Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.05 Croak & Jordan Med Density~~ ~ J I ~~1~`~ \~~ CITY CLERK File # ^~~ (^-0~ ~lr AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 2, 2008 SUBJECT: CONSENT CALENDAR: PA 07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density - Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan to establish revised development standards for private yards within the Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties. Report Prepared by Jeff Baker, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan to establish revised development standards for private yards within the Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties. 2) City Council Staff Report dated November 18, 2008. RECOMMENDATION: Waive the 2nd reading and adopt the Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan to ~~~ establish revised development standards for private yards within the `~ Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No financial impact at this time. The proposed General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment would continue to allow development to occur at the anticipated midpoint of the density range and would maintain the existing fiscal balance. However, topography, development standards and product type could result in development below or above the midpoint of the proposed density ranges. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: .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 area that has a Medium Density (6.1-14 du/acre) land use designation. COPY TO: Property Owners ITEM NO. • Page 1 of 2 G:\PA#\2007\07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density\City Council\CC 12.2.08 Second Reading\ccsr 12.2.08 Medium Density 2nd reading.DOC The City Council identified two Medium Density properties (Croak and Jordan) (Map 1 to the right) within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan 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 prepare amendments to the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan as described below with the goal of creating private usable yards: General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments ^ Require 50% of the units within the existing Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties to include private yards. Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment ^ Require 50% of the units within the existing Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties to provide a minimum 400 square-foot private, usable yard with a minimum dimension of 18 feet by 18 feet; and ^ Require that common areas be provided for additional units that do not provide private yards that meet the standards as noted above. On October 28, 2008 the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to review the proposed General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan Amendments. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendments. On November 18, 2008 the City Council held a Public hearing and adopted a Resolution amending the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to require that 50% of the units in the Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties include private yards. The Planned Development Rezone with amended development standards is adopted by Ordinance. The adoption of an Ordinance requires two readings before the City Council. On November 18, 2008 the City Council waived the first reading and introduced the Ordinance which would approve the Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan with development standards for private yards on the Croak and Jordan properties. Please refer to the City Council Staff Report (Attachment 2) for additional information. The City Council is currently requested to hold the second reading and adopt the proposed Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council waive the 2°d reading and adopt the Ordinance approving a PD- Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan to establish revised development standards for private yards within the Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties. Page 2 of 2 Map 1 -Vicinity Map ~~ Zov ORDINANCE NO. XX - 08 AN ORDINANCE OF~THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH AMENDED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ESTABLISH REVISED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE YARDS WITHIN THE MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION ON 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 1. RECITALS A. By Ordinance No. 32-OS the City Council rezoned the approximately 1,134-acre Fallon Village project area generally located north of I-580 and east of Fallon Road to the Planned Development Zoning District (PA 04-044) and adopted a Stage 1 Development Plan for the entire project area which includes the Croak and Jordan properties (APN 905-0002-001, 905-0002-002, AND 985-0027-007). B. This Ordinance amends the Stage 1 Development Plan approved in Ordinance No. 32-OS by the City Council on December 20, 2005. Section 2. FINDINGS A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows: The Planned Development (PD) Rezoning, with amended Stage 1 Development Plan, (PA 07-056) meets the purpose and intent of Chapter 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 and 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 areas 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 Village Center to the Low Density neighborhoods to the north and east; and 3) the uses are consistent 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. B. Pursuant to Section 8.120.OSO.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows: The PD Rezoning, with amended Stage 1 Development Plan, will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding areas because: 1) the land uses and site plan establish residential uses; 2) the proposed residential uses will provide a transition from Page 1 of 4 [2 -2-:9$ y,5' ATTACHMENT 1 a~~~~ 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 consistent 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. 2. The Project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the zoning district being proposed because: 1) the amended land uses and site plan are consistent with the amended General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) land use designation of Medium Density Residential (6.1-14 du/acre); 2) the Fallon Village site is flatter towards the south with rolling hills generally north, and development is concentrated in less constrained areas; and 3) the flexibility of the PD allows future development to be tailored to onsite conditions. 3. The PD Rezoning, with amended Stage 1 Development Plan, will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental 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 development will comply with all applicable development regulations and standards and will implement all adopted mitigation measures. 4. .The PD Rezoning, with amended Stage 1 Development Plan, is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because: 1) the proposed uses on the site are consistent with the General Plan and EDSP land use designations; 2) the development standards for private yards will not result in an increase in the total number of residential dwellings anticipated for the subject properties by the General Plan and EDSP; and 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-OS 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#91103064) 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. 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: 10.4+ 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 905-0002-001, and 905-0002-002); and 23.4+ 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 4 ~~Zov A location map of the rezoning area is shown below: Croak ~R ~ Ac 8 „'~~ Property 5: c ~ 17.9 AC I MDR ~~1 S.5 A~ 2S AC f` K AC +~ t~ • ~ :I6 ~ ~ " LDR ~ I tN„ ~ 97.5 AC ~ M6R I ~.~ ~ F F P A C~ 4 AC M r ~~'~z IIfA~ --- MGR ____ MDF --^_ MDR ~ _~ f~ t~5`Cf'+ , ` ~ ~ ~ ! 7 A; ' 4 6 Al' 9 7 AC sSL+pV 7.2 A~ w .. ,. an.