subsequent to annexation
to further refine the Development Plan for the project area. However, the owners of these properties have
not yet vested their development rights. A map identifying the location of these properties is included as
Attachment 7.
Table 2: Land with a Stage 1 Development Plan, but without Vested Development Rights
Project Residential Land Use Acreage Maximum Dwelling
Designation Units
Mission Peak (currently Single Family 19.5 103
under review for a Stage 2 PD Rural Residential! Agriculture 44.1 0
and SDR)
Jordan Single Family 48-acres 192
Medium Density 23 A-acres 234
Medium-High Dcnsity 19.8-acres 542
Mixed Use 6A-acres 96
Chen Medium-High Density 4.0-acres 130
Croak Single-Family 115 A-acres 469
Medium Density lOA-acres 104
Rural Residential/Agriculture 19 A-acres 0
Anderson Medium Densitv 7.0-acres 70
Righetti Medium Density 9.6-acres 96
Branaugh Medium Densitv 9.7-acres 97
Maximum
Dwelling: Units: 2,133
Thcsc adopted Stage 1 Development Plans allow for development of a combined maximum of 2,133
units. The City is currently processing applications for additional entitlements for the Mission Peak
property as noted in Table 2. There are no applications under review for the remaining six properties at
this time.
Land without Development Entitlements and/or without Vested Development Rights
There are four properties within the eastern portion of Dublin that have General Plan designations for
residential development but that do not have entitlements or vested development rights. (See Table 3).
Page 7 of 12
g ~(OL7
The Vargas, Moller, and Tipper properties are currently located outside of the City Limits but 10~at1d
within the City's sphere of influence. The City is currently processing an application to annex these three
properties into the City of Dublin. The Tipper property is only proposed for annexation and is not
proposed for development at this time. It should be noted that the Fredrich, Tipper and Vargas properties
are within the EDSP area. The Applicant for the Moller property has requested annexation into the EDSP.
The City is also processing applications for Stage 1 Development Plans for the Vargas, Moller, and
Fredrick properties (Please refer to Attachment 8 for a map depicting these sites).
Table 3: Land without Entitlements and without Vested Development Rights
Residential General Plant Land Potential Units
Property Owner Acreage Use Designation Based on Land
Use Designation
Fredrich 3.4 Medium-High 48-85
Density Residential
Moller*+ 226.0 Low Density & 0-413
RurallResidentiall
Agriculture
Tipper* 8.2 Medium Density 50-115
Residential
Vargas* 4.4 Medium Density & 59-110
Medium-High
Density
Camp Parks 0 Public Lands** --
* Located outside of the City Limits, but within the City's Sphere of Influence
+ Located outside of the EDSP area
** Property is zoned Agriculture
Fredrich Property
The Fredrich property currently has General Plan/Specific Plan Land Use Designation of Medium-High
Density Residential. The City is currently processing a request by the property owner for a General
Plan/Specific Plan Amendment and Stage 1 Developmcnt Plan to rcduce the density on the site from
Medium-High Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial to Singlc Family to allow a maximum
of 47 dwelling units. The request would reduce the maximum development potential of the property from
85 total dwelling units to a maximum of 47. The Applicant currently proposes to construct 37 detached
single-family homes which range from 1,400 square feet to 1,600 square feet in size with small backyards
and tandem parking. The request to initiate the General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment will be reviewed
by the City Council as a separate item on this evening's agenda.
Vargas Property
The Vargas property currently has a General Plan/Specific Plan Land Use Designations of both Medium
Density Residential and Medium-High Density Residential. On June 6, 2006, the City Council authorized
Staff to study a request for a General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment and Stage 1 Development Plan to
reduce the density of the cntire site to Medium Density Residential which reduces the maximum number
of dwelling units from 110 dwelling units to a maximum of 33 dwelling units. The proposed housing
product would be the same as that noted above for the Fredrich property (i.e. small lot detached single-
family dwelling units) with tandem parking. The Planning Commission held a Study Session on January
23, 2007 to review the development proposal for the Vargas property and raised concerns about the
proposed tandem parking for the project.
Page 8 of 12
Moller Property
The current General Plan Land Use Designation for the Moller property is Low Density Residential and
Rural Residential/Agriculture. On March 21, 2006, the City Council authorized Staff to study a request
for a General Plan Amendment to increase the density of the site and a Stage 1 Development Plan to
reduce the development envelope on the site as a result of environmental constraints. While this request
would increase the overall density of the project, the developable area of the site would be reduced,
resulting in an overall decrease in the number of proposed units. The current proposal would result in a
maximum development potential of 298 dwelling units, reduced from the current maximum of 413
dwelling units. The Applicant's development proposal consists of small lot single-family detached units
with rear yards, and attached townhouses with usable private yards.
9 tJ;f /oq
Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Reserve Forces Training Area
The City is currently working with representatives of the United States Army regarding future private
development of approximately 187 acres at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks). The 187-
acre Camp Parks site is located to the north of Transit Center. The City has not yet received a formal
application for development of this property and the exact number of units and future land use
designations for the site have not been determined (the site has a current General Plan Land Use
designation of Public Lands). However, the City has completed a community visioning process for
development of this property. The preferred development alternative identified through this visioning
process includes a combination of single-family residential, medium-high density residential and high
density residentialland use designations.
There are a variety of residential land use designation/densities for the land located east of Dougherty
Road and within the EDSP area. These land use residential designations /densities have resulted in a
variety of housing types as discussed above. These land use designations/densities and housing types
provide context for evaluating the variety of housing types available in Dublin and policy alternatives to
address future housing needs.
ANAL YSIS:
During the Strategic Planning Session the City Council raised concern regarding densities and the need for
a variety of housing types (i.e. detached units, row homes, stacked flats, etc.) within the community. The
City Council expressed an interest in alternatives that would achieve single-family housing types that are
detached and provide a usable yard area.
The City Council has the authority to modify existing General Plan and Specific Plan Residential Land
Use Designations (which includes a density increase or decrease) and/or create new development
standards at any time. It is important to note, however, that state law (Government Code ~ 65863(b))
prohibits a city from reducing the residential density for any parcel or allowing development of any parcel
at a lower residential density than called out in the General Plan Housing Element without making
additional findings. However, the properties without vested development rights (Attachment 9) were not
identified in the Housing Element to meet the City's share of the regional housing needs allocation.
Therefore, such findings would not be necessary ifthe densities for these properties were modified.
Issues such as the net and gross acreage calculations as defined in the General Plan and development
regulations such as parking standards will also have to be fully analyzed if the City Council chooses to
direct Staff to review land use designations and/or create new development standards. In addition, the
City Council should consider the impact that a change in development regulations could have for property
owners. The following is a discussion of the impact to property owners if the City Council were to adopt
new development regulations.
Page 9 of 12
Impact of New Policies
Existing Residential Development: A change to the development regulations would only apply in the
event that the development is replaced with new construction which required new entitlements. A change
to the development regulations for an existing development would effectively render the development a
legal non-conforming use. The legal non-conforming status could affect a property owner's ability to
reconstruct a demolished unit.
)0 ';f 101
Land with Vested Development Rights: DAs and VTMs vest a property owner's development rights based
on the rules in place at the time of vesting. Although certain properties do have vested development
rights, those rights can terminate with the expiration of the DA or VTM. Therefore, a change to the
development regulations would not affect land with vested development rights unless the vested rights
were to expire. The City Council may authorize changes to the development regulations for property with
vested development rights. If the City Council authorizes changes to the development regulations for
properties with vested development rights, the property owner may develop the property in accordance
with the vested rights (before the development rights expire), or develop the property in accordance with
the new development regulations.
Land without Vested Development Rights: There are a total of 12 residential properties that do not have
vested development rights and could therefore be subject to new regulations established by the City
Council (Attachments 9 & 10). Developers typically spend large sums of money to obtain entitlements to
develop their property. For example, a Stage 1 Development Plan outlines the basic development
parameters including maximum densities and permitted uses. However, a Stage 2 Development Plan and
a Site Development Review Permit require design work, plans, and drawings that illustrate the proposed
dcvelopment (Attachment 4). Therefore, a developer invests a considerable amount of time and money to
obtain a Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review permit. All development applications
are requircd to be consistent with the EDSP. If the City Council modifies the EDSP, then all applications
would be required to be consistent with the new regulations.
Application of New Policies: Therefore, the City Council should consider at what point new development
regulations should apply to land with existing entitlements. The City Council should decide if new
developmcnt regulations should apply to: 1) existing residential development; 2) properties that have
achieved full entitlements, but have not vested their development rights; 3) properties that have achieved
partial entitlements, but have not vested their development rights; and 4) properties that are currently
processing an application for entitlements with the City.
Policy Alternatives
Staff has identified four policy alternatives for the City Council to consider when reviewing the densitics
and the variety of housing stock available in the City of Dublin. These alternatives include: A) adopt new
land use designations; B) adopt new development standards to the EDSP that require minimum yard sizes;
C) adopt new land use designations and adopt new development standards to the EDSP that require
minimum yard sizes; or D) continue to implement the existing General Plan/Specific Plan policies.
A. Adopt New Land Use Categories
The Medium Density Land Use Designation permits 6.1-14 du/acre. The lower end of this density
range (i.e. 6.1-10 du/acre) results in a lot size that ranges from approximately 4,356 to 7,140 square
feet. Lots within this density range can readily accommodatc a detached single-family housing type
that includes a usable rear yard area. Densities bctween 10.1-14 dw'acre result in lot sizes that range
from approximately 3,11 0 to 4,310 square feet in size. These are relatively small lot sizes and are
more difficult to develop a detached housing type with a usable yard area while maintaining a
Page 10 of12
-- 1/ 0$ loq
minimum distance between buildings. Detached units with usable yards in this density rang~ I""a\-e
typically small lot cluster developments such as the "Courtyards" development.
The City Council could divide the existing Medium Density Land Use Designation into two new
categories (i.e. Medium-Low 6.1-10 dulacre, and Medium 10.1-14 du/acre). The new Medium-Low
designation would encourage development of housing types including detached single-family homes
with private yard areas. The new Medium designation would encourage development of more
compact medium density housing types such as detached cluster homes and townhomes.
Implementation: In order to adopt new land use categories, the City Council would need to: 1) direct
Staff to prepare General Plan/Specific Plan Amendments to create two new designations that include
Medium-Low (6.1-10 dulacre) and Medium (10.1-14 dulacre); and 2) identify which properties with
the Medium Density Residential designation should be re-designated as Medium-Low and which
properties should be re-designated as Medium.
B. Adopt New Development Standards
The EDSP requires the adoption of PD zoning districts for all property with the EDSP area. PO
zoning is more flexible and allows for greater creativity to develop property than allowed under
traditional zoning which has mandatory development regulations such as required setbacks and height
restrictions. Further, the EDSP land use designations provide for a variety of housing types (i.e. the
Single Family Land Use Designation permits single-family detached housing while the Medium
Density designation allows development that includes small lot detached housing, and townhouses,
etc.)
Development standards can be used in a similar fashion to traditional zoning to require a developer to
incorporate certain design aspects into developments that the City Council deems as desirable to the
community, such as a minimum sized usable private yard area. Therefore, the City Council could
adopt development standards in the EDSP that require minimum private yard sizes for property with a
Medium Density Land Use Designation. All Medium Density development that is subject to the new
development standards would be required to provide this minimum private yard area. There currently
are no required minimum private yard standards in the EDSP.
Implementation: In order to adopt new development standards the City Council would need to: 1)
direct Staff to prepare a Specific Plan Amendment to create development standards; 2) determine the
appropriate usable private yard area to include in the development standards; and 3) determine which
land use designations would be subject to the development standards.
C. Continue to Implement Existing General Plan/Specific Plan Policies
After reviewing the status of existing and proposed development as noted in this Staff Report and the
development policies contained in the EDSP, the City Council may be satisfied with the variety of
housing that is being constructed within the EDSP area; in which case, the City Council could elect
not to modify the existing land use designations or adopt new development standards at this time.
Implementation: Accept this Staff Report and direct staff to continue implementing the existing
General Plan and Specific Plan policies.
Page 11 of 12
CONCLUSION:
k>?~.
The City Council has the authority to modify General Plan and Specific Plan Land Use Designations (i.e.
increase/decrease densities) and adopt development standards. Staff has identified four policy alternatives
for the City Council to consider when reviewing the densities and the variety of housing stock available in
the City of Dublin. These alternatives include adopting new land use categories (i.e. Medium-Low
Density and Medium Density) to encourage medium density detached housing with usable yards, adopting
new development standards to the EDSP that require minimum private yard sizes, adopting new land use
categories and new development standards, or continuing to implement the existing General Plan/Specific
Plan policies. If the City Council decides to pursue changes to the land use designation or development
standards, Staff will conduct the appropriate review and analysis prior to returning to the City Council for
further discussion.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: I) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Receive public testimony; 3)
Deliberate; and 4) Direct Staff to either: a) Prepare General Plan/Specific Plan Amendments to include
two new land use designations including Medium-Low (6.1-10 dulacre) and Medium (10.1-14 du/acre); b)
Prepare a Specific Plan Amendment to adopt development standards that require a minimum usable yard
area; c) Prepare General Plan/Specific Plan Amendments to include two new land use designations
including Medium-Low (6.1-10 dulacre) and Medium (10.1-14 du/acre) and prepare a Specific Plan
Amendment to adopt development standards that require a minimum usable yard area; or d) Continue to
implement the existing General Plan and Specific Plan policies.
Page 12 of 12
East Dublin Specific Plan Land Use
\
as amended through September 14, 2006
,~~~ Speck AanAteas
- Dublin lots
_SIr"""
o ~ PaRs RFTA
r:::J QIy atl>.oOIon
D QIy at Wl"". Sphere atlrlluence
Speciftc Plan LU
PubIlC/Seml.Publlc
!::I Re9oo"" Pork
[B PorksI P_ Roc..""",
_ Oo<n Space
_ PubloclSem-Puoloc. PI.
_Sem.P\Jbhe
ResldenUal
fUaI ReslCsenllal/~u.t.-e (0 01 lb'ac)
SIngle' Famly (0 9 .eOdutac:)
_ IIedumOemoty (6 1 . 14 0 ""acl
_ II...... o.n..., (14 1 - 250 ""ac)
_ HogIlDens.ty(250.""acl
COrnmerelaUlndustr1al
_ Gene<a1 ComTe<toal
_ General ComTe<toaUCarrous Oll'Ke
_..u
'''bortlood ConTnetaal
CInl:lus ClflCe
. '"",."a1P>"
(~~
- --:- =
~
0.5
,Miles
4
-0""'1
j
.
<> I Attachment 1
.01
~
~
CITY OF DUBLIN
VILLAGE POLICY STATEMENT
WEST f:~=IJ""TtON
NORtH Ei.:VAPO~
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
1
{If ~/
Attachment 2
IS~
VILLAGE POLICY
Introduction
The Policy described below is not a Plaiming legal requirement for new development. This Policy
Statement is a definition of a Village used to refine and enhance special areas in the community that
already contain some of the characteristics of villages. In addition, this Policy provides direction on
what characteristics comprises the Dublin Village Concept. This concept can be used as a template
for the development of new villages in the future. The development of this Policy is based on a
Background Document dated September 7, 2004.
Applieabilitv
This Policy will be used by the City to identify possible Village sites in both new development areas
and redeveloping sites. An Action Plan will be developed by Staff with specific recommendations
on:
1. Possible Village Sites
2. Later modifications to the General Plan and Specific Plans to mandate the location
and characteristics of Villages.
Only when changes are made to the Planning documents noted above will this Policy become a legal
requirement.
The Villal!e Poliev
A Village is defined as a physical development of land that has been
designed to encourage compact development of an area which integrates a
variety of housing types and densities with community facilities, civic and
educational uses. Commercial and industrial uses may also be located in
Villages. An emphasis on pedestrian-friendly design should be required.
Villages should have these characteristics:
A Village location should be compatible with the local environment including surrounding
land uses and topography. It should respect constraints, roadways and environmental
considerations;
2 A Village should have a mixture of housing types, densities and affordability and should
support a range of age and income groups;
3 Activity nodes (commercial areas, community facilities and public/private facilities) should
be easily accessible;
4 Trails, pedestrian walkways and street linkages should be established to bring the parts and
elements ofthe Village together;
5 Street and Pedestrian linkages should link to transportation spines including buses and transit
servIces;
2
~ . 1& oJ
" .
6 The Village should have a strong "edge" defining the boundaries. This could include major
streets, architectural or landscaped areas;
7 Village size should reflect development that promotes pedestrian walkability, permits a
sufficient mixture of residential and public/private uses and convenient commercial areas.
8 Specific identity should be fostered for the Village areas (special signage, unique design
elements, public plazas etc.)
Imolementation
An Action Plan to determine potential Village sites and appropriate modifications to the City's
General Plan and Specific Plan to include development of Villages in appropriate locations in Dublin
shall be prepared by Staff for review and adoption by the Planning Commission and City Council.
G:\PA#\2004\04-025\Villages Policy Statement Revisions from CC mtg.doc
3
j'"
I:;
;'1:
",
i.'
i-i
i'
I:"
]"1
tl
lei
hi
1':
ii
'-';
f'i
b
lr
t}!.~~';~"":">o<';--'-"",~""""~:>>';;'.II-~
/1 aV/
rSE1
Program 4P: The City shall work with East Bay Regional Parks District regarding the
provision of staging areas in the Specific Plan area.
4.8 LAND USE CATEGORIES
This section describes each of the land use classifications used in the Land Use Map in
Figure 4.1. Chapter 6 on Resource Management and the Open Space Framework Map
(Figure 6.1) provide supplementary information on open space uses. Appendix 2
includes more detailed description of the specific land uses that are considered
appropriate for each Specific Plan land use designation. Table 4.1 summarizes land use
acreages in the planning area by the designations described below.
4.8.1 RESIDENTIAL
Rural Residential/Agriculture (.01 units per gross residential acre). Accommodates
agricultural activities and other open space uses, such as range and watershed
management, consistent with the site conditions and plan policies. This classification
includes privately held lands, as well as public ownerships not otherwise designated in
the plan for Parks and Open Space, or Public/Semi-Public uses. Assumed household size
is 3.2 persons per unit.
Single Family (0.9 to 6.0 units per gross residential acre). Accommodates the majority
plan for Parks and Open Space, or Public/Semi-Public uses. Assumed household size is
3;2 persons per unit.
Medium Density (6.1 to 14.0 units per gross residential acre). Provides for a mix of single
family detached and attached units and multi-family units. The density range allows for
detached, zero-lot line, duplex, townhouse, and garden apartment development. It is
intended that within areas with this designation, that dwelling unit types and densities
would be varied to accommodate a range of housing needs. Assumed household size is
2.0 persons per unit.
Medium High Density (14.1 to 25.0 units per gross residential acre). Provides for
apartment, condominium, and townhouse development. Projects at the upper end of
this range may require some under-structure parking and may need three or more
stories in order to meet zoning ordinance open space requirements. Assumed household
size is 2.0 persons per unit.
High Density (25.1 or more units per gross residential acre). Provides for apartment and
condominium development in the Town Center. Development at these densities must
meet the majority of their parking requirements with under-structure parking. With
careful design, densities of up to 100 units per acre can be achieved without exceeding
four stories. Assumed household size is 2.0 persons per unit.
46
Attachment 3
,-,,-
18 ~
I
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT
Chapter 8.32
CHAPTER 8.32
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT
8.32.010
Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to:
A. Establish a Planned Development Zoning District through which one or more properties
are planned as a unit with development standards tailored to the site.
B. Provide maximum flexibility and diversification in the development of property.
C. Maintain consistency with, and implement the provisions of, the Dublin General Plan and
applicable Specific Plans.
D. Protect the integrity and character of both residential and non-residential areas of the
City.
E. Encourage efficient use of land for preservation of sensitive environmental areas such as
open space areas and topographic features.
F. Provide for effective development of public facilities and services for the site.
G. Encourage use of design features to achieve development that is compatible with the
area.
H. Allow for creative and imaginative design that will promote amenities beyond those
expected in conventional developments.
8.32.020
Intent. The intent of this Chapter is to create a more desirable use of the land, a
more coherent and coordinated development, and a better physical environment
than would otherwise be possible under a single zoning district or combination of
zoning districts.
8.32.030
Applicability. The provisions of this Chapter shall be applicable to property only
upon designation of the site as a Planned Development Zoning District pursuant
to procedures set forth in Chapter 8.120, Zoning Ordinance Amendment. A
Planned Development Zoning District shall be established by the adoption of an
Ordinance reclassifying the property to such district and adopting a Development
Plan. A Development Plan shall constitute a District Planned Development Plan
as required by Chapter 11.2.7 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The
Development Plan shall establish regulations for the use, development,
improvement, and maintenance of the property within the requested Planned
Development Zoning District, and may be adopted in stages, as follows:
A. Stage 1 Development Plan. A Stage I Development Plan shall be adopted for the entire
Planned Development District site with the reclassification of the property to the Planned
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
September, 1997
32-1
Attachment 4
\Of ~
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT
Chapter 8.32
Development Zoning District. The plan shall establish the permitted, conditionally
permitted, and accessory uses, Stage 1 site plan, site area and proposed densities,
maximum number of residential units and non residential square footages, a phasing plan
and a Master Landscaping Plan; statements regarding consistency with General Plan and
Specific Plans, and consistency with Inclusionary Zoning regulations, an aerial photo,
other information necessary for the review of the proposed project; and any provisions as
further described in the Application section below.
B. Stage 2 Development Plan. A Stage 2 Development Plan for all or a portion of the
entire Planned Development District site may be adopted with the Stage I Development
Plan at the time of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, or may be adopted at a subsequent
time as a separate Zoning Ordinance Amendment(s) pursuant to Chapter 8.120, Zoning
Ordinance Amendment. A Stage 2 Development Plan shall establish permitted,
conditionally permitted, and accessory uses, Stage 2 site plan, site area and maximum
proposed densities, maximum numbers of residential units by type and non residential
square footages for each use, development regulations, architectural standards,
preliminary landscape plan, other information necessary for the review of the proposed
project; and any provisions as further described in the Application section below. All
Subdivision Maps, Conditional Use Permits, and Site Development Reviews within a
Stage 2 development area shall be consistent with that Stage 2 Development Plan. Where
phased development of the Planned Development Zoning District is proposed, Stage 2
Development Plans may be requested by the developer for portions of the property within
the Planned Development Zoning District. Ministerial and discretionary permits may be
issued only for those portions of a Planned Development District for which a Stage 2
Development Plan has been adopted.
8.32.040
Application. The Planned Development Zoning District may be requested
pursuant to Chapter 8.120, Zoning Ordinance Amendment, and Chapter 8.124,
Applications, Fees, and Deposits, in the form specified by the City of Dublin.
The application shall be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the Dublin
General Plan and applicable Specific Plans, and shall (subject to modification by
the Director of Community Development and or the Planning Commission)
include the following:
A. Stage 1 Development Plan. The Stage I Development Plan shall include all of the
following information and materials for the entire Planned Development Zoning District
site:
1. Statement of proposed uses. A written Statement of Proposed Uses, including
permitted, conditional, and accessory uses.
2. Stage 1 Site Plan. A Stage I Site Plan showing the location and arrangement of
existing and proposed land uses, and proposed development stages for the entire
Planned Development Zoning District, and uses and structures within 300 feet
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
September, 1997
32-2
c2o~
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT
Chapter 8.32
beyond the district boundary; location of public uses including but not limited to
parks, schools, and trails; proposed entry monuments; existing and proposed
locations of freeways, arterials and collector streets.
3. Site area, proposed densities. Gross and net area of site; maximum densities for
residential and non-residential development, minimum densities where applicable
for compliance with the Dublin General Plan or applicable specific plans; and
maximum number of residential units and or maximum non-residential square
footage.
4. Phasing Plan. A phasing plan shall show the boundaries, timing and sequencing,
gross and net areas and densities, and non-residential square footages, for
development within the entire Planned Development Zoning District. It shall also
include existing and proposed land uses; major features of the circulation system
including any existing and proposed freeways, arterials, and collector streets;
other infrastructure requirements including water supply, wastewater collection,
treatment and disposal, and drainage systems.
5. Master Neighborhood Landscaping Plan. Provide a Master Neighborhood
Landscaping Plan showing parks, pedestrian circulation, landscaping, and
hardscape proposed at the neighborhood level.
6. General Plan and Specific Plan Consistency. A written statement addressing
consistency with all elements of the General Plan and any applicable specific
plans.
7. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. A written statement addressing compliance
with the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations for the provision of affordable housing.
This statement should supplement any statement regarding compliance with the
Housing Element of the General Plan.
8. Aerial Photo. An aerial photo of the proposed district and 300 feet beyond its
boundary showing sufficient topographic data to indicate clearly the character of
the terrain; the type, location, and condition of mature trees, and other natural
vegetation; and the location of existing development.
9. Other information. Other information as required by the Department of
Community Development as necessary for the substantive and environmental
review of the proposed project.
B. Stage 2 Development Plan. The Stage 2 Development Plan shall include the following
detailed information and materials for all or a portion of the site, as applicable under any
proposed or adopted phasing plan:
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
September, 1997
32-3
;21 of
;"
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT
Chapter 8.32
8.32.050
1.
Statement of compatibility with Stage 1 Development Plan. A written
statement demonstrating compatibility of the Stage 2 Development Plan with the
Stage 1 Development Plan.
2.
Statement of proposed uses. A written Statement of Proposed Uses, including
permitted, conditional, and accessory uses.
3.
Stage 2 Site Plan. A detailed site plan for all or a portion of the Planned
Development Zoning District showing the location and arrangement of existing
and proposed land uses on the site and within 1 00 feet beyond its boundary;
existing and proposed circulation system; existing structures and proposed
general building areas; contours; parking areas, driveways and loading areas in
general; limits of grading; and phasing boundaries per the Stage I Development
Plan.
4.
Site area, proposed densities. Gross and net area of the Stage 2 site; maximum
densities for residential and non-residential development by type, minimum
densities where applicable for compliance with the Dublin General Plan or
applicable Specific Plans; and maximum numbers of residential units by type and
or maximum non-residential square footage for each use.
5.
Development Regulations. Development regulations for lot areas, lot square
footage per dwelling unit, lot width and frontage, lot depth, setbacks, distances
between residences, maximum lot coverage, common useable outdoor space, floor
area ratios, height limits, parking, driveways, loading areas, signage, grading
standards, and trash enclosures, accompanied by any necessary diagrams.
6.
Architectural Standards. Area-wide and project-wide architectural standards,
concepts, and themes.
7.
Preliminary Landscaping Plan. A Preliminary Landscaping Plan implementing
the Master Neighborhood Landscaping Plan, and complying with Chapter 8.72,
Landscaping and Fencing Regulations.
8.
Other information. Other information as required by the Department of
Community Development as necessary for the substantive and environmental
review of the proposed project.
Permitted Uses. No use other than an existing use is permitted in a Planned
Development Zoning District except in accordance with a Development Plan
adopted pursuant to this Chapter.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
September, 1997
32-4
Built or Approved Projects with Vested Development Rights
(~c! c r
\
/,
Eastern Dublin Specific Status I
Project Name # ofDUs * Housing Type Approved (A) I
Plan Land Use {:nder Construction (UC)
ComDleted (0
Camelia Place High Density 121 Stacked Apartments DC
(Transit Center)
Elan at Dublin Station High Density 260 Condominiums UC
(Transit Center) (podium design) I
Avalon Bay High Density 305 Apartments DC
(Transit Center)
Transit Center Site A High Density 418 To be determined w / A
SDR (DA & Stage 1)
Transit Center Site C High Density 405 Stacked Apartments A
( currently under review for a (DA & Stage 1)
Stage 2 Rezone and SDR)
Metropolitan at Dublin Campus Office (permits 300 Condominiums A
Station 300 du) (podium design)
(Transit Center)
Archstone Apartments Medium-High Density 324 Stacked apartments C
Emerald Park Apartments Medium-High Density 368 Stacked apartments C
Summerglen Single Family & Medium 347 Single family C
Density detached homes (w/
private yard)
I Creekside/Brookside Single Family 277 Single family C
detached homes
Dublin Green Medium Density 295 Single family C
detached homes (w/
private yard)
Waterford Mixed Use 390 Apartments C
Tassajara Meadows Medium Density 204 Single family C
detached home (w/
pri vate yards)
Roxbury Medium Density 108 Single family UC
detached homes (wi
private yard)
RivalRainsong 172 Single family & C
detached cluster (wi
private yards)
The Villages High Density & Medium- 1,396 Stacked DC
High Density condominiums & I
I
townhouses
The Groves High Density 930 Stacked apartments & DC I
condominiums
Area F Medium Density 1,112 Detached cluster UC
homes (w/ small
yard), townhouses, &
stacked
condominiums i
Verona Single Family 121 Single family UC I
detached
Attachment 5
:J<_? Cf
"'Status I
Eastern Dublin Specific I
Project Name # ofDUs * Housing Type Approved (A)
Plan Land Use Under Construction (UC)
Completed (C)
Sonata Medium Density 119 Single family DC
detached
(w/ small yard)
Dublin Ranch A Single Family 573 Single family C
detached
Dublin Ranch Phase 1 Single Family 847 Single family C
detached homes i
Positano Single Family & Rural 1,043 Single family A I
Residential! Agriculture detached homes
A
Wallis Ranch Single Family, 935 Single family
Medium Density, & detached homes (wi
Medium-High Density small private yards),
& attached homes
Silvera Ranch Single Family & Rural 259 Single family DC
Residential! Agriculture detached homes, & I
townhouses (w/ small
balconies or patios).
I'
* DU = Dwelling Unit
B u i It
or
Approved
Projects
with
Vested
Development
Rights
March 2007
dSt u n
C dO
,'"
-
1:
~~~~ ~Ilc Plan Areas
D_d'
Dubhn lots
~ Park$ RFTA
c::J CAy of ClJb.,
l~'::J CAy d [)bin, Sphere of IrAlence
<"~ Streets
.
o
0.5
j"lles ~
Attachm"ent ~
Land with Stage
1
Development but
without Vested Development
~
Rights
March 2007
DPr""''''
,:-~~ Speen: Pt.,AfUS
Dubhn lots
~Streets
D Catrc> P.... AFT'
c:::J 0Iy 01 nbin
D Cty of D.blln Sphere of Il"AJencl!
PubllclSernl-Publlc
.., Reoonal p",
EZJ Pat1<sI Ptbk Rec..aoon
. Q>en Space
. PubloclSem-P","c. PL
. Som-Nllc
ReslclenttaJ
Rant ReSldeOOallAj;Jlctitul'e (0 01 du'1e)
Sollie FamI, (0 9 - e 0 dulac)
. loIedum[)engly (e 1 - '.0 Wlac)
. IoIed-Ho [)en."!!I. '-25 OWlac)
. HognOe.,...,(2S0.Wlac)
CommerclaUlnduslJ1al
_ GenoraI Co<rme<c'"
.. General ConmefclailCanllus CJ'hce
.UU
Neqlbomood Co<rme<a~
~sCffx:.
.,......_"""'
D
Miuion Peak
103 Dwelling Units
@i
=-
--.;:;:;:;:~
.
o
0.5
.Mlles
2
~
~
AttaChmen~
j
N
Land without Entitlements and without Vested Development Rights
Dpro;.cb
,.7~~SpK&Pl.lnA~"
Dublin Lots
_Stroot.
o Camp Plirkt RFTA
CJ Oty 0' Oublln
r..:J CIty of Dublin, Sphere or Infkl.ne.
PubllclSeml-Publlc
l-...I Roglonol F'o"
[ill Parkll PubUc Rte,..tlon
_ Open Spoco
_ PublclS.m""""'~; F'l
_s.ml-Pu"~
Residential
Rural R.udenliaUAgl1eu1luN (0.01 dulac)
, S~hI Family (0.9 . 8.0 dulac)
_ _"m Conolly (S. t . 14 0 dutac)
.. u.d-HIOenlity(14.1.25.0dulac)
_ _ CoMity (25.0. "'IC)
Commerclalllndustrlal
.. G~l Commercillt
.. General CommercillVCampua O<<a
_MU
1~0~
I
.Mlles
2
I ~~~h 2007
/Of DlJ>
..:::.'\~~'#(.~.
f.~C(/~~~~\
\19 ~ C;) 1:2\
.\ ~ /J/
,r)~A\~
"'~LfORY .
....
c
:2
~
o
..
~
'"
~
d70f
/'
Land without Vested Development Rights
Project Land Use Designation Maximum Development
Potential (in units)
Mission Peak: Single Family & Rural 103^
Residential! Agriculture
Jordan Single Family, Medium 1,064^
Density, Medium-High
Density & Mixed Use
Chen Medium-High Density 130^
Croak Single Family & Rural 573^
Residential/Agriculture
Anderson Medium Density 70^
Righetti Medium Density 96^
Branaugh Medium Density 97^
Moller RanchlCasamira Valley Single Family & Rural 0-413 *
Residential/Agriculture
Vargas Medium & Medium-High 59-110*
Density
Fredrich Medium-High Density 48-85 *
Tipper Medium Density 50-115 *
Camp Parks Public Land N/A
^Based on adopted Stage 1 Development Plan
*Based on density range for General Plan Land Use Designation
Attachment 9
La n d
without Vested
Development
Rights
Dprojecta
i'.~~) s~ PlanArua
Dublin Lots
_ StrHts
o c'mp Parka RFTA
CJ City of CubOn
[':~J City 01 Cub/In. Spho<. oIl......nco
PubllclSeml-Publlc
I '"'J Reglonlll P....
Et] ParUI Public. Recr..tion
_ Cpon S....
_ PubIclSom;.pub/;c: PI.
_ Somi-Pub/;c
Residential
Rural R.-.ntIaIfAgric:uItLn (0.01 cIuIac)
SII"GIe Family (0.9. 8.0 dulaC)
_ Uedlum Do.1lly (8.1 . 14.0 dolo<)
_ Ued4<100M1ty(14.1.25.0dul.el
_ Hgh Don.1y (2'.0 + ....,.el
Commerclalnndualrlal
.. G.M,.I Commercilil
.. GeMfal CommertLlLlCampus Off'1Ce
_UU
~~6D(;8{
1(;7!~~~~\\'
19\~~p'2
'\ ~ /./1'
r)-{. __~ '" \~.'
~'.~,>c?'
Moller Ranch
0-413 Dwellln Units
Mlaalon Peak
103 OWellln Units
Fredrich
48-85 Dwelling Units
Oty Coundl Will Consider Request to
Initiate Study to Reduce Density
on rll 3, 2007
Neighborhood Commercial
Campu.Ot'I'ice
\ _ Indullrill P.rk
QBJl
.
o
0.5
.Mlles
2
~
MINUTES OF THE cITY COUNCIL
OF THE cITY OF DUBLIN
RE&ULltR MEETIN& - APRIL 8. 2007
CLOSED SESSION
A closed session was held at 6:48 p.m., regarding:
~{
L CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code
section 54956.8)
Property: 11759 Dublin Blvd. (Dublin Square Shopping Center)
City Negotiator: City Manager
Negotiating parties: City of Dublin; Berkeley Land Company, Inc., a California
Corporation
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
..
A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, April 3,2007, in the
Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:04
p.m., by Mayor Lockhart.
..
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Hildenbrand, Oravetz, Sbranti and Scholz, and Mayor
Lockhart.
ABSENT: None
..
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited by the Council, Staff and those present.
..
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
April 3, 2007
PAGE 118
Attachment 2
30o;f
Linda Mandolini, Executive Director of Eden Housing, thanked the Council and Staff for
efforts in negotiations. The Housing Authority was going to select Overland Pacific and
Cutler as the relocation specialists for this project. Eden Housing had worked with them
on previous projects, including one in which they relocated 150 seniors, and had done a
wonderful job. There would be two meetings with the residents and surrounding
residents on April 24 to discuss the development of Arroyo Vista.
Mayor Lockhart stated that outreach to the surrounding neighbors was very important
since they would be curious about the project, as well as the fact that there would be an
increase in units.
Assistant City Manager Pattillo stated that during the RFQ process, Eden Housing, as well
as Citation, noted the importance of viewing this as a community project and involving
the surrounding neighbors. Eden had been involved in tough projects where at the end;
everyone in the community was celebrating the project.
On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Scholz and by unanimous vote, the City
Council 1) Authorized the Mayor to sign the ENRA on behalf of the City of Dublin; 2)
Directed Staff to include a reserve in the Inclusionary Zoning In Lieu Fee Fund for a
future loan of $1,500,000 as a low interest loan to Eden Housing for the affordable
rental units; and 3) Directed Staff to include an appropriation from the Inclusionary
Zoning In Lieu Fee Fund in the amount of $250,000 for Transactional Cost in the Fiscal
Year 2007-2008 Budget.
..
NEW BUSINESS
Review of General Plan and
Specific Plan Residential Land Use Designations for Properties Generally
East of Dougherty Road and Including the East Dublin Specific Plan Area
7:53 p.m. 8.1 (410-20)
Senior Planner Jeff Baker presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council
would consider providing Staff with direction regarding current residential land use
policies and future residential development for the properties generally located to 'the
east of Dougherty Road and included in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
April 3, 2007
PAGE 126
31~
Council and Staff discussed the number of residents, 60,000 to 70,000, estimated in the
City's original environmental plan and whether changing the number of residents now
would affect financial prognostications for the City. With unexpected decreases and
increases in number of units of developments, the numbers had stayed pretty much on
target. The City was very close to mid-point resident numbers, taking into account
developable land and environmental constraints, and tracking pretty close to medium
density .
Mr. Milton Righettti, Dublin land owner/developer, commented on working with the
City and the need for cooperation of neighboring land owners. Aside from City
regulations, he had difficulty in coming to any agreement with the neighboring property
owner with respect to access to the property in a place where the City would like the
access located. He was unable to get secondary access to his property. He urged the
Council to stick with the present PD-2 process.
Mayor Lockhart commented that the Council needed to consider the infrastructure
needs of the City in relation to funding provided by development, and with less
development, the City would need to come up with more money for infrastructure. She
understood how this issue had come out of a previous Council workshop in talking
about density levels, but she did not believe there was a tremendous amount of support
at the time of the workshop for this issue. She did not want to change the rules if people
had been working on plans with the City and had spent money already. The City had a
commitment to follow-through with them based on what the rules were now and what
they had already brought to the City.
Vm. Hildenbrand stated she had brought the density issue forward at the Council
workshop because, on a consistent basis, she had heard from residents that there was
only a limited amount of housing stock that allowed them to grow. They had a choice to
purchase a condominium or townhome or they could move some place else, and they
chose to move elsewhere. The City was missing a balance of housing. The commitment
to the residents was to have less density housing as you moved away from the freeways,
but the development community consistently brought dense housing before the Council.
Mayor Lockhart asked how many Dublin residents, that could afford a townhome,
would be able to afford single-family housing.
Vm. Hildenbrand stated that there were a variety of single-family homes, such as cluster
or row homes that compared and were just as interesting to people that were in the same
price range as condominiums. The City was not providing an opportunity for people to
grow. When this issue was brought up at the Council workshop, there was a consensus
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
April 3, 2007
PAGE 127
3)~
to look at the issue of density. The Council had a commitment to its residents to balance
the housing. The developers came before the Council with condominiums and
townhomes and would say that was all they could provide in the project in order to
make ends meet. The City did not have the next-step homes for residents looking to
move.
Cm. Sbranti commented that the City had provided a good balance of housing. What
was coming on-line was single-family or medium density housing. But what has been
built now was near the freeway because there were not as many environmental
constraints. A lot of what was zoned for higher density had been built, but now, the
projects further out were going to be built and help balance it out. He was willing to
look at the concept of medium low density. He did not want to change the entire City
development standards. Because the City had a Medium-High density category, he was
willing to look at where it might be appropriate to create a Medium-Low density
category, just for the level of consistency. There were not that many properties left in
Dublin that would be affected by any changes made by Council.
Vm. Hildenbrand reiterated that even with Medium density, the Council would still see
condominiums and townhomes where they were expecting to see single-family dwelling
units. A Planning Commissioner had relayed to her that the Commission felt the train
was out of the station so they felt that was the way the Council wanted to move forward.
She stated that may have been how the Council wanted to move forward in 1993, but
not now.
Cm. Scholz asked if what Vm. Hildenbrand was supporting was not in conflict with
what the Mayor had suggested could happen with infrastructure not getting built.
Vm. Hildenbrand stated that if the Council went with Option B as outlined in the Staff
Report, it would not be modifying the infrastructure so severely that Dublin Boulevard
could not be built out as far as it needed to go. They could build cluster or row homes,
or alley loaded homes.
Cm. Oravetz stated he did not see the plan as being broken so he did not want to change
it. Every Councilmember had a vote, and if Vm. Hildenbrand did not like a project that
came before Council, she could vote no and say she did not like it. If three
Councilmembers voted no, the developer would have to revise that project. She did have
a vote. The City had a long term financial plan, and if it was changed now, how would
it affect that financial plan. If he had a choice, he would like to see single-story homes
built in Dublin, but condominiums were what sold these days. If that was what sold in
east Dublin, then that was what should be built.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
April 3, 2007
PAGE 128
53~
Vm. Hildenbrand commented why should the City let a developer make a huge financial
investment, then come before the Council and not have plans approved and have to have
them revised. Why not make those changes before that developer made that huge
investment. Two years ago the Planning Commission came before the Council at a
workshop and asked why not take this opportunity to maybe change the setback and
make some yards and at that time, she was the only one that supported the issue and it
was voted down.
City Attorney Silver clarified that that if a project came before the Council that needed a
General Plan Amendment or a Specific Plan, the Council had total discretion to turn it
down. But if the project was for a Stage 2 PD, for example, the Council had to have
some reason for turning it down. If it was not within the density ranges or the zoning
for the land use densities in the General Plan, then the Council could turn it down. But it
was not going to get to the Council not being within the ranges. It might be at the low
end or the high end, but when the Council adopted the City's General Plan and Specific
Plan, the Council said the developers could come in at the low end or the high end. The
point at which the Council had total discretion was at the General Plan and Specific Plan
level. When you were below that, the Council could not arbitrarily turn someone down.
The Council and Staff discussed what number of properties in Dublin were totally
unplanned and which developers had not been working within the structure of the
City's General Plan for eastern Dublin. Council was directed to a list in the Staff Report
that detailed properties and acreage. There were four properties that were totally
unplanned now, Croak, Jordan, Camp Parks and Chen. In looking at the Medium
density category acreage of these properties, it totaled approximately 57 acres of land
that would be affected if changes were made by the Council. Camp Parks had other
restrictions that would also affect its development.
Cm. Sbranti stated that it was misleading to say that all the City had done was High
density or Medium-High because the City had done a variety, leaning toward, Medium,
Medium - High and High only because in order to build, it was being done closer to the
freeway. He was willing to look at the Medium-Low density category concept of getting
more variety of Medium designations. He would ask Staff where they might
recommend some of the Medium-Low designation. The economic models of the future
of the City were based on the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. There had been changes in
the plan due to environmental constraints that had sometimes increased density and
sometimes lowered densities.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
April 3, 2007
PAGE 129
:34~
Vm. Hildenbrand stated that she was not saying the City was only building Medium-
High. But what the Council was consistently seeing in Medium density designations was
a majority of condominiums and townhomes. Focusing in on Medium where the City
had an opportunity to provide small yards for activity, was not being offered as often as
the City was offering condominiums and townhomes in Medium density housing. She
was not saying change the land designations, but look at the possibility of getting more,
small homes with yards so residents could move out of their apartments, townhomes or
condominiums, and have a home of their own with a yard.
Cm. Sbranti commented that a Medium-Low density category would achieve, at least
conceptwllly, what Vm. Hildenbrand was suggesting.
Mayor Lockhart stated that there were single-family homes in the City of Dublin that
had big back yards.
Vm. Hildenbrand stated that those older homes might need remodeling and with the
money you had spent on purchasing the home, and then the money you would use to
remodel, you could afford to buy a new single-family home outside of Dublin.
The Council discussed the high number of condominiums on the market not only in
Dublin, but in the State of California, due to the economy.
Cm. Sbranti reiterated that looking at a density category of Medium-Low would achieve
some of the detached housing options being suggested. By having a Medium, Medium-
High and Medium-Low density it would achieve that. But there were not many
properties that this would affect.
Mayor Lockhart suggested looking at the few properties that were left in Dublin that
were not in a planning process and ask if it made sense on that particular project, to
zone it that way, when they first came in to speak to the City.
Vm. Hildenbrand asked if the Council should give Staff direction to encourage more
homes that were detached, single or cluster. Right now Staff was letting those
developers come through and if it met the range, they were seeing more townhomes and
apartments.
Cm. Scholz asked if any of the options outlined in the Staff Report reflected what Vm.
Hildenbrand was advocating.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
April 3, 2007
PAGE 130
39~
City Attorney Silver stated that in the City's General Plan, there was a description of the
different types of residential densities, Single-Family, Medium, Medium-High, etc. The
discussion had in part focused on creating a Medium-Low density category, taking a
Medium density, which was 6.1 - 14 du/acre, and splitting it up into two different
categories. In the City's General Plan, the language said that the current range allowed
detached, zero-lot line, duplex, townhomes and garden apartment developments
suitable for family living and the Specific Plan contained similar language. So if the
Council directed Staff to consider a new land use designation of Medium-Low, the
Council could specify then the types of units allowable in that land use category and
could achieve the same goal that Vm. Hildenbrand was suggesting. It could indicate that
the homes had to be detached, for example. The Council had a lot of flexibility. The
Council would have to amend the City's General Plan to create the new land use
category and it now described what type of units were allowable, so you could do the
same thing in the Medium-Low density category if the Council created it.
Mayor Lockhart asked Staff how extensive a process it would be to amend the City's
General Plan to add a category and a description of a category.
City Attorney Silver replied that if the City amended the General Plan it would also have
to amend the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because the Specific Plan had to be consistent
with the General Plan. It would require compliance with CEQA.
Jeff Baker stated that both the General Plan and Specific Plan would have to be amended
and would have to take a look at the Environmental Review.
City Attorney Silver stated that the EIR for Eastern Dublin assumed the mid-point for its
analysis and if the Council took the Medium density category and split it into two
categories; you would basically be at the midpoint. Right now, half of the development
could come in at the lower range and half at the higher half. So if you split the category
in two, that is what would also happen.
Cm. Sbranti stated that the City had a Medium-High density category, there was a
Medium density category, but there was not a Medium-Low, so that would achieve
getting more of the housing types and it would not change things too dramatically, and
it would be worth looking at.
City Manager Ambrose stated that the environmental review that the City had today was
based on Medium anyway, so there would not be any more traffic impacts because there
was Medium density, the Council would just be splitting the Medium density in two. It
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
April 3, 2007
PAGE 131
.
c?b~
would still fall within the range of the number of units that had been originally
evaluated as part of the environmental document.
Mayor Lockhart reiterated her concern for not changing the rules on people that were
already in the process of developing, at some stage. If there were properties that could be
affected by a Medium-Low density category that the City could look at, if and when they
ever did decide to plan, then she was fine with taking a look at it then.
Cm. Oravetz made a motion to accept Option D, continue to implement the existing
General Plan and Specific Plan. Without a second, the motion was not considered.
Cm. Sbranti made a motion to accept Option A, Prepare General Plan/Specific Plan
Amendments to include two new land use designations including Medium-Low 96.1-10
du/acre) and Medium (10.1-14 du/acre).
City Manager Ambrose asked for clarification from the Council as to what properties
would be affected by this item.
The Council and Staff discussed at what point of interaction with the City, and what
properties, would be affected by this item. Narrowing down the properties would make
it easier for developers to know what was expected before they come before the Council
so the Council would not have to vote them down.
Cm. Oravetz stated that he could vote no on any issue.
City Attorney Silver stated that Cm. Oravetz could vote no, and if there was a majority of
the Council that denied an application that was consistent with the General Plan and the
Specific Plan, the City Attorney would urge the Council to include findings as to why the
Council was denying it. For example, it might be consistent with the density ranges in
the General Plan and Specific Plan, but if there was some other General Plan policy with
which it was not consistent, that would provide a basis for denying it.
The Council concurred that Staff would go back and look at a category of Medium-Low
for the Croak, Jordan and Chen properties, where there was currently a Medium
designation.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
April 3, 2007
PAGE 132
31~
On motion of Cm. Sbranti, seconded by Vm. Hildenbrand and by majority vote (Cm.
Oravetz opposed), the City Council directed Staff to prepare General Plan/ Specific Plan
Amendments to include two new land use designations including Medium-Low (6.1-10
du/acre) and Medium (10.1-14 du/acres) in relation to three properties, Croak, Jordan
and Chen.
..
Request to Initiate a General Plan Amendment and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to Modify the Existing Land
Designations at 6960 Tassajara Road, Commonly Referred to as the Fredrich Property
9:08 p.m. 8.2 (410-55/420-30)
Senior Planner Erica Fraser presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council
would consider a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment Study request.
Cm. Sbranti asked Staff if there was any other property with a neighborhood commercial
designation once it was taken away from this property.
Community Development Director Jeri Ram stated that there was some Agricultural
zoned land along Tassajara Road that might come in for a change at some point and
time, south of Silvera Ranch. It included a signalized intersection.
The Council discussed the convenience of having a small store in that area because it
would be a good opportunity.
On motion of Cm. Sbranti, seconded by Cm. Scholz and by unanimous vote, the City
Council adopted
RESOLlITION NO. 39 - 07
APPROVING TIlE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENf AND EASTERN
DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STIIDY TO MODIFY THE EXISTING LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS TO REDUCE TIlE DWELLING UNIT DENSITY AND REMOVE THE
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
6960 TASSAJARA ROAD (APN 986-0004-002-03)
PA 07-004
..
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
April 3, 2007
PAGE 133
.
CITY CLERK
File # DC~--
Qg~-
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 16, 2007
SUBJECT:
A TT ACHMENTS:
RECOMMENDATION:
~
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to
create Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density land use
designations for the portion of the Croak, Jordan and Chen
properties with an existing Medium Density land use designation.
Report prepared by Jeff Baker, Senior Planner
1)
2)
3)
4)
City Council Staff Report date April 3, 2007 w/ attachments
City Council Meeting Minutes from April 3, 2007
Table of Built or Approved Projects
Map of Built or Approved Projects
1)
2)
3)
4)
Receive Staff presentation;
Receive public testimony;
Deliberate; and
Direct Staff to:
A) Prepare a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment to create the proposed Medium-Low Density
and Medium-Mid Density land use designations as
defined in this Staff Report;
B) Prepare a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment and Stage 1 PO Amendment for the Croak
and Jordan properties to:
1) Amend the existing Medium Density site to create
two equal sized sites that include Medium-Low
Density and Medium-Mid Density at the locations
shown in this Staff Report; Q!
2) Provide Staff with Alternative direction.
None at this time.
Background
The City Council held a Strategic Planning Session on January 12; 2007. During this Strategic Planning
Session the City Council discussed the existing General Plan and Specific Plan Residential Land Use
Designations within the City of Dublin. Concerns were raised during this discussion regarding densities
and the need for a variety of housing types (i.e. detached units, row homes, stacked flats, etc.) with private
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COpy TO: Property Owners
File
G;\Eastem Dublin Density\ccsr 10.16.07 East Dublin Density.DOC
ITEM NO.
Page 1 of 10
Attachment 3
C/
_______~______d_____________________ -3 q ~_
yards on undeveloped land within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area that has i1Medium
Density land use designation.
Staff studied the densities, residential land use policies, and the status of entitlements for the land
designated for residential development within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) and prepared a
Staff Report for the April 3,2007, City Council meeting (Attachment 1). The Staff Report included the
following four policy alternatives to address densities and the variety of housing stock available within the
City of Dublin:
A) Adopt new Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations for property with an existing
Medium Density designation; or
B) Adopt new development standards to the EDSP that require minimum yard sizes; or
C) Adopt new land use designations and adopt new development standards to the EDSP that require
minimum yard sizes; or
D) Continue to implement the existing General Plan/Specific Plan policies.
On April 3, 2007, the City Council reviewed the Staff Report and the residential land use policies for the
EDSP area in order to provide Staff with direction regarding the current residential land use policies and
future development within the EDSP. The City Council expressed a desire to encourage a variety of
housing types that include smaller detached single-family homes with usable yards on undeveloped land
with a Medium Density land use designation (please see City Council Minutes of the April 3, 2007
meeting included as Attachment 2) to provide a housing type that is in between an stacked product and a
larger single-family detached unit. The City Council identified three properties (Croak, Jordan and Chen)
within the EDSP that have no entitlements beyond Stage 1 development plans as shown in Table 1 below.
Acres
115.4 ac
10.4 ac
48ac
23.4 ac
19.8 ac
6.5
The City Council directed Staff to study a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
(GPAlSPA) to create new Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14
du/acre) residential land use designations for land with an existing Medium Density land use designation
(6.1-14 du/acre) on the Croak, Jordan and Chen properties. .
The entire residential portion of the Chen property consists of 6.5-acres with a Medium-High Density land
use designation (please see Table I). Therefore, the Chen property is not inclutled in the analysis
contained in this Staff Report. Similarly, the Jordan property includes 21.8-acres of land with a Medium-
High Density designation that has not been included in this analysis. However, the City Council may
direct Staff to study Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density designations on the existing
Medium-High Density land on the Chen and Jordan properties if the Council feels it is appropriate at
these locations.
Page 2 of 10
- o,e
-
Existing Land Use Designations
The Croak, Jordan, and Chen properties are located
within the Fallon Village project area which
includes a variety of residential land uses. The
existing General Plan/Specific Plan land use
designations for these properties wer~ adopted by
the City Council with the GP AlSP A for Fallon
Village on December 6, 2005 (Resolution 223-05).
A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(SEIR) was prepared for the Fallon Village
GP AlSP A and certified by the City Council on
December 6, 2005 (Resolution 222-05). The SEIR
studied development at the approximate midpoint
of the residential density range for the Croak,
Jordan, and Chen properties (with the exception of
the site designated Medium-High Density on the
Jordan property which anticipated development at
the maximum density of 25 dulacre). Please refer
to Table 2 below for details regarding the
residential densities of property. included in this
GP AlSP A study. A Fiscal Analysis was also
completed to ensure a jobslhousing balance in the
EDSP and to ensure that new development paid for
itself without relying on the General Fund.
40~
Jordan Ranch
.
Table 2 - Existing Land Use Designations
land Use Density Midpoint Dwelling
Prooertv Desianation Ranae Densitv Acres Units
Croak Sinale-Familv 0.9-6 du/ac 4 du/ac 115.4 ac 462 units
Medium Densitv 6.1-14 du/ac 10 du/ac 10.4 ac 104 units
Jordan Sinale-Familv 0.9-6 du/ac 4 du/ac 48 ac 192 units
Medium Densitv 6.1-14 du/ac 10 du/ac 23.4 ac 234 units
Medium-Hiah Densitv 14.1-25 du/ac 25 du/ac^ 19.8 ac 495 units^
Chen Medium-HiQh Density 14.1-25 du/acre 20 du/ac 6.5* 130 units*
^ The Fallon Village SEIR studied development at the maximum density (25 dulacre) on the Medium-High Density
portion of the Jordan property.
· The residential portion of the Chen property consists entirely of 6.5-acres with an existing General Plan/Specific Plan
land use designation of Medium-High Density. The Chen property has an obligation to provide a 2.5-acre site with a
Semi-Public (SP) land use designation within a portion of the 6.5-acres designated as Medium-High Density. The SP
site effectively reduces the residential development to approximately 4-acres. The SEIR studied development at the
midpoint of the density range for the full 6.5-acre parcel allowing up to 130 units as shown in Table 2 above.
However, the density range on the net 4-acre site permits a maximum of 100 units (4 acres X 25 units/acre = 100
units).
ANAL YSIS:
Staff has reviewed the existing land use patterns for the Croak and Jordan properties and surrounding
properties, the concept for the Fallon Village Center, and the City of Dublin Village Policy Statement
(included as a part of Attachment 1) in order to prepare this Study. Staff has prepared a description of the
proposed land use designations and descriptions of potential housing types that could be developed within
Page 3 of 10
Lr I O;y
f I
these designations; an analysis of the proposed densities; and maps showing the proposed location for
these proposed designations.
Proposed General PlanlEastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Designations
Staff has prepared the following definitions for the newly proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-
Mid Density land use designations:
Residential: Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 units per gross residential acre).
Un~ts in this density range will be detached, zero-lot line, duplex, and/or townhouse developments
suitable for family living with private usable outdoor yard areas. Unit types and densities may be
similar or varied. Assumed household size is two persons per unit.
Residential: Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 units per gross residential acre).
This density range allows detached, zero-lot line, duplex townhouse, and/or garden apartment
developments suitable for family living. Unit types and densities may be similar or varied.
Assumed household size is two persons per unit.
Potential Housing Types
Several developments with the existing Medium Density (6.1-14 dulacre) designation within the EDSP
were approved at the lower end of the density range and are consistent with the proposed Medium-Low
(6.1-10 du/acre) designation. A table and a map of these approved projects are included as Attachments 3
and 4 to this Staff Report. Projects that are consistent with the proposed Medium-Low Density (6.1-10
du/acre) designation are highlighted in Attachment 3.
The proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density land use designations would permit a
variety of different housing types within each designation as described above. The following is an
illustrated list of potential residential unit types to help illustrate the type of units that could be constructed
on land within each land use designation.
Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 dulacre)
. I
1
I
· Small lot detached single-family home:
Typically with a small usable rear yard area (i.e.
rear yard depth of 10 feet).
:l'~ I
-lr''''''~
- ill!! /. . .',
. /',..... ........
L,--:~ -;........,
. ..." J I ! ftcW"""
,'~ r .r~l'
....1 ,. l' .
11 . i .. , "I
~:~ 1 ~~~ ~. ~ll 3.~
~-::w- ~---~:,,:.:-:.:
- --"'"
,.-==---
---- "-
'~~~"~'
...,-~~
· Detached cluster homes: Typically built around
a motor court area with a small usable yard area
with a depth of approximately 10 feet.
,I ~''''
II: -
'. '_ '""'- f
, . , VI'" I.
ill~ 1:-C-
. . '.::1 '
~-.-
:....:...--::: .'--'--- ;..--.....:~. ,,/- . ." ..--.............
Page 4 of! 0
. Duplex: Typically two units built side by side
with a shared common wall and a small usable
yard area (Le. rear depth of approximately 10
feet).
4J or
I
. I
I
Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre)
· Alley loaded single-family detached homes:
Typically built with a detached garage that is
separated from the house by a private yard area
with depth of approximately 10 feet.
· Detached cluster homes: Typically built around
a motor court area with a small usable yard area
with a depth of approximately 10 feet.
.
Townhouses: Typically 2-3 stories in height
with garage parking on the first floor and a small
yard, patio or deck (decks typically provide 60-
100 square feet of private usable space).
Page 5 of 10
I
I
· Apartments/Condominiums*: Typically a 2-3
story stacked product (i.e. units on top of one
another) with a small patio or balcony.
I' i
11
1 ~. ..',- __~ ; I ! i 1-,
~ ~'-u I ,~
~_...Cf~~~] f -;~~
"n~ l&i~ 1-. - I . .
~ ~. . . ....i.. iL. i ~
* Apartments and condominiums are similar to each other except that apartments are offered for rent and condominiums are
offered for sale.
Within the Medium-Low density land use. category there are greater opportunities for detached housing
types with usable yards, including small lot detached single-family, detached cluster and duplexes. The
Medium-Mid density also allows detached alley loaded homes and cluster homes with yards. However,
the Medium-Mid Density also allows townhomes and apartments/condominiums which typically do not
have usable yard space. The actual product type that is proposed within each land use category will be at
the discretion of the developer provided that the product is consistent with the density range.
Application of Proposed Land Use Designations to the Croak and Jordan Properties
The land plan for Fallon Village was formed around the
creation of the Fallon Village Center which serves as the
social and economic center for the project area (The
Fallon Village Center is outlined in blue on the maps
included in this Staff Report). The Medium Density
portion of the Croak and Jordan properties are located
within the Fallon Village Center. The overall Fallon
Village project area includes a variety of residential land
qse designations with higher residential densities focused
primarily around the Fallon Village Center in order to
activate the Village Center and promote a pedestrian
oriented development. At the hub of the Fallon Village
Center is a Neighborhood Square that is surrounded by
Mixed Use, which includes ground floor retail and
residential units above, and Medium-High Density
residential units. The densities reduce to Medium
Density as you move away from the Village Center and
transition to Low Density residential uses to the north
and east.
Page 6 of 10
RRA
19.4/lC
~~~~
LOR
97.5 AC
.
Proposed Density
The existing Medium Density site on the Croak
property is proposed to be divided into two 5.2-
acre sites with Medium-Low Density and
Medium-Mid Density designations. Table 3
(below) shows the density range for the proposed
Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density sites on
the Croak property. Development at the midpoint
of the proposed density range would result in the
same number of units (104 units) that were studied
in the Fallon Village SEIR for the existing
Medium Density designation (see Table 3) and
continue to ensure the existing jobslhousing fiscal
balance. These units would simply be
redistributed across the proposed Medium-Low
Density and Medium-Mid Density designations
and no additional environmental review would be required.
Croak Property
The existing 10.4-acre Medium Density site on the
Croak property forms the eastern boundary of the
Fallon Village Center. This site provides a
transition from the more intense Mixed 'Use and
Medium-High Density Residential uses in. the
Village core and the less intense Low Density
Residential use located to the north and east of the
Village Center.
4lf f
RRA
19.4 AS:.
~~.-
...";1.......,...,....
;;.... :;~:: ~.
. Croak
Property
9
.
Table 3: Croak Property - Proposed Medium-Low Density & Medium-Mid Density
Units at Impact on
Land Use Designation Density Midpoint Acres Mid-Point Total Units at
Range Density Midpoint
Density Densitv
Medium-Low Density 6.1-10 du/ac 8 du/ac 5.2 ac 42 units -
Medium-Mid Density 10.1-14 du/ac 12 du/ac 5.2 ac 62 units -
Total 1 0.4 ac 104 units None
);
, '-
Page 7 oflO
Proposed Land Use Map
In order to maintain the transition in intensity of
land uses from the core of the Fallon Village Center
to the less intense single-family uses to the north
~ and east, Staff proposes to locate the new Medium-
Mid Density (10.1-14 dulacre) site immediately to
the east of the existing Medium-High Density site
and adjacent to the future Central Parkway. The
proposed Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 dulacre)
site would be located to the east of the proposed
Medium-Mid Density site to provide a transition
from the higher density of the Village Center to .the
Low Density neighborhoods to the north and east.
lOR
Proposed
Medium-Low
Density
.
Lf ~ ':j
Jordan Ranch
The existing 23.4-acre site of the Medium Density land use on the Jordan Ranch forms the northern
boundary of the Fallon Village Center. This site provides a transition from the more intense Medium-
High Density Residential use located to the south and the
less intense Low Density Residential use located to the
north of the Village Center.
Proposed Density
The Medium Density site on the Jordan property would be
divided into two 11.7-acre si~es designated Medium':Low
Density and Medium-Mid Density. Table 4 (below)
shows the density range for the proposed Medium-Low
and Medium-Mid Density sites on the Jordan property.
Like the Croak property, development at the midpoint of
the proposed density range would result in the same
number of units (234 units) that were studied in the Fallon
Village SEIR for the existing Medium Density designation
(see Table 4) and continue to ensure the existing
jobslhousing fiscal balance. These units would simply be .
redistributed across the proposed Medium-Low Density
and Medium-Mid Density designations and no additional
environmental review would be required.
Page 8 of 10
RRA
19.4 t>r.
f;~TNi~~
t:~~:r..5;;
UlIl
97.5 At
.
Table 4: Jordan Ranch - Proposed Medium-Low Density & Medium-Mid Dens;tyH(; 1
Units at Impact on
land Use Designation Density MidPoint Acres Mid-Point Total Units
Range Density at Midpoint
Density Density
Medium-Low Density 6.1-10 du/ac 8 du/ac 11.7 ac 94 units -
Medium-Mid Density 10.1-14 du/ac 12 du/ac 11 .7 ac 140 units -
Total 23.4 ac 234 units None
~ct!1
~:;c.h..':..'
LDR
97.5 AC
Proposed Land Use Map
In order to maintain the gradual transition in land
uses from the higher densities in the core of the
Village Center to the less intense Single-Family uses
to the north, Staff recommends locating the proposed
Medium-Mid Density site (1.1-14 dulacre) adjacent
to the existing Medium-High Density land use. The
Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 dulacre) land use
would be located further to the north to provide for a
transition from the higher density of the Village
Center to the Low Density neighborhoods to the
north and east.
.
By creating the Medium-Low land use designation and applying the land use to the Croak and Jordan
properties, there is an opportunity for the development of detached housing and other unit types with
usable private yard areas.
I I
Fallon Village Stage 1 Planned Development II i
The Croak and Jordan properties are all located within the Fallon Village Planned Development (PO) I
zoning district. A Stage 1 Development Plan (Stage 1 PO) was adopted by the City Council on December I
20, 2005 (Ordinance 32-05). The Stage I PO has a number of different elements including a site plan and
proposed densities for each property within the PO district. The Stage 1 PO is required to be consistent
with the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Therefore, a Stage 1 PO Amendment will be
required to ensure consistency with the General Plan and Specific Plan. Staff will prepare a Stage 1 PO
Amendment along with the proposed GP NSP A for review and consideration by the Planning
Commission and City Council at a later date.
Communication with Property Owners
A Public Meeting notice was sent to all property owners within the EDSP area that do not have vested
development rights, notifying them of the City Council Meeting on April 3, 2007 and the meeting on
October 16, 2007. Staff also contacted representatives of the Croak, Jordan and Chen properties to
discuss the direction' from the City Council at the April 3, 2007 meeting.
CONCLUSION:
The City Council has the authority to modify General Plan and Specific Plan Land Use Designations at
any time. On April 3, 2007, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a General Plan/Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment Study to create two new land use designations including Medium-Low Density
Page 9 of 10
(6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 dulacre) for the existing Medium Den~~o;;Jn of
the Croak, Jordan and Chen properties in order to encourage an additional variety of housing stock with
usable yards. Accordingly, Staff has prepared a GP NSP A Study for consideration by the City Council.
Since the Chen property has no lands that are designated Medium Density, the Chen property was not
included in this GP AlSP A Study. Staff is requesting that the City Council provide Staff with further
direction regarding the proposed land use designations for the Croak, Jordan and Chen properties. If the
City Council elects to proceed with this GP NSP A and Stage 1 PD Amendment, Staff will prepare the
appropriate documents for review and consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Receive public testimony; 3)
Deliberate; and 4) Direct Staff to:
A) Prepare a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to create the proposed Medium-Low
Density and Medium-Mid Density land use designations as defined in this Staff Report;
B) Prepare a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and Stage 1 PD Amendment for the
Croak and Jordan properties to:
1) Amend the existing Medium Density site to create two equal sized sites that include Medium-Low
Density and Medium-Mid Density at the locations shown in this Staff Report; Q!
2) Provide Staff with Alternative direction.
Page 10 of 10
4-6 ~
MINUTES OF THE ern' COUNCIL
OF THE ern' OF DUBLIN
REGULAR MEETING - OCTOBER 16. 2007
CLOSED SESSION
Silent Roll Call: Councilmembers Hildenbrand, Oravetz, Sbranti, Scholz, and Mayor
Lockhart present.
A closed session was held at 6:30 p.m., regarding:
1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Government Code section 54956.8
Property: APN 941-1560-007-01
City Negotiator: City Manager Richard Ambrose; Economic Development Director
Chris Foss
Negotiating parties: Advanced Computer Technologies, Inc., dba All Video Repair
(William Barnett or Tricia Leckler); Finishmaster, Inc. (Tom Eastland or Greg
Calhoun); Ultimate Home Solutions (Andrew Hunter or Joe Bolin); Consignment &
More (Simin or Hermin Lalefar)j Chefs Touch Catering (Stephen Orgain); U.S. Bank
(Julie Schmidt)
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Government Code section 54956.9, subdivision c (5 potential cases)
3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Government Code section 54956.9, subdivision a
City of Dublin v. Ralph Gil, et ai, Alameda Superior Court No. VG05241773
4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9, subdivision c
(one potential case) -DroppedfromAgenda
..
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
October 16,2007
PAGE 423
Attachment 4
4'1 ~
Cm. Sbranti stated he found the information interesting, citing the low use of Section 8
Vouchers in the City of Dublin.
Mayor Lockhart spoke in support of the information.
The City Council received the report.
- -.. .- -------
Review of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to
Create Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density Land Use Designations for
the Portion of the Croak, Jordan and Chen properties with an Existing Medium
Density Land Use Desi!!nation
7:40 p.m. 7.4 (410-20)
Senior Planner Jeff Baker presented the Staff Report and advised that during a previous
Strategic Planning Session the City Council discussed the existing General Plan and
Specific Plan Residential Land Use Designations within the City regarding densities and
the need for a variety of housing types. He included the follow-up direction for Staff to
study a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendmen~ to create new
medium-low density and medium-mid density residential land use designations for land
with an existing medium density land use designation, citing the Croak, Jordan and Chen
properties, located within the Fallon Village Center. Senior Planner Baker clarified that
the entire residential portion of the Chen property consists of 6.5 acres with a medium-
high density land use designation and the Jordan property includes 21.8 acres of land with
a medium-high density designation that have not been included in the analysis. He
concluded his presentation with existing land use designations, the proposed land use
designations and an analysis of the proposed densities, including potential housing types,
stating that the proposed density would not require additional EIR review.
Cm. Sbranti asked if a developer designated a part of the property as open space, would
all of the units then be built on the remaining property?
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
October 16,2007
PAGE 431
5u~
Senior Planner Jeff Baker responded on ratio entitlements, citing the method of
calculating development density is on the gross area of the parcel, so that would exclude
things like open space requirements or a creek and creates a smaller building area, so the
product type is actually constructed at a higher density. .He stated projects are developed
at the density according to the entire acreage of the site. The gross acreage calculation is
really intended to help facilitate and encourage preservation of protected or sensitive
areas.
City Manager Richard Ambrose asked how density would be calculated if a developer
wanted more open or common space?
Senior Planner Jeff Baker responded it would be analyzed, but would still fall under the
gross density and the developable area would be where the units are going to be so you
could potentially end up with a slightly more dense product then if you didn't have any
open or common space on site.
em. Sbranti stated he understands the density is factored using the gross acreage.
Mayor Lockhart requested clarification of potentially calculating density on net acreage,
using an example of developing 20 units on ten acres (gross density) versus 20 acres on
five acres (net density). She asked why the density is not calculated using the developable
land instead of the entire property?
City Attorney Elizabeth Silver responded that at the level the General Plan and Specific
Plan were done in 1993 that information was not available, as you get down to the more
refined planning levels, you have that information.
Mayor Lockhart asked if the General Plan could be changed now?
City Manager Richard Ambrose stated that if he understands Council comments, the
question is could you change the General Plan so that you have a policy that specifies that
density is based on the net developable acreage?
Mayor Lockhart responded yes.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
October 16,2007
PAGE 432
5/<;;f
Vm. Hildenbrand responded that is how some developers get around the density
requirements; they build up because they have some areas they cannot build on. Common
space is provided, but building up defeats the purposes of establishing density ranges.
City Manager Ambrose asked if the goal of the Council is to create homes with private
yard space?
Senior Planner Baker responded that in the proposed definition for medium-low density, a
requirement is included to provide usable open space or private yard space. He stated
language defining yard area could be included in the Specific Plan to help address the
issue of private yard spaces.
Mayor Lockhart asked if the density would be denser to accommodate private yard space?
Senior Planner Baker responded that could happen but the developer would still be
restricted by density range?
City Manager Ambrose asked about townhome density ratios and Senior Planner Baker
responded townhomes are in the medium-mid density, the higher end' of the medium
density range.
City Manager Ambrose asked if the 6 - 10 density range absolutely precludes any multi-
family attached housing.
Senior Planner Baker responded you could have an attached product, as long as it has a
private yard, but not a stacked product.
City Manager Ambrose responded that if the goal of the Council is to make certain that
development within that density has a private yard, that Staff would have to put together a
General Plan Amendment that accomplishes that.
Vrn. Hildenbrand responded that it is her understanding that is what the medium-low
density is providing, but would have to be specified if that is made a requirement in the
medium-mid density range.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
October 16, 2007
PAGE 433
5d~
City Manager Ambrose stated he still thinks there is a gross versus net issue, depending
on how the developer approaches that. He indicated they might provide more common
space that is not required to be open space and asked Council to keep in mind that a lot of
the open space the City has, is environmentally sensitive areas that developers cannot use
anyway and if you want to make certain you will end up with the product you hope you're
going to get, I think we need to look at that more closely and make sure that is what we
bring back to you in the General Plan Amendment.
City Attorney Elizabeth Silver recommended that level of detail be included in the
Specific Plan but not in the General Plan.
Mayor Lockhart stated this might be the last opportunity to offer more units with back
yards. She spoke on concerns regarding giving developers development credit for land
they cannot build on and allowing them to take that number and transpose it on a smaller
space. She used the example of six units per acre being six units on ~ acre if half of the
acreage is not usable.
Cm. Sbranti commented on the importance of calculating gross versus net density,
particularly in the medium-low density.
Councilmembers discussed density ranges and transition from the more intense mixed use
and medium-high density residential uses to medium-low density uses.
City Manager recapped that Council supports the medium-mid and medium-low land use
designations as proposed by Staff and prefers net density calculation to drive lower
density in both categories and require a yard in the medium-low density range.
Mr. Croak spoke on concerns relating to the development of the Croak property, citing
complexity of planning the 42 units that would be included in the med-low density,
requested an exemption, and requested Stage 2 Planning Process for the Croak property be
considered.
Vm. Hildenbrand clarified the Croak property proposed medium-low density and
medium-mid density total 104 units and referred to correspondence received from Jordan
property owners in support.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
October 16, 2007
PAGE 434
53 ;if
Cm. Oravetz commented on considering Mr. Croak's request for an exemption and Stage
2 Planning, citing the topography of his property.
Mayor Lockhart spoke on the priority of planning the entire community and providing
residents backyards and a range of housing. She spoke in opposition to exempting the
Croak Property.
Vm. Hildenbrand spoke in opposition to exempting the Croak Property.
City Manager Ambrose recommended making density ranges part of the General Plan and
commented on providing the development community direction.
On motion of Cm. Scholz, seconded by Cm. Sbranti, and by a majority vote with em.
Oravetz voting no, the City Council directed Staff to proceed with preparation of a
General PlanlEastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment that would split the current
medium density designation into medium-mid and medium-low; and for both designations
of the properties identified in the Staff Report, that the densities be based on the net
acreage and that yards would be required for the medium-low category.
NEW BUSINESS
8.1 and 8.2 heard concurrently.
Approval of First Amendment to Recreational Use License Agreement with the
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7)
8:35p.m. 8.1 (600-40)
Approval of First Ame~dment to Access and Maintenance Agreement with Tassajara
Creek Maintenance Association for Landscape Maintenance of Creek Parcels Owned
bv the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7)
8:35 p.m. 8.2 (600-30)
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME26.
REGULAR MEETING
October 16,2007-
PAGE 435
54-<;f
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 27,2007
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
~~
RECOMMENDATION:
COpy TO: Property Owners
File
PUBLIC HEARING: (Legislative Action) - PA 07-056 Croak and
Jordan Medium Density: General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin
Specitic Plan Amendment, and Failor Village PD - Stage 1 Development
Plan Amendment to create Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid
Density land use designations for the existing Medium Density portion of
the Croak. and Jordan properties.
Report prepared by Jeff Baker, Senior Planner
1) Resolution recommending the City Council adopt a Resolution
approving a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
to: 1) change the existing Medium Density Land Use Designation on
the Croak and Jordan properties to new Medium-Low Density and
Medium-Mid Density Designations and 2) define Medium-Low and
Medium-Mid Density as two new land use designations with the
draft City Council Resolution in:;luded as Exhibit A.
2) Resolution recommending the City Council adopt an Ordinance
approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage
1 Development Plan for the exi )ting Medium Density portion of the
Croak and Jordan properties \\ith the draft Ordinance included as
Exhibit A.
3) City Council Staff Report dated April 3, 2007 with Attachments
4) City Council Meeting Minutes f'om April 3, 2007
5) City Council Staff Report date October 16, 2007 without
Attachments
6)' City Council Meeting Minutes f'om October 16, 2007
1) Receive Staff presentation;
2) Open the Public Hearing;
3) Receive public testimony;
4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; and
5) Adopt the following Resolutiom.:
a. Resolution (Attachment I) recommending the City
Council approve a General Plan Amendment and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use
designation for the Medium Density portion of the Croak
and Jordan propertie;; to new Medium-Low Density (6.1-
10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 dulacre)
designations; and
ITEM NO.
Page 1 of 12
G:\PA#\2007\07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density\Planning Commission\pcsr 11.27.07 East Dublin Density.DOC
Attachment 5
b. Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending ~~~
Council approve a PO-Planned Development Rezone
with Amended Stage I Development Plan for the existing
Medium Density f'ortion of the Croak and Jordan
properties.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background
The City Council held a Strategic Planning Session on January 12, :~007. During this Strategic Planning
Session the City Council discussed the existing General Plan and Specific Plan Residential Land Use
Designations within the City of Dublin. Concerns were raised during this discussion regarding densities
and the need for a variety of housing types (i.e. detached units, row hJmes, stacked flats, etc.) with private
yards on undeveloped land within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area that has a Medium
Density land use designation.
Staff studied the densities, residential land use policies, and the status of entitlements for the land
designated for residential development within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) and prepared a
Staff Report for the April 3,2007, City Council meeting (Attachmen: 3 - City Council Staff Report dated
April 3, 2007). The Staff Report included the following four policy alternatives to address densities and
the variety of housing stock available within the City of Dublin:
A) Adopt new Medium-Low .md Medium-Mid Density designations for property with an existing
Medium Density designation; or
B) Adopt new development standards to the EDSP that require minimum yard sizes; or
C) Adopt new land use designations and adopt new development standards to the EDSP that require
minimum yard sizes; or
D) Continue to implement the existing General Plan/Specific Plan policies.
City Council Direction
On April 3, 2007, the City Council reviewed the Staff Report and the residential land use policies for the
EDSP area in order to provide Staff with direction regarding the current residential land use policies and
future development within the EDSP. The City Council expressed a desire to encourage a variety of
housing types that include smaller detached single-family homes wi:h usable yards on undeveloped land
with a Medium Density land use designation (please see City Council Minutes of the April 3, 2007
meeting included as Attachment 4) to provide a housing product type that is between a stacked product
and a larger single-family detached unit. The City Council identified three properties (Croak, Jordan and
Chen) within the EDSP that have no entitlements beyond Stage 1 de'lelopment plans as shown in Table 1
below.
Acres
115.4 ac
10.4 ac
48 ac
23.4 ac
19.8 ac
6.5
The City Council directed Staff to study a General Plan and Eastem Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
(GPNSPA) to create new Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 dulacre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14
dulacre) residential land use designations for land with an existing Medium Density land use designation
(6.1-14 dulacre) on the Croak, Jordan and Chen properties.
Page 2 of 12
Existing Land Use Designations
The Croak, Jordan, and Chen properties are ~.
located within the Fallon Village project area
which includes a variety of residential land uses.
The existing General Plan/Specific Plan land use
designations for these properties were adopted
by the City Council with the GP AlSP A for
Fallon Village on December 6, 2005 (Resolution
223-05). A Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report (SEIR) was prepared for the Fallon
Village GP AlSP A and certified by the City
Council on December 6, 2005 (Resolution 222-
05). The SEIR studied development at the
approximate midpoint of the residential density
range for the Croak, Jordan, and Chen properties
(with the exception of the site designated
Medium-High Density on the Jordan property
which anticipated development at the maximum
density of 25 dulacre). Please refer to Table 2
below for details regarding the residential
densities of these three properties. A Fiscal
Analysis was also completed to ensure a
jobslhousing balance in the EDSP and to ensure
that new development paid for itself without
relying on the General Fund.
.
Map 1- Existing Land Use Designations
Table 2 - Existing Land Use Designations
Land Use Density Midpoint Dwelling
Property Desianation Ranae Densitv Acres Units
Croak Sinqle-Family 0.9-6 du/ac 4 du/ac 115.4 ac 462 units
Medium Density 6.1-14 du/ac 10 du/ac 10.4 ac 104 units
Jordan Sinale-Family 0.9-6 du/ac 4 du/ac 48 ac 192 units
Medium Density 6.1-14 du/ac 10 du/ac 23.4 ac 234 units
Medium-Hiqh Density 14.1-25 du/ac 25 du/ac'l 19.8 ac 495 units^
Chen Medium-Hioh Density 14.1-25 du/acre 20 du/ac 6.5* 130 units*
^ The Fallon Village SEIR studied dt:velopment at the maximum density (25 du/acre) on the Medium-High Density
portion of the Jordan property.
* The residential portion of the Chen property consists entirely of6.5-acres \A'ith an existing General Plan/Specific Plan
land use designation of Medium-High Density. The Chen property has an )bligation to provide a 2.5-acre site with a
Semi-Public (SP) land use designation within a portion of the 6.5-acres de~ignated as Medium-High Density. The SP
site effectively reduces the residential development to approximately 4-acr.:s. The SEIR studied development at the
midpoint of the density range for the full 6.5-acre parcel allowing up to 130 units as shown in Table 2 above.
However, the density range on the net 4-acre site permits a maximum of )( 0 units (4 acres X 25 units/acre = 100
units).
Staff reviewed the existing land use patterns for the Croak, Jordan, and Chen properties, surrounding
properties, the concept for the Fallon Village Center, and the City of Dublin Village Policy Statement and
prepared a second report for the City Council's consideration. At the October 16, 2007 City Council
Meeting (Attachment 5 - City Council Staff Report dated October 1 fl, 2007) Staff presented a description
of the proposed land use designations and descriptions of potential h:>using types that could be developed
within these designations; an analysis of the proposed densities; and maps showing the proposed location
for these proposed designations.
Page 3 of 12
Sl~
The entire residential portion of the Chen property consists of 6.S-acres with a Medium-High Density land
use designation (please see Table 1). Therefore, the Chen property was not included in the analysis
contained in the Staff Report for the City Council Meeting on Octcber 16, 2007. Similarly, the Jordan
property includes 21.8-acres ofland with a Medium-High Density de~;ignation that was not included in the
analysis.
On October 16, 2007, the City Council reviewed the Staff Report and the GPNSPA Study in order to
provide Staff with further direction regarding the proposed land use policies for the Croak and Jordan
properties. The City Council expressed a concern over the policy 10 calculate densities based on gross
rather than net acreage. The City Council also expressed a desire to include minimum yard requirements
for the proposed Medium-Low Density designation. On a motion, the City Council directed Staff to
prepare a GP NSP A and Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment to:
1) Create Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 dulacre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 dulacre) land
use designations for the existing Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties;
2) Calculate densities for the proposed land use designations based on net developable acres; and
3) Require usable yards for development within the Medium-Low Density designation.
ANALYSIS:
The following is a discussion of the proposed General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment, and Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment to address the direction by the City Council.
General PlanlEastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
The proposed General Plan Amendments include the following as described in Exhibit A to Attachment 1:
· Definitions for the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid D(:nsity land use designations
· Definition for density calculations based on net acreage
· Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map for the Croak and Jordan properties
· Amendments to the text and tables within the General Plan
The proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments include the following as described in Exhibit A
of Attachment I:
· Definitions for the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations
· Amendments to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Mar' for the Croak and Jordan properties
· Amendments to the text and various tables within the Eastern nlblin Specific Plan
1) Proposed Land Use Designations
Staff has prepared the following definitions for the proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid
Density land use designations which address the direction by the City Council to include private usable
yard areas for development within the proposed Medium-Low Density designation:
Residential: Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 units per net residential acre).
Units in this density range will be detached, zero-lot line, duplex, and/or townhouse developments
suitable for family living with private flat usable outdoor yad areas that accommodate leisurely
activities typically associated with a residence. Unit types and densities may be similar or varied.
Assumed household size is two persons per unit.
Residential: Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 units net residential acre).
This density range allows detached, zero-lot line, duplex townhouse, and/or garden apartment
developments suitable for family living with private flat usable cutdoor yard areas that accommodate
Page 4 of 12
leisurely activities typically associated with a residence or usable common areas that acc~~~J{e
recreational and leisurely activities. Unit types and densities nay be similar or varied. Asst!~d
household size is two persons per unit.
In addition to the definitions for the two new land use designations, the term "net density" that is used
in these land use designations needs to be defined in the General F'lan and the EDSP.
2) Definition of Net Density
The General Plan land use designations for residential properti,~s identify minimum and maximum
densities. These densities are based on gross acreage calculations (i.e. gross acreage includes streets,
open space, and environmentally constrained areas where development is not appropriate, etc). As a
result, development may be clustered on a smaller area of the o'ferall project site. The clustering of
development can result in exceeding the density for the develo;>able area but remaining within the
density range for the overall project site. The following tat Ie (Table 3) illustrates the density
calculation for a 10 acre project site using the gross and the nd acreage of the site. The resulting
project would appear much more dense than the same number ofllnits on a non-constrained parcel.
Table 3 - Gross vs. Net Density Calculalion Example
Parcel Constraints Developable Land Use Mid-point Jnlts Gross Density Net Density
Size Site Designation Density
Creek: 3 acres Medium Density 100 units 10 du/ac 20 du/ac
10 acres S acres 10 du/ac (1C acres x
Streets: 2 acres (6.1-14 du/ac) 1 () units) (100 units/10 ac) (100 units/S ac)
At the City Council meeting on October 16,2007, the City Council directed the use of a net acreage
calculation to determine the density of development on land witt the proposed Medium-Low Density
and Medium-Mid Density designations. The net acreage calcuhtion excludes public/private streets,
parks, open space, and common areas, as well as geologically and environmentally constrained areas.
Therefore, the proposed GP AlSP A includes a requirement to calculate density based on net acreage for
the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations only. These two new land
use designations will apply to a portion of the Croak and Jordan properties (Exhibit A to Attachment
1 ).
Staff has prepared the following definition for the net acreage calculation to address the City Council's
direction:
Residential densities for the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations
shall be calculated based on the total developable area oj the site excluding public and private
streets, parks, open space, common areas, environmental'y constrained areas, and areas with
slopes that exceed 30%. Development shall not be clw,tered on one portion of the project
where the development would exceed the maximum density for that portion of the site even if
the overall project remains within the density range when the density is calculated for the
entire project area.
The policy to exclude common areas from the density calculation functions as a disincentive for
developers to provide common areas within developments. Therefore, the definition of the proposed
Medium-Mid Density designation includes a requirement to pro'fide either a usable common area or
private yard area. Staff has also proposed an amendment to the existing Stage 1 Development Plan
(discussed below) to establish development standards that implement the General Plan policy
regarding private yards and common areas which would apply to the new land use designations.
Page 5 of 12
Potential Housing Types 50; if'
The proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density Ilnd use designations would permit a
variety of different housing types within each designation. An illustrated list of potential residential
product types to help illustrate the type of units that could be ccnstructed on land within each of the
newly created land use designation is included on page 4 of Attachment 3. Within the new Medium-
Low density land use category there are greater opportunities for detached housing types with usable
yards, including small lot detached single-family, detached clUsler and duplexes. The Medium-Mid
density also allows detached alley loaded homes and cluster homes with yards. However, the
Medium-Mid Density also allows townhomes and apartments/condominiums which typically do not
have usable yard space. The actual product type that is proposed within each land use category will be
at the discretion ofthe developer provided that the product is consistent with the density range.
3. General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Map Changes
Application of two new Proposed Land Use Designations to the Croak and Jordan Properties
The land plan for Fallon Village was formed around the creation of the Fallon Village Center which
serves as the social and economic center for the project area (The Fallon Village Center is outlined in
blue on the maps included in this Staff Report). The Medium Delsity portion of the Croak and Jordan
properties are located within the Fallon Village Center. The overall Fallon Village project area
includes a variety of residential land use designations with higher residential densities focused
primarily around the Fallon Village Center in order to activate the Village Center and promote a
pedestrian oriented development. At the hub of the Fallon Village Center is a Neighborhood Square
that is surrounded by Mixed Usc, which includes ground floor r,~tail and residential units above, and
Medium-High Density residential units. The densities reduce to Medium Density as you move away
from the Village Center and transition to Low Density residential uses to the north and east.
Proposed Density
The existing Medium Density site on the Croak
property is proposed to be divided into two 5.2-
acre sites with Medium-Low Density and
Medium-Mid Density designations. Table 4
(below) shows the density range for the proposed
Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density sites on
the Croak property. Development at the midpoint
of the proposed density range would result in the
same number of units (104 units) that were
studied in the Fallon Village SEIR for the existing Medium Density designation (see Table 4) and
continue to ensure the existing jobslhousing fiscal balance. These units would simply be
redistributed across the proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density designations
and no additional environmental review would be required.
a. Croak Property
The existing IO.4-acre Medium Density site on
the Croak property forms the eastern boundary of
the Fallon Village Center. This site provides a
transition from the more intcnse Mixed Use and
Medium-High Density Residential uses in the
Village core and the less intense Low Density
Residential use located to the north and east of
the Village Center.
Page 6 of 12
I~.~~.~
ml )--
t::; II
~ W? lDR
~i IJN:.
'(6-Y1
}
l~
\~
.."
~
~
---I
t. r',
/~'..,~
.
Map 2- Existing Land Use Designations
(p~
Table 4: Croak Property - Proposed Medium-Low Density & Medium-Mid Density l'
Units at Impact on
Land Use Designation Density Midpoint Acres Mid-Point Total Units at
Range Density Midpoint
Density Density
Medium-Low Density 6.1-10 du/ac 8 du/ac 5.2 ac 42 units --
Medium-Mid Density 10.1-14 du/ac 12 du/ac 5.2 ac 62 units -
Total 10.4 ac 104 units None
, . N" ..
! $.5Ac'
LOR
97.5 AC
Proposed
Medium-Low
Density
'.""
Map 3 - Proposed Land Use Designations (Croak Property)
b. Jordan Ranch
The existing 23.4-acre site of the Medium
Density land use on the Jordan Ranch forms the
northern boundary of the Fallon Village Center.
This site provides a transition from the more
intense Medium-High Density Residential use
located to the south and the less intense Low
Density Residential use located to the north of the
Village Center.
Proposed LamJ Use Map
In order to maintain the transition in intensity of
land uses from the core of the Fallon Village Center
to the less intl~nse single-family uses to the north
and east, Staff proposes to locate the new Medium-
Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre) site immediately to
the east of the existing Medium-High Density site
and adjacent t:> the future Central Parkway. The
proposed MeCium-Low Density (6.1-10 dulacre)
site would be located to the east of the proposed
Medium-Mid Density site to provide a transition
from the higher density of the Village Center to the
Low Density n~ighborhoods to the north and east.
RRA
19.4 PI:.
t::-."-tJ:i
'-?.5.AC,.
LDR
97.5 AC
Proposed Density
The Medium Density site on the Jordan property
would be divided into two 11.7-acre sites
designated Medium-Low Density and Medium-
Mid Density. Table 5 (below) shows the density
range for the proposed Medium-Low and
Medium-Mid Density sites on the Jordan
property. Like the Croak property, development
at the midpoint of the proposed density range
would result in the same number of units (234
units) that were studied in the Fallon Village SEIR for the existing Medium Density designation
(see Table 5) and continue to ensure the existing jobs/housing fiscal balance. These units would
Page 7 of 12
simply be redistributed across the proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density
designations and no additional environmental review would bl~ required. 0{ co.f
Table 5: Jordan Ranch - Proposed Medium-Low Density & Medium-Mid Density l'
Units at Impact on
Land Use Designation Density MidPoint Acres Mid-Point Total Units
Range Density at Midpoint
Density Density
Medium-Low Density 6.1-10 du/ac 8 du/ac 11.7 aG 94 units --
Medium-Mid Density 10.1-14 du/ac 12 du/ac 11.7 aG 140 units --
II Total 23.4 aG 234 units None
...1tJlj1 l-"'''''''
Proposed
~ Medium-Mid
Density
RRA
19.4 N:.
Proposed Land use Map
In order to maintain the gradual transition in land uses
from the higher densities in the core of the Village
Center to the less intense Single-Family uses to the
north, Staff recommends locating the proposed
Medium-Mid Delsity site (10.1-14 du/acre) adjacent
to the existing Medium-High Density land use. The
Medium-Low De1sity (6.1-10 dulacre) land use would
be located further to the north to provide for a
- transition from th~ higher density of the Village Center
to the Low Den!:ity neighborhoods to the north and
east.
E~r~>
LOR
97.5 AC
By creating the I\.Iedium-Low land use designation and
applying the land use to the Croak and Jordan
properties, there is an opportunity for the development
of detached housing and other unit types with usable
private yard areas.
Map 5 - Proposed Land Use Designations
(Jordan Property)
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments
The proposed amendments to the General Plan and EDSP 1) define the propose Medium-Low Density and
Medium-Mid Density designations, 2) define net acreage, and 3) amend the General Plan and EDSP Land
Use Maps to incorporate the Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density land use designations on the
Croak and Jordan properties; and 4) amend the text and various tabl~s in the General Plan and the EDSP
as described in Exhibit A to Attachment 1. Furthermore, the Croak and Jordan properties are part of an
approved Stage 1 Development Plan which also requires amendments as discussed below.
Fallon Village Stage 1 Development Plan
The Croak and Jordan properties are located within the Fallon Village Planned Development (PO) zoning
district (P A 04-040). The PO zoning with Stage 1 Development Plan were adopted by the City Council on
December 20, 2005 (Ordinance 32-05). The Development Plan has a number of different elements
including a site plan, statement of proposed uses, and development standards. The Development Plan
implements, and is therefore required to be consistent with, both the General Plan and EDSP policies. It is
necessary to amend the Stage 1 Development Plan in order to ensU.e consistency with the General Plan
and the EDSP. The proposed amendments to the Stage 1 Development Plan include a revised Stage I Site
Plan for the new land use categories, a modified list of permitted uses, and revised development standards
for the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land lses as described in Exhibit A of
Attachment 2.
Page 8 of 12
Usable Private Yard Requirement o!-
The proposed General Plan Amendment includes a requirement :0 provide private USab~ya;;;J.' for
development within the Medium-Low Density designation. Similarly, the Medium-Mid Density
designation includes a requirement to provide either private usable yards or common areas as described
above and in Exhibit A to Attachment 1.
The proposed Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment implements the General Plan policies for private
yards and common areas for the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations. The Medium-Mid
Density designation allows for a variety of different product types which include attached and detached
units that could provide either common areas or usable private yards depending on the product design.
Therefore, the Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment establishes minimum standards for the private
usable yards for the Medium-Low Density, and private yards and :ommon areas for the Medium-Mid
Density as required by the General Plan. The proposed Stage 1 De\elopment Plan Amendment includes
the following as described below and in Exhibit A to Attachment 2.
· Usable yard requirements for detached units in the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density using
the existing requirements for units with Low Density and Medium Density designations.
· Usable yard requirements for attached units in the Medium-Lcw and Medium-Mid Density
· Common area requirements and usable yard requirements for Medium-Mid Density
Detached Units with Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density Designations
The existing Stage 1 Development Plan includes a matrix with devdopment standards, including usable
yard requirements, for detached housing within the Low Density and Medium Density land use
designations. These development standards establish criteria for detached housing based on lot size and
include criteria for lots that would be typical within the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density
designations. Therefore, the development standards have been modified to include the Medium-Low and
Medium-Mid Density designations. The standards included in Tabk 6 (below) are existing standards for
the Medium Density land use designation. The two newly created land uses will also be require to be
consistent with these existing standards because all three categories (Medium-Low, Medium-Mid, and
Medium) allow for detached housing types.
Table 6 - Private Yard Requirements - Medium-Low & Medium-Mid Density Detached Units
Lot Size 1,800+ s.f. 2,500+ s.f.
250 s.f. 300 s.f.
Yard area may be provided ill Yard area may be provided in
more than one location w/in a lot: more than one location w/in a lot:
Private Yard Minimum Area Per Min. rear yard area: 170 s.f. Min. rear yard area: 170 s.f.
Unit* Min. courtyard area 80 s.f. Min. courtyard area 80 s.f.
Private Yard Minimum Dimension* 8' 8'
*These are existing standards for the Low and Medium Density Land Use Designations
Attached Units with Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density Designations
The development standards provide minimum usable yard requirements for attached housing (i.e. row-
home, etc.) within the Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Dem:ity designations. The following is a
summary of the proposed private yard requirements within the two new land use designations. Units
within the Medium-Mid Density designation have the option of pr,)Viding private usable yard areas as
described in Table 7 or common areas as described in Table 8 Jelow. The proposed development
standards, as described in Exhibit A to Attachment 2, will ensure thzt all residential development on land
designated Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density is consistent with the General Plan policies
regarding usable yards.
Page 9 of 12
Table 7 - Private Yard Requirements - Medium-Low & Medium-Mid Deusity Altaebed Ji?ts1-
Private Yard Minimum Area Per Unit 250 S.f.'I
Private Yard Minimum Dimension 8'
Common Area Requirements for Medium-Mid Density
The Medium-Mid Density will allow a variety of product types whicl include attached and detached units
that could include either private yards or common areas based on the product design. Therefore, the
proposed Stage I Development Plan Amendment includes minimum requirements for both private yards
as described in Table 7 above and common areas as described in Tahle 8 below. This requirement would
ensure consistency with the General Plan and implement the proposed General Plan policy requiring
usable common areas for all development on land with a Medium-Mid Density designation where the
design does not allow private usable yards.
Table 8 - Common Area Requirements - Medium-Mid Density Attached Units
Common Area J
Minimum Area Per Unit 150 s.f.
The proposed amendments to the Stage 1 Development Plan includ,~ 1) a revised Stage 1 Site Plan with
the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations for the Croak and Jordan properties, 2) a list of
permitted, conditionally permitted and temporary uses for these two r ew designations, and 3) development
standards for private usable yards and common areas within the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density
designations as described in Exhibit A to Attachment 2.
Communication with Property Owners
A Public Meeting notice was sent to all property owners within tht: EDSP area that do not have vested
development rights, notifying them of the City Council Meeting 01 April 3, 2007 and the meeting on
October 16, 2007. Staff also contacted representatives of the Croak, .r ordan and Chen properties to discuss
the direction from the City Council at the April 3rd and October 1611 meetings. In accordance with State
law, a public notice regarding the hearing on November 27, 2007, \\as mailed to all property owners and
occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project area. A public notice was also published in the Valley
Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. To date, the City has not received comments or
objections from surrounding property owners or tenants regarding the current proposal.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project has been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA
Guidelines and the Dublin Environmental Guidelines. On December 6, 2005, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 222-05 certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH
#20050620 lO) to the Eastern Dublin EIR, a program EIR, initially ct:rtified by the City of Dublin in 1993
(SCH#91lO3064) and the Eastern Dublin Property Owners SEIR (SCH # 200lO52114) certified in 2002
by Resolution 40-02 for the Fallon Village project. The prior EIRs are available for review in the
Community Development Department. The proposed project is \\ithin the scope of the SEIR for the
Fallon Village project area because the project does not result in increased units or density beyond what
was previously studied for the subject properties, and therefore nc additional environmental review is
required.
CONCLUSION:
The City Council has the authority to modify General Plan and Specific Plan Land Use Designations at
any time. On April 3, 2007, and with further direction on October 16, 2007, the City Council directed
Page lO of12
use designations including Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density~ft.1~
dulacre) for the existing Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties and to amend the
existing Stage 1 Development Plan in order to encourage an additional variety of housing stock with
usable yards. The proposed amendments to the General Plan, EDSP, and Stage 1 Development Plan
implement the direction by the City Council and would encourage the construction of single-family
detached homes and other product types with private usable yards on land with a Medium-Low Density
Designation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public
Hearing; 3) Receive public testimony; 4) Close the Public Hearir g and deliberate; and 5) Adopt the
following resolutions: a) Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending the City Council approve a General
Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designation for the
Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties to new Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 dulacre)
and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre) designations; and b) Resolution (Attachment 2)
recommending the City Council approve a PD-Planned Development Rezone with Amended Stage 1
Development Plan for the existing Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties.
Page 11 of12
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNERS:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC
PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS:
ENVIRONMENT AL REVIEW:
05':1
City of Dublin
Francis Croak
1262 Gabriel Court
San Leandro, CA 94:> 77
Tony Varni
Vami, Fraiser, Hartv.ell & Rodgers
650 A Street
Hayward, CA 94543
APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002
PD - Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Re~idential (6.1-14 dulacre)
The project has been reviewed under the California
Environmental Qudity Act (CEQA), State CEQA
Guidelines and the Dublin Environmental Guidelines.
On December 6, 2005, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. n2-05 certifying a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH
#2005062010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR, a program EIR,
initially certified by the City of Dublin in 1993
(SCH#911 03064) and the Eastern Dublin Property
Owners SEIR (SCH # 2001052114) certified in 2002 by
Resolution 40-02 fcor the Fallon Village project. The
prior EIRs are avai .able for review in the Community
Development DepaJtment. The proposed project is
within the scope 0 f the SEIR for the Fallon Village
project area because the project does not result in
increased units or density beyond what was previously
studied for the subject properties, and therefore no
additional environmwtal review is required.
Page 12 of 12
Planning Commission l\1inutes ~~ ~
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday,
November 27, 2007, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called
the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners Tomlinson, King and Biddle;
Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Jeff Baker, Senior Planner; Martha Aja, Assistant Planner;
and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary.
Absent: None
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg the minutes of
November 13, 2007 meeting were approved as submitted.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.1 PA 07-049 Fallon Village Community Theme Wall: Conditional Use Permit for a
Minor Amendment to the Planned Development Zoning District, Stage 1
Development Plan for Fallon Village (P A 04-040) and the Stage 2 Development
Plan for Positano (P A 05-038).
Martha Aja, Assistant Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there were other walls of this type in Dublin. Ms. Aja answered that
there are similar walls within Dublin Ranch. Cm. Wehrenberg asked about the durability of the
walls.
Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager answered that there were no problems with the walls that
the City was aware of.
Chair Schaub asked if there was foam on top or the walls or will they be topped with concrete.
Jeff Baker, Senior Planner answered that they are capped with concrete or stone, not foam.
cP{anniN/l Commission
128
:JOUr
Attachment 6
RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 60
(;11
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT
STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR FALLON VILLAGE (PA 04-040) AND THE STAGE 2
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR POSITANO (PA 05-038)
PA 07-049
8.2 PA 07-056 (Legislative Action) Croak and Jordan Medium Density: General Plan
Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, and Fallon Village Stage 1
Planned Development Amendment to create Medium-Low Density and Medium-
Mid Density land use designations for the existing Medium Density portion of the
Croak and Jordan properties.
Jeff Baker, Senior Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report.
Chair Schaub stated that the Planning Commission has been asked to look at a request by the
City Council and what they were looking for was, a variety of housing types as a broad subject,
with two areas specifically which are usable yards and using net acreage as a designator. He
thought the question was, will the Planning Commission be able to accomplish that.
Cm. Biddle asked Mr. Baker to review how the list of projects used in this Staff Report came
about.
Mr. Baker answered that there was an analysis done of the different properties in the eastern
part of Dublin and what the current status of entitlements were. Out of that analysis there were
a small number of properties that currently did not have a Stage 1 development plan. The City
Council decided that, based on the status of the existing entitlements on some of the properties,
they should not be subject to changes because they were already in the process. But there were
certain properties that were not in the process at that point, which are the Croak, Jordan and
Chen properties and Camp Parks in the future.
Chair Schaub mentioned the previous Study Session on the Vargas and Frederick properties
and at the time the Planning Commission thought it was the densest project but actually came
out at a gross density of 6.0 but the net density was 14.9 which is more dense then Roxbury,
which is the City's densest project. He stated that on a 100 acre project the calculation is not
nearly as visible as on the smaller 5-10 acre projects.
Chair Schaub was concerned about calculating the lot coverage if the lot is 1800 square feet, then
deduct 250 square feet for a yard, then 5 ft off both sides for the length of the yard and then
there must be a driveway and some kind of front yard set back that leaves a very small house
footprint. He thought the footprint would be less than 1200 square feet.
132
b~~,'
Chair Schaub was still concerned about the practicality of the new standards. They referred to
the diagrams in the Ordinance - Exhibit A, and discussed how they could put a garage, living
room, kitchen, and bathroom on the first floor. Chair Schaub thought the houses might be
unbuildable.
Mr. Baker continued with the Staff Report.
Mr. Baker stated that the diagrams the Commission was referring to are not to scale and were
provided only to show examples of where the yards need to occur but not representative of
what would be the end product. Additionally, these standards already exist as a part of Fallon
Village Stage 1.
Chair Schaub stated his concern is that on an 1800 square foot lot it would not be possible to
have a downstairs if all the rooms that are required are built. Ms. Wilson stated that it is
possible but they have not done the calculations. Chair Schaub stated that Staff should do the
calculations because his concern was that the houses might be unbuildable.
Cm. Tomlinson agreed with Chair Schaub that the yards would be unusable. He felt the yards
were not practical and the drawings showed odd shaped yards. He stated that most people
don't use their yards up to the wall but usually have a shrub border of a foot and air conditioner
unit must have clearance also. He felt the drawings should be to scale because they are the
center of the issue. He was very concerned about mandating "usable yards" in this
configuration or a house that cannot be built.
Ms. Wilson suggested that Staff could do some exercises to plot out the rooms in the houses, on
the lot with yards, etc. She stated that through her experience working on this kind of project
the Applicant could get the house on a lot like this one. She stated that the graphics do not
depict it. She asked the Commission to consider that the 1800 square foot lot size is a minimum
standard that is a part of the Fallon Village Stage 1 PD and the developer would have to be
creative in design in order to build on a lot of that size. She continued that the developer would
have to be creative in their design in order to have the yard area and still achieve the lot density.
Chair Schaub stated that they were discussing a minimum lot size that might not be able to be
sold.
Ms. Wilson indicated the development could occur on the minimum lot size. She felt that the
developer could include all the amenities and a typical home would have smaller room sizes
than what is available today. That it would be a trade-off to have the yards with no required
minimum lot size or have a larger square footage of the home. Chair Schaub did not think you
could build a house on an 1800 square feet lot.
Cm. Tomlinson was concerned that the Commission is mandating a yard concept, where the
goal is to provide recreational activities for children, etc. He felt that the proposed yards are as
useless as the current situation. He felt that to solve the problem there should be common
areas, open space and park areas within a development instead and that would be a usable area
for children.
Q>{C7iffr"Nfj Cotluuiss-ion
133
Cm. Biddle stated that this is an existing standard for Medium Mid Density as a~2t c;f the
Fallon Village Stage 1 PD. Mr. Baker stated that was correct.
Chair Schaub asked for the definition of net acreage calculation as stated on Page 5 of 12 of the
Staff Report.
Staff has prepared the following definition for the net acreage calculation to address the City
Council's direction:
Based on discussions with the Commission and Staff, Mr. Baker stated that Staff had made a
modification to the definition to further refine the definition as shown in the Staff Report as
follows:
Residential densities for the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations
shall be calculated based on the total developable area of the site excluding public and private
streets, parks, open space, common areas, environmentally constrained areas, and areas with
slopes that exceed 30%. Development shall not be clustered on one portion of the project site
where such development would exceed the maximum density for that portion of the site, even if
the overall project remains within the permitted density range.
Chair Schaub agreed that the modification worked better than the original definition in the Staff
Report.
Cm. Tomlinson asked if Staff was proposing to apply the new net vs. gross definitions to these
particular properties. Mr. Baker answered that was correct it would only apply to these
properties and only to the proposed medium-mid and medium-low designations. Cm.
Tomlinson asked if citywide all residential sites are evaluated on a gross basis and is Staff
proposing to change all other designations citywide. He was concerned that it seems unfair that
these property owners are being singled out for the new definition that will probably
significantly reduce their ability to develop those sites.
Mr. Baker answered that City Council's direction was only to look at these particular sites
therefore they had not evaluated applying it to other sites. He stated that there are limited
properties that the definition could be applied to because many properties already have
entitlements.
Chair Schaub stated that he would like to discuss suggesting to the Council that they look
applying this definition to all properties and not just these two.
Cm. Biddle stated that he agreed with Chair Schaub and felt that using net rather than gross
would be a better approach and asked if the City should use it on everything including the
different categories, not just the medium density. Chair Schaub stated that the Commission
would have to suggest it to the Council and they would have to direct Staff to look at it and
bring it back to the Commission. He felt that it would be important for the Camp Parks project.
Chair Schaub opened the Public Hearing.
134
'/floe
Pat Croak, Property Owner, 4617 James Ave., Castro Valley, CA., spoke on behalf of th~roak
property. He was concerned about how this proposal will affect his property and his ability to
develop the land as he had originally planned.
Chair Schaub asked Mr. Croak to go through the number of units that were approved by the
City Council previously for his property. He stated that there were 566 total units for the Croak
property in Table 2 in the Staff Report and that was the number he would be allowed to build
regardless of the outcome of this item.
Mr. Croak stated that this was the first time he had seen that number - he stated that the
number in the Stage 1 PD and the number that the City Council approved for his property was
573 units. He stated that the 7 unit difference between the 573 and 566 pertained to the land he
gave up for the semi-public land use.
Chair Schaub asked Mr. Croak if he was asking the Commission, in the definition of net for his
property, that the Commission include that land in the density even though it is not usable. He
stated that for that property the net density formula would include the land that was given up
for semi-public land use where we have asked it to be excluded as streets, etc. He asked Mr.
Croak if that was what he is asking the Commission to do. Mr. Croak answered yes.
Chair Schaub suggested that this is one way of looking at the land that was given up.
Mr. Baker stated that the EIR for Fallon Village studied 573 units on the Croak Property. The
publici semi-public requirement is a designation of 2 acres somewhere on the Croak property.
He stated that the publici semi-public designation is showing on the low density site so that
would reduce their low density by those two acres, but the 573 units are at the midpoint of the
density range so they could build above the density range, but they could build above the
density range to recapture the lost units and still be consistent with the EIR. He continued that
the current proposal would not change their situation. The 104 units shown on Table 2 are at
the midpoint of the density range but they could still build above the midpoint as long as they
stay within the density range and they are consistent with the EIR or conduct further
environmental review for a greater number of total units if so desired.
Mr. Croak stated that the publici semi public site could go anywhere on the property but in
actuality it will probably be located where the medium density is located close to the village
area. He stated that he hadn't thought it through but he didn't want to loose units because of
this proposal.
Cm. Biddle stated that the Commission is only considering mid density and nothing else is
affected. The Commission is not considering publici semi public or other designations. He
stated that the math works out to be exactly the same number of units. He stated that this
proposal does not change the number of units.
Chair Schaub stated that what it does change is the fact that it might be impossible to build
houses at that higher density, given other restrictions. He was concerned that in order to get the
number of units back and include a garage and a usable yard, the footprint of the house would
be so small that the developer would have to build up.
135
YJ/~'
Ms. Wilson suggested looking at the table in the attached Ordinance on page 6 o{ 1~ which
shows that all the criteria already exist for all of the 3,000+ dwelling units in the Stage 1 PD for
Fallon Village. She stated that it designates such things as minimum lot coverage, building
heights and minimum rear yard setbacks, including usable yards. She continued that when a
developer submits for a Stage 2 SDR they must meet the current existing standards for any
proposed development and this proposal would further define those designations by calling out
the medium-low and medium-mid designations within the medium density SFR detached small
lots designation and the SFR detached smalllotsj court homes designations with two new land
use designations. So the standards already exist but are just further defined by the new land
use categories.
Chair Schaub suggested looking at the far right column on the table which is labeled "Medium-
Low, Medium-Mid and Medium Density Single Family Detached Small Lotsj Court Home". He
was concerned about what the footprint would be of a house on an 1800 square foot lot.
Ms. Wilson answered that it would be based on the development standards on the table that
had been discussed. She stated that Staff does not know the particular design of the products
that will be submitted, however, all of the development standards were approved and proposed
to the City by Braddock and Logan who led the proposal for all the property owners for the
entire Fallon Village area. She continued that based on standards of development all of these
development standards are required to be met and can be met for these particular
developments. Chair Schaub suggested that the City has added 250 square feet to those
standards.
Ms. Wilson answered that they had not added 250 square feet but that the standard already
exists. All the City is proposing is that the new land use designations not only apply to medium
density land use designation of 6.1 to 14 DUj acre but that the standards also apply to the
medium-low, 6.1 to 10 DUjacres and the medium-mid 10.1 to 14.
Chair Schaub stated that all the items in the table, until the "usable yard" section were already
agreed to. Ms. Wilson stated that everything in the table already existed in the Stage 1 PD for
the entire Fallon Village area, which includes Croak and Jordan properties. Mr. Baker stated
that the only thing on the table that changed was the top box where the Medium-Low and
Medium-Mid were added.
Cm. Biddle stated that if you break down the 1800 square foot lot it would be a 30' by 60' lot or
25' by 72" lot, which is not very large.
Chair Schaub was concerned that Mr. Croak had not spent enough time on the proposal. He
stated that the proposal only affects two property owners and he wanted to make sure that the
Commission is recommending something to the City Council that is practical.
Cm. Tomlinson wanted to understand exactly what the Commission is creating. He felt that by
splitting the density from one into two densities they would be effectively forcing them to build
two different product types on different portions of the property rather than building one
product type on the overall property.
WfCrmmg
136
7~ o-P
Ms. Wilson added that there could be the potential for only one product type. Currentlytthe
developer must build two separate product types creating the new mid-low and mid-medium
land use designation.
Cm. Tomlinson was concerned about the Commission making a market and making the
standards too restrictive and possibly creating a situation that is not feasible or practical for
what the property owner/developer would like to build.
Chair Schaub stated that if the Commission was considering 200 to 1,000 acres he can
understand studying the issue but with such few acres it doesn't see feasible. He was
concerned about creating a change for such few acres and the unforeseen consequences of that
change.
Cm. Tomlinson agreed with Councilmember Oravetz when he stated in the minutes from the 4-
3-07 meeting that the current plan is not broken. He then asked Mr. Croak his thoughts on the
Net vs. gross issue.
Mr. Croak stated that he thought it takes away flexibility from the property owner. He asked if
the term "maximum density allowable" is in regards to the EIR and the midpoint density or is
the maximum allowable density of 14 units/ acre for medium density or 9 units/ acre for low
density.
Ms. Wilson answered that the EIR is a different subject and this issue deals with defining the
General Plan language as whatever the allowance is at the maximum. She mentioned the Wallis
Ranch development which shows a parcel that had a lot of constraints, i.e., creek area, wetland
habitat, etc. Those areas were not designated by the General Plan as open space which would
have been taken out of the parcel. Then going back to the Fallon Village area the net vs. gross
may not have a significant consequence since areas such as the creek area are designated as
Open Space and is currently on the General Plan Map designated as Open Space and therefore
not a part of a developable parcel.
Mr. Croak stated he was concerned about topography on his property and if he looses units
with the net process in the medium density categories - would he be allowed to absorb the units
into the low density area where they are slotted at the midpoint density range. He asked if he
lost units in the medium density and planned 4 units/ acre in the low density category, could he
transfer those units to the low density category.
Cm. King asked if he meant to increase density in the other area. Mr. Croak answered yes but
keep the entire project wide density consistent with what's already been approved.
Cm. Tomlinson thought that theoretically, as long as Mr. Croak did not go above the limit of the
section he could transfer the units to the low density area. His concern was that there will be
multiple constraints and the property owner will lose the flexibility to balance the development.
He continued that once the developer starts to look at the project they will find that they cannot
build as many units as originally anticipated and still meet the various restrictions.
(Pia n n: iUfi
137
1.3 (t2-f
Ms. Wilson stated that there is the potential for that to happen. She stated that typically the
EIR's are done at the midpoint because there will be many issues that must be addressed and at
times the developer may not get to the midpoint of development.
Chair Schaub was concerned that there are so few acres and thought that Mr. Croak should go
through the information in the Staff Report and decide if it is doable or that he cannot build the
project as anticipated.
Cm. Biddle stated that much of issue is worked out at Stage 2.
Chair Schaub stated that he would like an idea of what might happen on the properties in
question.
Ms. Wilson stated that it is similar to the other land use designations, the proposal to add the
medium-low and medium-mid results in a few more detached homes.
Chair Schaub stated that the Planning Commission has been dealing with this type of issue for a
long time and the intention of the City Council that the City wants more houses with yards
sounds like an easy thing to do but in reality it has been a difficult process for the Commission
and Staff.
Mr. Croak asked if the net acreage does not apply to low density and will it stay that way.
Ms. Wilson answered yes that it does not apply to low density. She stated that the City Council
has the authority to modify any of their policy documents and this discussion was at the
direction of the City Council to Staff to look at this land use designation and zeroed in on a very
particular land use designation. The City Council can at any time make other changes but have
not given that direction but they could ask to see net density used for all land use designation.
Chair Schaub thought it was less of a problem in low density but where it gets harder is on the
larger parcels.
Mr. Croak suggested that the Commission consider the two densities together, that if the net
concept will apply to the medium density then there should be flexibility allowed in the low
density.
Chair Schaub answered that the Commission could do that because they are only talking about
the Croak and Jordan properties. Ms. Wilson stated that there was some correspondence from
the Jordon property indicating that they had no problem with this proposal.
Chair Schaub closed the public hearing.
Cm. Biddle commented that as far as vested right to develop, the developer would need a
development agreement and a vesting tentative map at Stage 2, and there can be changes up
through Stage 2. He agreed with Cm. Tomlinson that there really isn't much change and we're
only talking about 33.8 acres. Cm. Tomlinson stated that it means a lot to the two property
owners involved. Cm. Biddle continued that if using the midpoint calculation the number of
units does not change.
138
7ft~..
Ms. Wilson stated that there would be no net change to either property owners or the number of
dwelling units would not change. She stated that basically this decision would drive the market
to allow for more of one type of product. She stated that if the Planning Commission feels that
this does not go far enough they have the ability to further discuss the issue. She stated that this
is what the Council had directed but if the Commission feels that it needs to apply to additional
properties it is appropriate for the Commission to further discuss the issue.
Chair Schaub wanted to clarify what Ms. Wilson was saying and stated that the Commission
could come back and say this is interesting but if it applies to these two properties then why
doesn't it apply to any property that does not have some very strict legal documentation such as
a Stage 2.
Mr. Baker stated that the developers would need either a Development Agreement or Vesting
Tentative Map which could be done at Stage 2 or separately.
Chair Schaub continued that the Commission could recommend that this change should be
applied to everybody that does not have any vested right to develop which is approximately 10
properties, i.e., Jordan, Croak, Chen, Branaugh, Righetti and Anderson and then Vargas, Tipper,
Frederick and Moller.
Ms. Wilson stated that Moller, Frederick, Vargas and Tipper only have annexations, Stage 1 PDs
and are included in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
Chair Schaub asked about the density designations for those properties.
Ms. Wilson answered that the density for the properties is mid density.
Chair Schaub asked if the Commission could recommend including those properties.
Ms. Wilson stated that the Commission could do that but they would need to indicate why they
think it's appropriate to include the additional properties. She stated that the City Council
talked about all of those properties and concluded that if they were already moving through the
process and working on entitlements they did not want to stop them even though they do not
have the legal right to develop but had already spent funds on permits, etc.
Chair Schaub asked if the Planning Commission must have certain findings to recommend the
resolutions to the City Council.
Ms. Wilson answered that the Commission is only making recommendations to the City
Council to make amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and then the
Stage 1 for Fallon Village which are all considered legislative. She referred to Attachment 1,
page 2 in the II further be it resolved" sections which are broad based and not as specific as in
SDR findings that they see more frequently and it would also apply to the EDSP.
Cm. King asked if the recommendation is legislative and requires findings. Ms. Wilson stated
yes that the policy must find external consistency within documents.
139
Cm. King asked how the directive from the City Council came about and how dens~e~e
the issue.
Mr. Baker answered that it was framed within the medium density designation that allows for a
range of attached product types but that the Council was looking for a variety of product types
that included private usable yards. He stated that there was a perception that they were seeing
mostly stacked product types in the medium density range with only balconies and the Council
wanted to ensure that there were units within the medium density range that were smaller type
homes with private usable yards.
Cm. King stated that the Council's concern was from statements of residents who thought there
is a need for the middle product but they were also hearing the contrary, that the density is too
high in the new developments. He asked if the Commission is trying to create a middle product
without decreasing density.
Chair Schaub stated that they are trying to build a product with a yard and keep the density the
same with the same number of houses. He thought the answer was to make the footprint
smaller on the lot.
Cm. King was concerned that the current plan allows for too much density and thought that
they should try to reduce density by creating that middle product but it would require fewer
units. He was unsure why the City Council limited the question to these two properties.
Chair Schaub answered that the Council looked at how far through the process to their final
entitlements those 10 properties were and found that these two properties had enough
flexibility. He added that they did not include Camp Parks which has not been submitted yet.
Ms. Wilson stated that currently Camp Parks' land use designation is Agricultural land but as
the Military goes forward the City would look at entitlements, (i.e. Specific Plan and
development standards) and the discussion of net vs. gross could also be reviewed for the
property at that time. She added that most of Fallon Village does not have entitlements and the
City Council could have asked for only single family homes to include large yards in that area
directing Staff to move in that direction but they did not. Instead they limited it to these two
properties and only a small portion of these properties.
Cm. King stated that he understands the Council's concern that plans should not be changed for
property owners and developers who have begun the process but if there is a need in the
community it is the Commission's responsibility to meet that need. He agreed with
Councilmember Hildebrand's concern that young people cannot buy a home with room to grow
in Dublin. He was concerned that the small lots and small houses would not really meet the
need but just create an odd product.
Chair Schaub stated that the problem is there is the perception that the City is too dense and
that young people can't buy a house but there are older homes with large lots available in the
City. He stated that those young people want a home similar to their parent's home and they
cannot have it so they go to Tracy or somewhere else. He felt that until they had the facts about
the housing opportunities in Dublin he could not believe the statements about housing and that
a casual conversation about housing needs doesn't help plan the City. He stated that the
140
Commission doesn't really know what the need is and therefore cannot plan anyth1i p~ the
last General Plan update.
Ms. Wilson commented that from strictly a land use standpoint the Commission would want to
plan the City to look the way we want it to look and feel. She stated, for example the City of
Dublin wanted to have a Village concept that we would assume the market will eventually
build over time. She referred to the list of all built and approved projects which is one of the
attachments to the Staff Report. She pointed out that there are many projects in the eastern
Dublin area which have been built at the low end of medium density with single family
detached homes with private yards.
Chair Schaub commented that most of the houses west of Tassajara Road all have yards.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that he disagreed with the comment by Cm. Biddle's regarding no
change in the number of units. He stated by changing and splitting the site into two
designations you are reducing the flexibility on half of the parcel therefore he may think he has
104 units but the reality is it may be less once the layout of the site takes place. He stated that
one of the things that you have to look at is how housing has changed. He felt that apartments
are now used as permanent housing and are larger with more amenities, etc. He said that
interior square footage is what people look for in a home, the yard is second. He stated that
when Councilmember Hildebrand indicated that the residents have complained that houses are
stacked on top of each other it is because houses are larger now and the developer wants to
provide as large a home as possible which means smaller yards and houses closer together. He
stated that the zoning code, when it states units/acre, does not make a distinction between
whether there is a 1,500 square foot house on the lot or a 6,000 square foot house and he
continued that if the Council wants to provide larger yards, the issue is not density or units per
acre but the discussion should be about FAR's, setbacks, and lot coverage and start limiting
those. He stated that he is concerned about this proposal and its potential to limit the flexibility
of developments. He stated that the Commission has many opportunities to make a project
more appropriate for a site. He was more concerned about the net vs. gross calculation and that
with all the deductions the only thing left would be the footprint of the house and a small front
yard which amounts to is a significant downsizing of the project. He concluded that this
proposal will reduce the number of units, which will make projects less financially feasible,
create markets and then by requiring them to deduct the common areas and then forcing them
to add a common element before the project is approved just won't work.
Chair Schaub commented that his intent in mentioning net calculation originally was to
understand net density not to set zoning. He only asked for net calculations to be included in
Staff Reports so that he could visualize the project. He stated that he never thought through
zoning it and the more they talked about it the more he is concerned with the unforeseen
circumstances that can happen.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she could not support this proposal without understanding the
cause and effect to it.
Chair Schaub stated that he could not support the proposal.
(Flannt:u/J
141
Cm. Biddle agreed with Cm. Tomlinson that the potential will change the flexibility df 1r~ts
and if the City uses net calculations in one project then it should be used for every project.
Chair Schaub stated that as long as we know the difference between the net units and the gross
units then they can make a decision.
Cm. Biddle stated that his comment regarding a usable yard of 250 square feet is what is
required currently therefore standard that is not changing.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that having recreational opportunities for kids where they don't have to
drive anywhere has been important to him. He stated that he would be supportive of
compressing the houses and creating small pocket parks close by that would serve as a place to
congregate as well as a play area.
Chair Schaub agreed that more common areas for this density would be preferable as opposed
to requiring the individual 250 square foot private usable yard.
Cm. Biddle stated that the change in housing types and the number of bathrooms per home has
increased.
Cm. King commented on the minutes of the City Council meeting of 4-3-07 stating that there
was an observation that residents had complained that there was only a limited amount of
housing stock that allows them to grow within Dublin. He then asked Chair Schaub if he
agreed with that statement.
Chair Schaub answered that until he sees the inventory of the housing available in Dublin he
did not agree with that observation.
Cm. King stated that the Planning Commission needed to have the answer to that question
otherwise he felt they could not make a decision to recommend the proposal.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that the Commission could obtain the information from real estate
brokers or realtor.com. Chair Schaub added that the City's GIS system can provide the square
footage information as well.
Ms. Wilson stated that it would be time consuming to obtain the information. She stated that
Staff has looked at some of the density ranges but it comes down to land use because you build
for the longevity of the community while providing a variety of land use types which is the
premise of General Plan. She added that land use decisions don't necessarily equate to the
market.
Cm. King was concerned that the market issue is essential to what the Council's concern was
regarding there being a limited amount of housing stock that would allow residents to grow
within Dublin. He stated that if that is true the Commission needs to address it.
Ms. Wilson stated that the 5 members of the Council struggled with this information as well.
She continued that the information was anecdotal, personal experience, etc. but no actual
statistics were used.
142
Ig;f
Chair Schaub stated that until the Commission has the facts it would be difficult for them to
change Mr. Croak's property designation based on anecdotal evidence. He felt that adding 250
square feet of yard area would not change the conversation about density.
Ms. Wilson asked to clarify that the Commission is unified in their thoughts on this proposal.
She stated that she thought the Commission felt that this was not appropriate and that the
Commission would recommend not approving the resolutions and state the reasons.
Chair Schaub asked the Commission if they were in agreement that they would not recommend
approving the resolutions as they are not appropriate for the community.
Cm. King stated that he would rather not take any action on the resolutions then recommend
them either for or against. He stated that a planning decision involves the market otherwise the
Commission cannot determine the land use.
Cm. Tomlinson answered that there are two issues before the Commission which are: 1) is it
appropriate to split the medium density into two sub-categories and 2) the net vs. gross issue
which he doesn't recommend a change. He felt it was selective and will have many unintended
consequences. He stated that he agreed with Councilmember Oravetz who believes that the
system is not broken and that we shouldn't change it.
Cm. King stated that it may be broken but he wanted to know what is meant by "housing stock
that allows them to grow". He felt that the Commission should not try to create a market but
thought there might be a demand that is not being met.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that there is the flexibility to do that now because the medium density is
broad range and what were are proposing is to take half the property and restrict it to the lower
half of the range and the other half would be restricted to the other half of the range.
Cm. King stated that he felt from reading the City Council minutes that there is a demand that
is not being met for a medium range product and if the developers are left to decide what
density they will build they will opt for the high density homes. He agreed that the information
was anecdotal and he also hears comments from parents that their children can't afford to live
in Dublin.
Chair Schaub stated that the discussion regarding the product need that is not being met is an
entirely different discussion. He stated that he would need to have the facts about the inventory
in Dublin to make a decision and not base it on anecdotal evidence.
Cm. Tomlinson commented that as Ms. Wilson pointed out many of the developments that have
been built have been built in lower density range of the medium land use. He continued that
when talking about the number of units/acre it doesn't take into consideration the square
footage of the house.
Chair Schaub stated that in order for the Commission to make decisions in the future they will
be based on what we believe to be a need in our community which is not being met then we will
base our decision on facts not anecdotal evidence.
143
1<1 oJ
Cm. Biddle stated that he thought that the comment referred to new homes only in one area of
the City and didn't refer to planning the whole city.
Cm. King stated that there may be, as the Chair thought, plenty of housing inventory in the
City.
Chair Schaub stated that he didn't support the idea of making markets and that he believed that
the developers would not build a house they couldn't sell and if the market perceives the need
then it will be built.
Chair Schaub stated that he didn't think the resolution would create the solution that the
Council wants.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that he thought this was not the correct way to go about what the Council
wanted and that there would be unforeseen detrimental consequences at a later date and he was
prepared to make a motion to recommend that the Council not recommend this ordinance.
Ms. Wilson suggested that they go over their reasons for not recommending the proposed
changes which are:
1) The Commission was worried about the possibility that they would be creating
inflexibility and felt that they would be driving the market where the market
should be picking up these types of products that are needed because the current
land use of medium density allows for different product types.
2) The Commission was concerned about starting to define net vs. gross in the
General Plan for only specific land use designations for a few properties without
looking at land use designations for the General Plan. Additionally the Planning
Commission was concerned about modifying an existing policy regarding the use
of net density rather than gross density as we have and continue to use.
3) The Commission felt that they can achieve usable yards currently in the low
density range or the lower portion of the mid that is existing in the 6.1 to 10 range
and in the zoning that exists today.
4) The Commission felt that there are a variety of product types that already exist as
noted in the table in the Staff Report that are already built and sold.
5) The Commission felt that the plan is working well and to change such a small
portion of it doesn't seem that it will yield great change for the community for
usable yards.
6) The Commission felt that if they really believe there is a shortfall in a certain
market then we need facts (formal study) to help them understand the total
inventory that is available to buy.
144
Ms. Wilson asked if there was anything else that the Commission would like to articu~ t%e
City Council. She asked the Commission if they felt that if there were more properties that were
put into the proposal, would they be more comfortable with modifications.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that the key for him was that Councilmember Hildebrand felt that the
City was too dense and if the question is to broach the concept with the Council regarding Floor
Area Ratios (FAR) vs. units per acre or Lot Area Coverage (LAC).
Cm. Tomlinson asked for clarification of Lot Coverage Ratio - would a single story and a two
story house compute to the same Lot Coverage Ratio.
Ms. Wilson answered that lot coverage is actually the footprint of the building.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that he thought that Floor Area Ratio (FAR) was more appropriate
because FAR takes into consideration the differences between a one and two story house and a
high rise building.
On a motion by Cm. Tomlinson and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, and by a vote of 5-0-0, the
Planning Commission did not recommend adoption of either:
RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 62
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PD-
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH AMENDED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES
(APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002)
PA 07-056
RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 61
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE GENERAL
PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE
MEDIUM DENSITY PORTION OF THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES TO NEW
MEDIUM-LOW DENSITY AND MEDIUM-MID DENSITY DESIGNATIONS
(APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002)
PA 07-056
q>[;nniulf
145
314ft,
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Cm. Tomlinson wanted to complement the staff and
the Commission on the Lowes project. He felt that it turned out fantastic and it was a great job.
Ms. Wilson promised to pass on the comment to Erica Fraser, the project Planner.
Chair Schaub wanted to add a discussion item on the agenda regarding covering up windows
with signs. He stated that he did not like what Video Only has done to black out the windows
or Bed Bath and Beyond who has covered up a portion of the their window space with ad signs,
shelving and product. He indicated that he wanted to discuss the signage rules also to help the
code enforcement officers.
Ms. Wilson stated the item would be agendized. She reminded the Commission about the
study session on 12-11-07 which begins at 5:00 pm on zoning ordinance modifications.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bill Schaub
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Mary Jo Wilson, AICP
Planning Manager
G: \ MINUTES \ 2007\ Planning Commission \ 11.27.07.doc
146
RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 61
&,
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL NOT APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE GENERAL
PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND LSE DESIGNATION FOR THE
MEDIUM DENSITY PORTION OF THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES TO NEW
MEDIUM-LOW DENSITY AND MEDIUM-MID DENSITY DESIGNATIONS
(APN 985-0027-007,905-0002-001, AND 91)5-0002-002)
PA 07-056
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2007, the City Council initiated a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to create Medium. Low and Medium-Mid Density land
use designations for the existing Medium-Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties which are
generally located north of the future Central Parkway extension and east of Croak Road and within the
1, I 34-acre Fallon Village project area (APN 985-0027-007, 905-000l-001, AND 905-0002-002); and
WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan was originally adopted on February 11, 1985, and has been
amended a number of times since that date; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report for the original General Plan was prepared and
adopted in 1984 and subsequent environmental reviews have been undertaken in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the various General Plan Amendments which have
been approved over the years; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted the Eastern Dublin General P.an Amendment and Specific Plan on
January 7, 1994, both plans have been amended a number of :imes since that date, to provide a
comprehensive planning framework for future development of the eastern Dublin area. In connection
with this approval, the City certified a Program Environmental Impact Report ("Program EIR") pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 (SCH No. 91103064) that is available for review in the Planning
Division and is incorporated herein by reference. The Program EIR was integral to the planning process
and examined the direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts, broad policy alternatives and area-wide
mitigation measures for development within eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the East Dublin Property Owners (ED PO), requested annexation and prezoning of
the EDPO Annexation Area, which includes the Croak and Jordan properties, into the City of Dublin. In
connection with the annexation and prezoning request the City CoJUllcil certified a Supplemental EIR
(SCH No. 2001052114) by Resolution 40-02 that is available for review in the Planning Division and is
incorporated herein by reference. In connection with the 2002 projed approval, the City Council adopted
supplemental mitigation measures, mitigation findings, a statemer.t of overriding consideration and a
mitigation monitoring program. All adopted supplemental mitigation measures continue to apply to the
proj ect area; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendment for the Fallon Village project area, which include:; the Croak and Jordan properties on
December 6, 2005 by Resolution 223-05 that is available for review in the Planning Division and
incorporated herein by reference; and
Attachment 7
8~1
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 222-05 certifying a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH #2005062010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR and
the Supplemental EIR for the Eastern Dublin Property Owners (ED PO) which is available for review in
the Community Development Department and is herein incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan currently identifies land use d'~signations, densities, policies related
to density calculations, and the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 1-1 a) that shows the location of land
uses within the City of Dublin and the Sphere oflnfluence; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use section of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan currently includes text
related to Specific Plan Land Use Designations, and the "Land Use Map" map (Figure 4.1) that shows the
location of land uses within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; ard
WHEREAS, the City Council discussed the Medium Density land use designation and on April
3,2007, and October 16,2007, authorized a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment to change the existing Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan
properties to new Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density hmd use designations; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State CEQA
Guidelines require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental
documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is within the scope of the Fallon Village SEIR because the
project does not result in an increased number of units or density beyond what was previously studied for
the Croak: and Jordan properties. Therefore, no additional environmental review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public
hearing on said project on November 27, 2007; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted, and incorporated herein by reference, recommending
that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of a General Plan Amendment
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations
and testimony herein above set forth, including prior EIRs, and used its independent judgment to evaluate
the proj ect.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended tha: the City Council not approve the
proposed Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan for the Croak and
Jordan properties because the Planning Commission found that: I) the proposal created inflexibility; 2)
selectively modified Citywide policies regarding density calculations using net rather than gross acreage
calculations; 3) current policies enable projects to achieve usable yards on land with an existing Medium
Density designation; 4) small single-family detached homes witt usable yards already exist; 5) the
housing market will dictate housing needs and the type of housing built within the community; and 6)
concerns about density could be addressed with policies regarding 10-: coverage, setbacks and design.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and
made a part of this resolution.
2
gqaj
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, based on the findings listed
above, could not recommend the findings in the attached draft City Council Resolution and therefore
recommends that the City Council not adopt the Resolution attached as Exhibit A, which Resolution
approves a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for the existing Medium
Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties which includes the following as described in the
attached Resolution:
1) Definition of the propose Medium-Low Density ar~d Medium-Mid Density land use
designations;
2) Defmition of net acreage and the associated density calculation based on net acreage for
Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations;
3) Amends to the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 1-] a) and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Land Use Maps (Figure 4.1); and
4) Amends to the text and various tables in the General Flan and the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2ih day of November 2007 by the following vote:
AYES:
Schaub, Wehrenberg, Tomlinson, Biddle and I<ing
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
It! ~V{~1 . {
Planning Commission Chair
-..
ATTEST:
G:\PA#\2007\07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium DensitylPlanning CommissionlPC Reso GPA EDSPA Denial.DOC
3
&~~
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 07
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*********
APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ANn EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN
SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE MEDIUM DENSITY
PORTION OF THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES TO NEW MEDIUM-LOW
DENSITY AND MEDIUM-MID DENSITY DESIGNATIONS
(APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AN)) 905-0002-002)
PA 07-056
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2007, the City Council initiated a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to create Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land
use designations for the existing Medium-Density portion of the Cnak and Jordan properties which are
generally located north of the future Central Parkway extension and east of Croak Road and within the
1, I 34-acre Fallon Village project area (APN 985-0027-007, 905-000:!-00 1, AND 905-0002-002); and
WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan was originally adoptee on February 11, 1985, and has been
amended a number of times since that date; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report for the original General Plan was prepared and
adopted in 1984 and subsequent environmental reviews have been undertaken in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the various General Plan Amendments which have
been approved over the years; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan on
January 7, 1994. Both plans have been amended a number of times since that date, to provide a
comprehensive planning framework for future development of the eastern Dublin area. In connection
with this approval, the City certified a Program Environmental Impact Report ("Program EIR") pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines section 15163 (SCH No. 91103064) that is available for review in the Planning
Division and is incorporated herein by reference. The Program EIR was integral to the plal1ning process
and examined the direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts, broad policy alternatives and area-wide
mitigation measures for development within eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the East Dublin Property Owners (ED PO), requested annexation and prezoning of
the ED PO Annexation Area, which includes the Croak and Jordan properties, into the City of Dublin. In
connection with the annexation and prezoning request the City Ctmncil certified a Supplemental ElR
(SCH No. 2001052114) by Resolution 40-02 that is available for review in the Planning Division and is
incorporated herein by reference. [n connection with the 2002 projet;t approval, the City Council adopted
supplemental mitigation measures, mitigation findings, a statemert of overriding consideration and a
mitigation monitoring program. All adopted supplemental mitigation measures continue to apply to the
project area; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendment for the Fallon Village project area, which include~. the Croak and Jordan properties, on
December 6, 2005 by Resolution 223-05 which is available for revieu/ in the Planning Division; and
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 222-05 certifying a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH #200506:WIO) to the Eastern Dublin EIR and
Exhibit A
gb~
the Supplemental ElR for the Eastern Dublin Property Owners v. hich is available for review in the
Community Development Department and is herein incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan currently identifies land use d(signations, densities, policies related
to density calculations, and the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure l-la) that shows the location ofland
uses within the City of Dublin and the Sphere of Influence; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use section of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan currently includes text
related to Specific Plan Land Use Designations, and the "Land Use 1\1ap" map (Figure 4.1) that shows the
location ofland uses within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; anj
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State CEQA
Guidelines require..that certain projects be reviewed for environmen'al impacts and that environmental
documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is within the scope of the Fallon Village SEIR because the
project does not result in an increast:d number of units or density beyond what was previously studied for
the Croak and Jordan properties. Therefore, no additional environmental review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public
hearing on said project on November 27, 2007; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated November 27, 2007, was ~;ubmitted and incorporated herein by
reference, recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of a
General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendrrent; and
WHEREAS, on November 27, 2007, the Planning Comnission adopted Resolution 07-XX
incorporated herein by reference, recommending that the City Council approve the General Plan
Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated , and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments for the Croak
and Jordan properties; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the project at a noticed public hearing on
, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and
testimony herein above set forth, induding prior EIRs, and used its independent judgment to evaluate the
project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and
made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOL YED that the Dublin City Council does hereby approve the following
amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan based on findings that the amendments
are in the public interest and will not have an adverse affect on health or safety or be detrimental to the
public welfare or be injurious to property or public improvement and that the General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent.
2
2;71
Section I.
General Plan Amendments,
Subsection i. Replace the first paragraph after the section heading "Density
Measurement:;" in Section 1,8.1 (Land Use Clessifications) with the following:
"Residential densities are based on gross residential acreage for all properties,
except the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid density sites on the Jordan and Croak
properties, and the density is calculated as follows:"
Subsection ii. Add the following paragraphs to Sect on 1.8,1 (Land Use Classifications)
after the Ponderosa Village Example:
"Residential densities for the portion of the Jordan and Croak properties with
Medium-Low Density Residential and Medium-Mid Density Residential land use
designation are based upon net acreage that is !;alculated as follows:
Residential densities shall be calculated based on the total developable area of the
site excluding public and private streets, parks, open space, common areas,
environmentally constrained areas, and areas with slopes that exceed 30%.
Development shall not be clustered on ont: portion of the project where the
development would exceed the maximum den:.ity for that portion of the site even if
the overall project remains within the density range when the density is calculated
for the entire project area."
Subsection iii.Add the following residential land use designations to Section 1.8.1 (Land
Use Classifications) under the subsection "Eastern Extended Panning Area (East of
Camp Parks -- see Figure 1-1 a)*" after "Residential" Single-Family":
Residential: Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 u1its per net residential acre).
Units in this density range will be detached, zero-lot line, duplex, and/or townhouse
developments suitable for family living with private flat usable outdoor yard areas
that accommodate leisurely activities typicall:/ associated with a residence. Unit
types and densities may be similar or varied. Assumed household size is two
persons per unit.
Residential: Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 units net residential acre).
This density range allows detached, zero-lot line, duplex townhouse, and/or garden
apartment developments suitable for family Ii ving with private flat usable outdoor
yard areas that accommodate leisurely activities typically associated with a
residence or usable common areas that acc{,mmodate recreational and leisurely
activities. Unit types and densities may be similar or varied. Assumed household
size is two persons per unit."
3
28~
SUhSN.tionh. Replace F:igure I-I a. General Pian Land Lse \hp \vilh the
\lap updated t!lrough 31_ 2007 below
C,cncral Plan Land l se
!
L
-'J
('J r -,~
,~
'oj
hp;rc ]-Ia
A:-- iUlh:I'H.le"j through D\.',,:,-~mb('r 31. 2007
\J D t';,.
\1 " P
It"r:t<;
f>c.\!/ilt:'"t'j"f';;.Ji"'-7'lf'"
-
-
''-_vJ ...~
.
Suhsection v. ReptaccTable 2,1 (Land Usc Summary: E"hkrn Dublin General Plan
Arnen<lment Area) with the tiJ1lowing revised 'Table 2.! :
L\13L[" ,"
LV',!) I.SF Sl\I\L\E\ i,\S i ERN DIBU'\ (iF\LR\! I'I\'\\\!L:\D\H['\! \RL \
L:\nh:Hc!cd: Rc_\ohult,",n ') )J-oS, S\-::7, \\-i;"~ J
\,
{~q. ') ~ ....
C! ,;.'II<:ilun
\~n>
<I ',IIlI \11 \1
1:'5. ,
,; F+
1(, 'J
I!,"
\6.:1,;'\
CO\I\lFfU 1.\1
L ~-l-;Dl<}'y('\..'
l"lh:,;.
Cl~_T('rJl ('o;'1:Hcrci:il
-:'jO
) (,if}
4
$1'1
General Commercial/Campus Office**** 72.7 .28 .887 385 2,303
Mixed Use 6.4 ,3/1.0 .083 490 171
Neighborhood Commercial 57,5 ,351.30 .819 490 1,671
Campus Office 189,36 ,751,35 3.052 260 1 \,739
Industrial Park***** 114,7 ,251.28 1,329 590 2,253
TOTAL: 788.6 9.816 26,427
PARKS AND PUBLIC RECREATION
City Park 56,3 1 park
Community Park 97.0 2 parks
Neighborhood Park 47.1 8 parks
Neighborhood Square 16.6 6 parks
Regional Park 11.7 1 park
TOT AL: 228.7 18 parks
OPEN SPACE 649,6
PUBLlC/SEMI-PUBLlC
Public/Semi-Public tOI .25 1.120 590 1,899
Semi Public 13,) .25
Schools
Elementary School 63.2 5 schools
Junior High School 25,2 I school
High School 0 o school
School Subtotal 88.4 6 schools
TOT AL: 202,5
TRANSIT CENTER (Total) 90,7 I I I
- Camous Oftice(including ancillarv retail) 38,3
- High-Density Residential 31.5
- Park 12,2
- Public/Semi-Public (Transit-Related) 8,7
GRAND TOTAL =:J 4,295,9 I I I I I
'Table 2,1 appears as Table '"2A" in the Eastern Dublin GP A. It was relabeled herein for fonnatting purposes,
"Numbers represent a mid-range considerell reasonable given the pennitted densit) range.
"'Numbers represent a mid-range but may vary because density based on net devel )pable acreage calculation,
....The Sq FtJEmployees figure utilized for General Commercial/Campus Office is the average of the figure used for General
Commercial and Campus Office uses,
****For the purpose of this table, Mixed Use acreage only will be considered Comnercial, not residential, to avoid duplication
in tabulation of overall total acres.
*****The .28 FAR figure utilized for Industrial Park refers to Industrial Park areas within Fallon Village,
******The locations of Semi-Public sites on the Jordan, Croak and Chen propertie~; of Fallon Village will be detennined at the
time ofPD-2 approval. The site on Jordan will be 2.0 net acres within the Village Center; the site on Croak, 2,0 net acres; and
the site on Chen, 2,5 net acres, For the purposes of this table, 2.0 acres of Medium High Density Residential land on Jordan
was changed to Semi-Public, 2,0 acres of Single Family Residential land on Croak Nas changed to Semi-Public and 2.5 acres
of Medium High Density residential land on Chen was changed to Semi-Public. Tlese assumptions may change at the time of
PD-2 approval.
Subsection vi. Revist:, "Implementing Policy C" under Section 2.l,3 (Residential
Compatibility) as follows:
Require a planned development zoning proces~ for all development proposals over
6.0 units per gross residential acre.
Section II.
Eastern Dublin Spec{fic Plan Amendment,
5
qOq{
Subsection i. Revise the first sentence of the first pHagraph of Section 3.3.3 (Land Use
Categories) to read as follows:
"The Residential land uses category has seven dassifications: High Density (HDR),
Medium-High Density (MHDR), Medium Delsity (MDR), Medium-Mid Density
(MMDR), Medium-Low Density (MLDR), Single-Family (SF), and Rural
Residential! Agriculture (RRA)."
Subsection ii, Replace Table 4.1 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary) with
the following revised Table 4.1 :
TABLE 4,1
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE SUMMARY
(Amended Per Resolution No. 66-03, 47-04, 223-05, 58.07, xx-07)
land Use Description lAND AREA DENSITY YIELD
COMMERCIAUINDUSTRIAl
General Commercial 356.8 acres ,25-.3:- FAR 4.122 MSF
General Commercial/Campus 72.7 acres .28 fAR .887 MSF
Office
Industrial Park* 61.3 acres .25-.2f: FAR .747 MSF
Neighborhood Commercial 61.4 acres ,30-.3:. FAR .871 MSF
Mixed Use 6.4 acres .30-1.(1 FAR .083 MSF
Campus Office 192.66 acres .35-.7S FAR 3.730 MSF
Subtotal 751.3 acres 10.44 MSF
RESIDENTIAL
High Density 68.2 acres 35 d J/ac 2,387 du
Medium High Density 137.5 acres 20 dJ/ac 2,750 du
Medium Density 484.5 acres 10 dJ/ac 4,845 du
Medium-Mid Densitv 16,9 acres 12 d u/ac 203 du
Medium-Low Density 16,9 acres 8 dll/ac 135 d u
Single Family 872,6 acres 4 dll/ac 3,490 du
Rural Residential! Agric. 697.4 acres .01 du/ac 7du
Mixed Use 6.4 acres** 15dl1/ac 96 du
Subtotal 2,300 acres 13,913 du
PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC
Public/Semi-Public 98,2 acres .24 FAR 1.027 MSF
Semi-Public 9,3 acres .25 FAR
Subtotal 107.5 acres 1.027 MSF
SCHOOLS
Elementary School 66.5 acres 5 schools
Junior High School 21.3 acres 1 school
Subtotal 87.8 acres
6
q I t2;}
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
City Park 56.3 acres
Community Park 97.0 acres
Neighborhood Park 49.0 acres
Neighborhood Square 16.7 acres
Subtotal 219 acres
Open Space 607.5 acres
TOTAL LAND AREA 4,073.5 acres
1 park
3 parks
7 parks
6 parks
17 parks
"The ,28 FAR for Industrial Park refers to the Industrial Park areas in Fallon Village.
""The 6,4 acres is the same acreage as listed in the Mixed Use cells. rhe 6.4 acres under Residential is not
included in the sum of Residential uses in this table. 83,635 square :eet of commercial and 96 units are
anticipated on the mixed use sites (total). The FAR for Mixed Use governs both commercial and residential
uses.
Subsection iiLReplace Table 4.2 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Population and
Employment Summary) with the following revised Table 4.2:
TABLE 4.2
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
PO PULA TION AND EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY
(Amended Per Resolution No. 47-04,223-05, xx-07)
Land Use Designation Development Sq Ft/Employees Persons/du Population
Commercial
Industrial Park .'747 MSF 590 1,266
General ,;387 MSF 385 2,303
Commercial/Campus
Office"
General Commercial 4 122 MSF 510 8,082
Neighborhood Commercial ,.385 MSF 490 1,806
Mixed Use"" ,083 MSF 490 171
Campus Office 3730 MSF 260 14,346
Public/Semi Public 1027 MSF 590 1, 740
Semi-Public 590
TOTAL: 11.481 MSF 29,714
Residential
High Density 2,387 2.0 4,774
Medium High Density 2,750 2,0 5,500
Medium Density 4,845 2.0 9,690
Medium-Mid Density 203 2.0 406
Medium-Low Density 135 2,0 270
Single Family 3,490 3.2 11,169
Mixed Use"" 96 2,0 192
Rural Residential! Agric. 4 3.2 22
TOT AL: 13,913 32,023
Updated 12/2007
7
q~;f
*The Sq Ft/Employees figure utilized for General Commercial/Campus Office is the average of the figures
used for General Commercial and Campus Office uses.
....Includes Mixed Use units (6.4 acres and 96 du) within Fallon Village Center.83,635 square feet of
commercial and 96 units are anticipated on the mixed use sites (total). The FAR for Mixed Use is the
maximum area for all developrrent (i,e, total of residential and commercial) on designated sties.
Subsection iv. Add the following residential land use desigmtions to Section 4.8.1 (Residential)
after "Single-Family"
"Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 units per net residential acre). Units in this density range
will be detached, zero-lot line, duplex, and/or townhouse developments suitable for family
living with private flat usable outdoor yard areas thlt accommodate leisurely activities
typically associated with a residence. Unit types and densities may be similar or varied.
Assumed household size is two persons per unit.
Medium-Mid Density (10,1-14 units net residential acre), This density range allows
detached, zero-lot line, duplex townhouse, and/or garden apartment developments
suitable for family living with private flat usable outdoor yard areas that accommodate
leisurely activities typically associated with a residf nce or usable common areas that
accommodate recreational and leisurely activities. Unit types and densities may be
similar or varied, Assumed household size is two persons per unit."
Subsection v, Replace Table 4.9 (Fallon Village Center Subarea Development Potential) with the
following revised Table 4.9:
TABLE 4.9
FALLON YILLAGE CENTER
SUBAREA DEYELOPMENT POTENTIAL
(Amended Per Resolution No. xx-07)
Designation Acres Density Development Potential
Mixed Use 6.4 .30 FAR 83,635 sf.
Commercial Subtotal 6.4 20 du/ac 83,635 sf
Mixed Use - Residential Units I 15 du/ac 96du
Medium-Low Density 16.9 8 du/ac 135 du
Medium-Mid Density 16.9 12 du/ac 203 du
Medium High Residential 23.8 20 du/ac 542 du
Residential Subtotal 64 -- 976 du
Neighborhood Park 2.7 -- --
Community Park 18.3 -- --
Open Space 3.6 -- --
Park/Open Space Subtotal 24.6 -. 1 community park
1 neighborhood square
Semi-public 4.5 -- --
Total 93.1 -. 83,365 sf commercial
1,000 du
1 community park
1 neighborhood square
8
Sllhs(~ction vi. RcpLlce
4.1 (Land Lse :vlap) with th,.:; revised
3 1 2007 below
~31
4.1 (Land USt: \1ap)
Re,ser\iH rCt<<~S Tr'ai ni:ng
"r Pa
~
Subsection vii. Revise F,lllon Village Center portion of Append!" 3 (FastcrnDubltn Specdic Pian
Land Use Summary by P Subareas) \\ith the i\}llowing:
are leet
t'Ai'\ed USt'
6.4
15
30 I /\R
tl{)
\l"d ill
Residen li,ll
32,8
20
5+2
\kdium-\lid
1<",,1 1.1(' n tid!
1hZ)
12
2U3
\lcdium-LfH\
IZcsiden!i,ll
] h,t)
s
l .'~'-
1,X~
Semi.,Public';
+.5
"
re
~) .7
Park
18.3
3.6
Total
93,1
83,635
976
l)
q'f~
Subsection viii. Replace the information for #20 Jordan and #30 Croak in Appendix
4 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary by Land Owners) with the
following:
Owner/Land Use Category Acres Density Square Feet Units
#20 JORDAN
Mixed Use 6.4 15 / ,30 83,635 96
Medium High Density Residential 19.8 20 542
Medium-Mid Density 11.7 12 140
Medium-Low Density 11.7 8 94
Single Family Residential 48.0 4 192
Elementary School 10.0
Neighborhood Park 5.8
Neighborhood Square 2.7
Community Park 11.1
--
Semi-Public'" 2.0
Open Space 60.5
Total 189.7 83,635 1,064
Owner/Land Use Category Acres Density Square Feet Units
#30 CROAK
Medium-Mid Density 5.2 12 62
Medium-Low Density 5.2 8 42
Single Family Residential 115.4 4 469
Rural Residential! Agricultural 19.4
Neighborhood Park 11.5
Semi-Public* 2.0
Open Space 6.8
Total 165.5 573
Section III, All provision:, of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan not amended
by this resolution shall remain in full force and effect.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proposed map and text amendments to the General Plan
and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are consistent with all other goals, policies and implementing
programs set forth in the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOL YED that the General Plan Amt:ndment and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendment shall be effective 30 days after the date of approval.
10
&fsPj
PASSED, APPROYED AND ADOPTED this _ day of
by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:',PA#'.2007\07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density\City CouncillCC Reso GPA SPA-DOC
II
&)(,1
RESOLUTION NO, 07 - 62
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL NOT ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PD-
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH AMENDED STAGE 1 DEYELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES
(APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002)
PA 07-056
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2007, the City Council initiated a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) Study to create Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density
land use designations for the existing Medium-Density portion of th,~ Croak and Jordan properties which
are generally located north ofthe future Central Parkway extension ald east of Croak Road and within the
I, 134-acre Fallon Village project area (APN 985-0027-007, 905-000:~-00 1, AND 905-0002-002); and
WHEREAS, on December 20,2005, the City Council approved a PD rezoning and related Stage
1 Development Plan for the Fallon Yillage project area, which includes the Croak and Jordan properties
(P A 04-040), Ordinance 32-05, incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, PD Zoning districts are required to be consist'~nt with all elements of the General
Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.120) the
Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and make a written recommendation to the City Council
regarding Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Following the Planning Commission's recommendation, the
City Council shall hold a public hearing and may approve, appro~ e with modifications, or disapprove
Zoning Ordinance Amendments; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State CEQA
Guidelines require that certain projects be reviewed for environmen:al impacts and that environmental
documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 222-05 certifying a
Supplemental Environmental hnpact Report (SEIR) (SCH #20050(2010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR, a
program EIR, initially certified by the City of Dublin in 1993 (SCH#911 03064) and the Eastern Dublin
Property Owners SEIR (SCH # 2001052114) certified in 2002 by Resolution 40-02 for the Fallon Village
project. The prior EIRs are available for review in the Community Development Department and herein
incorporated by reference. The proposed project is within the scope of the SEIR for the Fallon Village
project area because the project does not result in increased units or density beyond what was previously
studied for the subject properties, and therefore no additional environmental review is required; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public
hearing on said project on November 27, 2007; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
and
Attachment 8
q1 t1;f
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted, and incorporated herein by reference, recommending
that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment, the PD rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment for
Fallon Yillage; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations
and testimony herein above set forth, including the prior EIRs, and used its independent judgment to
evaluate the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council not approve the
proposed Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan for the Croak and
Jordan properties because the Planning Commission found that: 1) the proposal created inflexibility; 2)
selectively modified Citywide policies regarding density calculations using net rather than gross acreage
calculations; 3) current policies enable projects to achieve usable ya~ds on land with an existing Medium
Density designation; 4) small single-family detached homes with usable yards already exist; 5) the
housing market will dictate housing needs and the type of housing built within the community; and 6)
concerns about density could be addressed with policies regarding lot coverage, setbacks and design.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission could not recommend
the findings in the attached draft Ordinance and therefore recommerds that the City Council not approve
the Ordinance attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, which Ordinance would
approve a PD rezoning including the following related amendments to the Stage 1 Development Plan for
the Croak and Jordan properties as described in the attached Ordinanee:
1) A revised Stage 1 Site Plan with the Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density
designations for the Croak and Jordan properties;
2) A list of permitted, conditionally permitted and tempe.rary uses for the new Medium-Low
Density and Medium-Mid Density designations; and
3) Development standards for private usable yards and common areas within the Medium-Low
and Medium-Mid Density designations.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2ih day of November 2007 by the following vote:
AYES:
Schaub, Wehrenberg, Tomlinson, Biddle and King
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
J2'
l/;/ l :;f; tU1--
Planning Comm: ssion Chair
ATTEST:
edium DensitylPlanning CommissionlPC Reso Stage J PD A nd Denial.DOC
2
q~*
ORDINANCE NO. 07- XX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIl\
*************
APPROYING A PD-PLANNEH DEYELOPMENT REZONING AND AMENDED STAGE 1
DEYELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MEDIUM DENSITY PORTION OF THE CROAK AND
JORDAN PROPERTIES (APN 905-0002-001, 905-0002-002, AND 985-0027-007)
PA 07-056
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section I.
RECITALS
A. By Ordinance No. 32-05 the City Council rezoned the approximately I, 134-acre Fallon
Village project area generally located north of 1-580 and east of Fallo 1 Road to the Planned Development
Zoning District (P A 04-044) and adopted a Stage I Development PI an for the entire project area which
includes the Croak and Jordan propelties (APN 905-0002-00 I, 905-0C02-002, AND 985-0027-007).
8. This Ordinance adopts an amendment to the Stage I Development Plan approved in
Ordinance No. 32-05 by the City Council on December 20,2005.
Section 2.
FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 ofthe Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows:
I. The Planned Development (PD) Rezoning, with amended Stage 1 Development Plan, (PA 07-056)
meets the purpose and intent o.fChapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance because: it will encourage a
variety of different product types with usable private yard areas while providing flexibility. As
amended the PD will continue to provide a comprehensive ard coordinated development plan for a
larger area with multiple ownerships that creates a desirable use of land that is sensitive to
surrounding land uses by making efficient use of development areas so as to allow sensitive
ridgelines and biological areas to be undeveloped.
2 The PD Rezoning, with amended Stage 1 Development Plan. will be harmonious and compatible
with existing and future development in the surrounding arec:s because: I) the land uses and site
plan establish residential uses; 2) the proposed residential uses will provide a transition from
the high density neighborhoods located in the Fallon Village Center to the Low Density
neighborhoods to the north and east; and 3) the uses are c(,nsistent with the higher intensity of
uses anticipated for the Fallon Village Center and will continue to promote an active,
pedestrian oriented development in the Fallon Village Center.
8. Pursuant to Section 8.120.050.A and B of the Dublin Municir'al Code, the City Council finds as
follows:
1. The PD Rezoning, with amended Stage 1 Development Plan. will be harmonious and compatible
with existing andfilture development in the surrounding area:: because: 1) the land uses and site
plan establish residential uses; 2) the proposed residential uses will provide a transition from
the high density neighborhoods located in the Fallon V lIage Center to the Low Density
neighborhoods to the north and east; and 3) the uses are consistent with the higher intensity
Page I of 10
Exhibit A
q9~
of uses anticipated for the Fallon Village Center and will continue to promote an active,
pedestrian oriented development in the Fallon Village Center.
2, The Project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the zoning district being
proposed because: I) th{: amended land uses and site plan are consistent with the amended
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) land use designations of Medium-
Low Density Residential (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium.Mid Density Residential (10.1-14
du/acre); 2) the Fallon Village site is flatter towards tht south with rolling hills generally
north, and development i:; concentrated in less constrained areas; 3) the flexibility of the PD
allows future development to be tailored to onsite conditions.
3. The PD Rezoning, with amended Stage I Development Plan, will not adversely affect the health or
sqjety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be d{ trim ental to the public health. safety
or welfare because: the Stage 1 Development Plan has been designed in accordance with the City
of Dublin General Plan and the EDSP, and future developnent will comply with all applicable
development regulations and standards and will implement all adopted mitigation measures.
4. The PD Rezoning. with amended Stage I Development Plan. is consistent with the Dublin
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Spec(fic Plan because: I) the proposed uses on the site are
consistent with the amended General Plan and EDSP land use designations; 2) the amended
uses will not result in an increase in the total number of r;:sidential dwellings anticipated for
the subject properties by the General Plan and EDSP; 3) the anticipated development of the
site is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the EDSP.
C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council adopted Resolution
No. 222-05 certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact RI~pOrt (SEIR) (SCH #20050620 10) to
the Eastern Dublin EIR, a program EIR, initially certifiec by the City of Dublin in 1993
(SCH#91103064) and the Eastern Dublin Property Owners SEfR (SCH # 2001052114) certified in
2002 by Resolution 40-02 for the Fallon Village project. The prior EIRs are available for review in
the Community Development Department. The proposed project is within the scope of the SEIR for
the Fallon Village project area because the project does not result in increased units or density
beyond what was previously studied for the subject properties, and therefore no additional
environmental review is required.
Section 3.
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code, the Dublin Zoning Map is
amended to rezone the following property ("the Property") to a PD-Planned Development district:
10At net acres located in an area bounded by Croak Road to the east, the future extension of
Central Parkway to the south, land designated Neighborhood Park and Medium-High Density to
the north and west, and Low Density to the north (APN 905-01)02-00 I, and 905-0002-002); and
23.4::!: net acres located in an area bounded by open space to the northwest, a future elementary
school to the southeast, future Medium-High Density development to the south, and future Low
Density development to the east. (APN 985-0027-007).
Page 2 of 10
{rro ~ 101
\
map of th~
area i.~ show n helow:
,\\1E.NDFD S'L\(rF: 1 DEVELOP\fEN'r PLAN
r~gu!ations for the use, development, irnprovement, and rnaintcnanee of th~ subject properties is set
t(irth in the- Fallon Vi] ] D~velopmcnt Plan adopted through Ordinance 32-05 ,md as amended
belp\\" \vhich anlendrnenh arc hereby upprO\ ed, amendments to the Development Pluns sh:dl he 111
wrth K,:; Planned Development 70ning Fhstrict, of the Dublin \!unieipal
-nr ns successors.
I'D-Planned Development Zoning District
Amended Stage 1 Developinent Plan
Fallon Village (PA 05-038, PA 07-056)
Ihis is an amended Stage 1 L)cvcloprnetlt Plan pursuant h) ('hapter 1),32, Plmrned Ikvdnprnent 7uning
DiStncL of the Dubiln Zoning Ordinance I('l" the ponions of the ('roak and JonLin pnlpertks \\ llh <l
\kdium-Low Density and \:lcdium-Mid Density designation (APN 905..0002-00!, 905-0002-002, and
1):().()U27-0t)'n. The Croak ami Jordan properties consist of lOA acres and 23,:+ acres respt:ctivdy.
Development Plan.Thc StilP.C I [)cveluprnent Pl:ll1 rernains as
itS specihed bclo\v.
thwugh
L Statement of Proposed Uses. The Stage ! Development Plan is
t(lll(lwmg pernnlted, conditionally permitted, and tcrnporary land uses
Vlcdillm-\lid [Jellsity dcsignati(Hls:
mncnded 10 include the
the i\lediurn-LJ)\\ and
PI) - i\INlium-Low Density Resid{~ntial
Intent. The iYkdillm-Low Density land use designation is established to: ai rescrve appropriately
located areas t{)r hrm!!v living in a varidy of types of dwellings at a rCilsonahie ramze uf
:; of 10
10 ( c;f 109
populations densities consistent with sound standards of public health and safety; b) preserve as
many as possible of the dt:sirable characteristics of the Orle family residential district while
permitting higher populations densities; c) accommodate a variety of housing types including
detached and attached housing with usable private yard areas; d) ensure adequate light, air, privacy
and open space for each dwelling unit; and e) provide nece:;sary space for off-street parking of
automobiles.
Permitted Uses
Accessory structures and use:; in accordance with Section 8.4C .030 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance
Animal keeping - residential
Community care facility/small (permitted ifrequired by law, ctherwise as conditional use)
Garage/yard sale
Home occupation in accordance with Chapter 8.64 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
Small family day care home
Single family dwelling
Row houses
Private recreation facility (for homeowners' association and/or tenant use only)
Similar and related uses as determined by the Community De,"elopment Director
Conditionally Permitted Uses
Bed and breakfast inn
Boarding house
Community clubhouse
Community facility
Day care center
Large family day care home
Mobile home/manufactured home park
Parking lot - residential
Semi-public facilities
Similar and related uses as determined by the Community De,'elopment Director
Temporary U'ies
Please refer to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.108 for a list of pt:rmitted temporary uses and permit
procedures.
PD - Medium-Mid Density Residential
Intent. The Medium-Mid Density land use designation is eSlablished to: a) reserve appropriately
located areas for family liying in a variety of types of dwellings at a reasonable range of
populations densities consistent with sound standards of public health and safety; b) preserve as
many as possible of the dt:sirable characteristics of the Orle family residential district while
permitting higher populations densities; c) ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for
each dwelling unit; d) minimize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities by
preventing the construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the land around them; e)
provide necessary space for off-street parking of automobiles, and where appropriate, for off-street
loading of trucks; and t) protect residential properties froIT the hazards, noise and congestion
created by commercial and industrial traffic.
Page 4 of 10
Permitted Uses
Accessory structures and use~ in accordance with Section 8.40.030 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance
Animal keeping - residential
Community care facility/small (permitted if required by law, otherwise as conditional use)
Garage/yard sale
Home occupation in accordance with Chapter 8.64 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
Small family day care home
Single family dwelling
Multi-family dwelling
Private recreation facility (for homeowners' association and/or tenant use only)
Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director
I 00) ~ {01
Conditionally Permitted Uses
Bed and breakfast inn
Boarding house
Community clubhouse
Community facility
Day care center
Large family day care home
Mobile home/manufactured home park
Parking lot - residential
Semi-public facilities
Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director
Temporary Uses
Please refer to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.108 for a list of permitted temporary uses and permit
procedures.
2, Development Standards. The Development Standards are amended to include standards for
attached and detached housing within the Medium-Low and rv:edium-Mid Density designations.
a. Multi-family attached housing with a Medium-Mid Density designation shall provide one of
the following:
i. Each unit shall include a minimum 250 s.f. flat uSlble private yard with a minimum
dimension in anyone direction of 8'; Q!
H. Each development shall provide a minimum of 150 ~;.f. per unit of usable common area
that will accommodate recreation and leisure activities
b. Row homes with a Medium-Low Density designation: Ea;;h unit shall include a minimum 250
s. f. flat usable private yard with a minimum dimension in anyone direction of 8'.
c. Single-family detached housing with a Low, Mediurr.-Low, Medium-Mid and Medium
Density designation: The following table shows residential development standards and
plotting concepts for Low, Medium-Low, Medium-Mid and Medium Density single-family
detached housing:
Page 5 of 10
Criteria Low Density .- Low Density Low, Medium-Low, Medium-Mid and
Medium-Low, Medium-Mid and Medium Density
Single Family Detached Single Family Detached, Medium Density Single Family Detached
Large Lot Medium Lot Single Family Detached Small Lots/Court Home
Small Lots
Typical Neighborhood Lot Width SS' wide and above Less than SS' wide NA NA
Typical Neighborhood Lot Size SSOO SF and greater 4000 SF and greater 2Soo SF and greater 1800 SF and greater
Minimum Street Frontace width 3S' 3S' 2S' 25'
@ cu/-de-sacllcnucldes
Minimum FlaC Lot Fronta,e 20' 20' 20' 20'
MaJrimum Lot Coveraee 45% (two-story) (II) (11) 4S% (two-Story) 55% 55%
55% (one-story) (II) (11) 55% (one-story) (no one story requirement) (no one Story requirement)
(no one story requirement)
MaJrimum Bui/dine Hei,ht 38' 38' 38' 38'
MaJrimum Stories 3 (I) (2) 3 (I) (2) 3 (I) (2) 3 (I) (2)
Minimum Front Yard Setbacla (A) (8) (1) (2) (2) PublidPrivate Common Interior Auto
Streets Court /Greencourt
Living Area 15' two-story, 12' one-story 15' tWO-story. 12' one-story 12' 11' 4'
Porch 10' 10' 10' 10' 4'
Courtyard 8' 8' 5' 5' 2'
Front-on Garage 19' (II) (12) 19' Less than 5' or 18' Less than 5' or 18'
Swing-in Garage 12' 1~)(11)(12) NA NA NA
Minimum Side Yard Setbacla (5) (A) (8)
One-story to One-story 5' - 5' (aggregate \0') (3) (C) 5' - 5' (aggregate 10') (3) (C) o or 4' min. (0) (C) o or 4' min. (0) (C)
One-story to Two-story 5' - 7,S' (aggregate 12,5') (3) (C) 5' - 7,5' (aggregate 12.5') (3) (C) o or 4' min. (6) (e) o or 4' min. (0) (C)
Two-story to Two-story 7,5' - 7.5' (aggregate IS') (3) (e) 7.5' - 7,S' (aggregate 15') (3) (C) Oar 4' min. (6) (C) o or 4' min. (6) (C)
Corner Lot (setback from street side) (7) 12' two-story, 10' one-story (3) (C) 10' 9' 9'
..--.... ... -....---------- _..
Porch (6)/Courtyard (10) S' 4' 4' 4'
Encroachments (C) (C) (C) (C)
Minimum Rear Yard Setbacks (5) (8) (E) (E) (E) (E)
Living Space (Ai IS' avg. per loc.. 10' min. (C) 12' avg. per loc.. 5' min, (C) 10' avg. per lac.. 5' min. (C) 8' avg. per lot. 5' min, (e)
One-story Garage 5' min, 3' min. (6) 3' min, (0) 3' min. (6)
2.story Garage 7.5' min. (II) (12) 7.5' min. 7.5' min. 7,5' min, / 5' min, @ alleys
(Living Space Above/Second Unit)
500 SF total flat area. Min, 400 SF total flat area. Min, Dimension 300 SF total flat area. Min. 250 SF tocal flat area, Min,
Usable Yard(s) Dimension 10'. Yard area may be 10', Yard area may be provided in more Dimension 8'. Yard area may Dimension 8', Yard area may
provided in more than one location than one be provided in more than one be provided in more than one
- _' within a lot. _ _ -- .l9cation withilL.a.lm.. .- _ _ !Qrat;on 'i"ithin a lot. - - --IGeation witffiA -. lot
. Min, rear yard area - 3S0 SF, Min. rear yard area - 2S0 SF. Mil', rear yard area - 220 SF. Min, rear yard area - 170 Sf,
Min, courtyard area - ISO SF. Min, courtyard area - I SO SF. Mil', courtyard area - 80 SF. Min. courtyard area - 80 SF
Parlcinc Spaces Required 2 covered and I guest (~) (II) 2 covered and I guest (~) 2 covered and I guest (9) 2 covered and I guest (9)
Page 6 of 10
~
~
~
Q
~
)01( ;f J01
Typical Plotting Concepts
NOTE: All DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS ONLY,
300 SF total flat yard area (Typ) with a min. 8' dimension, Yard l
area may be provided in more than one location within a lot,
Min, rear yard area - 220 SF,
Min, courtyard area - 80 SF.
Traffic .
Visibility g
Area
<,."<:........1"
W.-:i.;:'}' :i'~:
w~
0"
ilia:
9' ",:11:
Courtyard
80 SF Min,
.1
.J..-.-.-]~J.-
TWO-STORY
CORNER lOT
J
.
TWO-STORY
INTERIOR lOT
TWO-STORY
INTERIOR lOT
TWO-STORY
CORNER lOT
LEGEND
D 1 st Story Elements
D 2nd Story Massing
b,(",:1 Usable Rear Yard Min. Area
LOT COVERACiE: 55% Max
(No One-Story Requirement)
NEIGHBORHOODS OF
LOTS 2500 SF AND GREATER
LOW. MEDIUM-LOW. MEDIUM-MI D AND
MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAt11L Y
DETACHED SMALL LOT
Page 7 of 10
105 ~ /09
Typical Plotting Concepts
NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS ONLY.
RECIPROCAL
USE EASEMENTS
4' 4'
.
'4'
~~
RECIPROCAL
USE EASEMENTS
(:) AUTO OURT
2 .
250 SF total flat yard area (Typ)
with a min, 8' dimension, Yard
area may be provided in more
than one location within a lot.
Min, rear yard - 170 SF
Min, courtyard - 80 SF
<:J 5' 5' [::::::>
<::::::J [::::>
2'
COURT I 005'
YARD COURT ~J)
YA.RD
---4J sf
5'
..- .
AUTO COURT
CLUSTER HOMES
250 SF total flat yard
area (Typ) with a min.
8' dimension. Yard
area may be provided
in more than one
location within a lot.
Min, rear yard - 170 SF
Min, courtyard - 80 SF
RECIPROCAL
USE EASEMENTS
>-
W
...J
...J
<l:
---
w
Z
<(
...J
.
.
GREENCOURT
LEGEND
D 1 st Story Elements
D 2nd and 3rd Story Massing
hC',WI Usable Yard Min. Area
LOT COVERA::iE: 55% Max
(No One-Story Requirement)
NEIGHBORHOODS OF
1800 SF AND GREATER
MEDIUM-LOW, MEDIUM-MID AND MEDIUM DENSITY
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED
SMALL LOTS/COURT HOMES
Page 8 of 10
3. Stage I Site l)lan,. -rhe arncndcd
\lcdiuJll,rvUd Den"il\ land lIse desi
mhi Jurdan
)00 % Jv~
SUI:; PLHl incorporates the \lediulll-Luw Dcnsuy ,md
in place of \kdiurn Densl ion on [[10 CnlilK
--.....,,:~-
STA(;E 1 SITE PLAN
Page Z) of i ()
r Plan
~
4. Site Area, proposed densities. As follows:
IO~l ~ IO~
Land Use Acreage Density
Single Family Residential 403.6 acres 0-6.0 units/acre
Medium-Low Density Residential 16.9 acres 6.1-10 units/acre
Medium-Mid Density Residential 16.9 acres 10.1-14 units/acre
Medium Density Residential 26.3 acres 6.1-14.0 units/acre
Medium High Density Residential 23.8 acres 14.1-25.0 units/acre
Rural Residential/ Agriculture 142.9 acres I unit/I 00 acres
Mixed Use 6.4 acres 0.3-1.00 FAR
General Commercial 72. 1 acres 0.20-0.60 FAR
General Commercial/Campus Office 72.7 acres 0.20-0.80 FAR
Industrial Park/Campus Office 61.3 acres 0.25-0.80 FAR
Community Park 18.3 acres --
Neighborhood Park 23.6 acres --
Neighborhood Square 8.0 acres n
Open Space 211.2 acres --
Elementary School 21.1 -acres --
Semi Public 8.6 acres 0.50 FAR
Section 5.
EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE
This Ordinance shall take etfect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its
passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause the Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3)
public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36~'33 of the Government Code of the
State of Cali fomia.
PASSED, APPROYED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this
__ day of __ by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:\PA#\2007'07-056 Croak and Jordan Mo:dium Dcnslly\Cily Coullcil'CC Ordinance PD.DOC
Page 10 of 10
/ol} ~{O'l
Medium
Density
Units
o City of Dublin
r------'
L____J Sphere of Influence
C Camp Parks RFTA
-.. _., East Dublin Specific Plan
_ Medium Density Projects
_ Streets
Q
OV;
ll:
~
<
o
c:
u
June 2008
~
N
~Miles
o 0.125 0.25 0.5
Attachment 9
~
~
..
r
.
.
.
II
II
II
II
II
II
.
II
II
.
.
.-
II
J
~JIJL II ..'
;, "I~~)/E::: f.::1 1.;, r~-j 1-;' '.' ~ :;J r:J .:. q
..~:~ ". I .,/&~ -. ~L, -. '.';:'~ ~ \I /J"
r..... -. //A(15 ~ . . . . _,_____ __~~;7~~'" ~
{~A(' ,. / .-' ~ . / ---...- t"-"'-~~_\,...... .....
":t ,/ "l.~> . J .' .' // /,(~ .'Ji..... ..... ((/ ~.w ~JIJlf.-t -;C ~ :-~J;. . \\ ~
'I"'~' '..,' . ~/' ~~':. r:.' ....... ..... ....'1 _..... ~.~ "N' ' .....
"it /.. '\ I .... ~~ -
.,f,IJ'" - J!/''-' ,</ ..... ..... C~ ~ . ~ ..... L. I..... m IJ ..... e
.' ,'/ \ ~..... . : L..... ~;[ ~ L:' ' -H. c;:: ~
"r '. ..loIIng....to / ~ \, _\ ,l ._
)".11)" ,
.....'1
. -
--,-.-..
~. ..... .... 'd . IJ
~r " -. rt ~~'" . 21 r;:.lIjJ: r;-_. .~~r-ir:. t-' -~.' I
I ~~ V -', _'I~~ -' ( '. _.1. 1_. ~~~ -. It I-.,~ M _.1. -. ~ ~. _. .
:c;' 9,~ I dim ......., ;.] I---J j .....J h t.....I ~ _.' +oJ ..
~~"_j/' ~ ~ -'I .'~ -.j ~--':S~" '-.!, r=).~ -. .)
~ '. . . 'll ..... ~ ..... J..... ..... ..... \ 1 ~ .'l"lll:. t~ ~ .. . / 1
"(1 }. ........ .. \ '-JQiF ~ -...- ,,1. .....1 (r tlWfl
_>' /JIJ..: rl ~Ii' '~"'~~~~"~;.~k.k. ~
J. .. / ~ ~ .11 r~ . ..... ..... JR . !!.....'I ..... ~ _ 1 ~J J'~ ; .
. .
I
/'F :-....::::=-...--1 ~ ~
101 ~ 101
PRELIMINAR Y
LANDSCAPE PLAN
rltorus.:o PI..,\N'r PAI.":rn:
IKH;vm.:'U,.f.'l_~m..____.__..Ln!Wv"tJ'l,,.tL. ____
s.........,
.u...u..,~ C.IIJAwea.
4.J"I)..,,_.1II _H~..
.,...........).......oil'loor..llo.... M.~l..... ..........
4...............'C._~..,.. SI..........., I_
.........-.......... "'..-.......,
I..... .)....'..'....1.. Japaoor.. .........
C"'_"..T_"" "..IJIM
1'"-_,....... OrrWof"'__
..........',........' ......... .
G.......(.~. 1'<<....
1.,,,.............._'.:.Ir.JM.r .....7.-..-1..1....
If...._........... .........,........
If,,_.........I'fl...,.... ........,........
.il.....-I..... .w........, I~..r T.....
.".,...,...... ......... ...... .......
.~,.......(1...... ................
...,............"'..".."r..._. ....11__..
\'......._t....ilpo....__. 1__..
CASTERSON
'-
r............"
1-'ef"I_.lo......,.
u...............,...Ifto.
,it'....."ioo.....
rIoI_....i1....,,_.....
r.....".,u."..l"...."......
1"'...,......."......,111.
1).........'.,.110
q,..,..........
Il...........
.~...~(1
,.., -.
;::I'~
,.. I
1IlMl, 'UII'. I
~".~
....try moooment
r~...:
4....~.,........~,<'l",....
-.....
...-...",.....
"..,.........101
I........... ..-..
....... ..-
1""'-'''''".1.......
'''I\nd POVtng
,,-,,r"J,T '0" ..
l .,.. -".
.l;' :._
~..
/\./..\.. ,..
... --,
c.....,:......
"..-...,....... ..,.,'
C:_......._II_..
c...._......\.".."."..
",.,..._..",.....
..."..........4.........
"--
'c.................'
T...lIooloo......._....lIt_
...
o
<(
o
a:
.....
".,..-...........
.....-
~.............
It........... ...._
<(
a:
<(
--,
<(
lJ)
C/) - atucco w.. .,
<( -.--.
J ~=-
I
...-..g
-
.... .
.....
Dublin, California
good noIgIobor ,_.J
.
r-
.w "r
.~~-~--:-:-:-:--::--~-:-_.-----
---- -----. ---.-
Odober 1997
rn. hhrn.ry 1'1'/8
~ r-\..lI
North 0 JO 60 90
..--
I......"'.....
A-.k__l;"'..
n,.....'.....",
'........."....h..
...........1""-
.....
I'_U..'''~
,'..-tItl'"
,t,,*.._~.._
IJIr-...."""M...
.........,
..,lA,
.........,....
~... ......
......-
!Ceo...,.:....
---
(;.....""'.....1.'"",
..~
k.~"'_
..............-
.-...
........ T..-rot \ I..
t:-.-.,..
<--
n"""'.,.,........
PROPERTY
~l
ISAN.'S()N, MX)I) & ASS/I('/An;s
1,,,,1 I'" ^I,unl,',bs"ln ,.....,(-^ 4~1.!~14I1K):!.t"."I~.~
'-ANI/SCA"" AI<< 'I" 'HTIIRI'
PRO.ECT ENTRY ElE\9mON
Mr.
IWA ''l1fl4l~
Attachment 10