~ ~k ~, ~, ~~v y~k a~~7 i .I Jordan Ranch ~~ ~~ c! 5 aC 'Y I ~ ~ I sc~co z a, I I i ta_3 AC ~ o~e_h eet .. ~ ~ I C CG ~ ~R Af , o ccrCv ~ ~ I 9 9 Ai. t8.5 AC ~ ;~ i Section 4. AMENDED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the subject properties is set forth in the Fallon Village Stage 1 Development Plan adopted by Ordinance 32-OS except as amended below, which amendments are hereby approved. Any amendments to the Development Plans shall be in accordance with Section 8.32.080, Planned Development Zoning District, of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors. PD-Planned Development Zoning District Amended Stage 1 Development Plan Fallon Village (PA OS-038, PA 07-056) This is an amended Stage 1 Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Planned Development Zoning District, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance for the portions of the Croak and Jordan properties with a Medium Density designation (APN 905-0002-001, 905-0002-002, and 98.5-0027-007). The Croak and Jordan properties consist of 10.4 acres and 23.4 acres respectively. A Stage 2 Development Plan is required pursuant to the provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Amended Stage 1 Development Plan. The Stage 1 Development Plan remains as approved by Ordinance 32-05, except that the Development Standards for Usable Yards for Medium Density attached and detached units is replaced with the following development standards. 1. Development Standards. The Development Standards are amended to include the following private yard requirements for attached and detached housing units within the existing Medium Density designations on the Croak and Jordan properties. Page 3 of 4 a. 50% of the units within the existing Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties shall provide private yards that meet the following minimum development standards: i. Minimum 400 s.f. of contiguous private, flat yard area; ii. Minimum dimension of 18'x18'; and iii. Include privacy fencing. b. Common areas shall be provided for additional units that do not provide private yards that meet the standards as noted above. Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINAN This Ordinance shall take effect 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 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this. 2°d day of December by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor G:~PA#2007\07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density\City Council\CC 11.18.08\CC Ordinance MD PD Am ll18.08.DOC Page 4 of 4 ~~~~ ~i~ \C;, CITY CLERK File # ~©^2 OD-^3 ~'~'~~ ' ~ c-:, . ~ n wrr AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 18, 2008 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PA 07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density - General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to require 50% of the units within the Medium Density Land Use Designation on the Croak and Jordan properties provide private yards, and a PD -Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan to establish revised private yard standards within the Medium Density Land Use Designation on the Croak and Jordan properties. Report prepared by Jeff Baker, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution amending the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to require that 50% of the units within the Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties provide private yards. 2) Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan to establish revised development standards for private yards within the Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties. 3) Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report dated August 19, 2008, with attachments. 4) Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session Meeting Minutes dated August 19, 2008. 5) Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 9, 2008, without attachments. 6) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated September 9, 2008. 7) City Council Staff Report -dated October 7, 2008, without attachments. 8) City Council Meeting Minutes dated October 7, 2008. 9) Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 28, 2008, without attachments. 10) Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes dated October 28, 2008. 11) Planning Commission Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to require that 50% of the units within the Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties provide private yards. COPY TO: Property Owners Page 1 of 7 ATTACHMENT 2 G: IPA#12007107-056 Croak and Jordan Medium DensitylCity CouncillCC 11.18.081ccsr Medium Density 11.18.08.DOC ~ •'"" 12) Planning Commission Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan to establish revised development standards for private yards within the Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing; 3) Receive public testimony; 4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; and 5) Take the following actions: a. Adopt a Resolution amending the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to require that 50% of the units within the Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties provide private yards; and b. Waive the first reading and introduce the Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan to establish revised development standards for private yards within the Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No financial impact at this time. The proposed General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment would continue to allow development to occur at the anticipated midpoint of the density range and would maintain the existing fiscal balance. However, topography, development standards and product type could result in development below or -above the midpoint of the proposed density ranges. 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 area that has a Medium Density (6.1-14 du/acre) land use designation. Staff studied the densities, residential land use policies, existing land use patterns, the City of Dublin Village Policy Statement, and the status of entitlements for the land designated for residential development within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Staff Reports were prepared for the April 3, 2007 and October 16, 2007, City Council Meetings with different policy alternatives for City Council consideration. City Council Action - Apri13, 2007 and October 16, 2007 The City Council reviewed both of these Staff Reports and expressed a desire to provide a housing product type that is between a stacked product (i.e. multi-story apartment or condominium building) and a larger single-family detached unit with a private usable yard (Please refer to the August 3, 2007 and October 16, 2007 City Council Meeting Minutes included in Attachment 3, pages 29-37 and 48-53). The City Council also expressed a concern regarding the existing policy to calculate. densities based on gross rather than net acreage. Page 2 ~f 7 The City Council identified two Medium Density properties (Croak and Jordan) (Map 1 to the right) within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan 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 prepare General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan Amendments as described below with the goal of creating private usable yards: 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 dulacre) 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. ~~ ~~ '_'~:~ ---- C rock ; >perty .:: ~~ P73 K ~ Staff prepared General Plan, Eastern Dublin . Specific Plan, and Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan Amendments for the Croak and Jordan properties as directed by the City Council on October 16, 2007. Planning Commission Action -November 27, 2007 On November 27, 2007 the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to review the proposed amendments to the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan. The Planning Commission raised a number of concerns with the proposed amendments (Please refer to the Planning Commission Staff Report and Meeting Minutes included in Attachment 3, pages 54-65 and 66-81). Because of these concerns, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council not approve the proposed General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan Amendments. Please refer .to Attachment 3 (pages 7-14) for a discussion of the Planning Commission concerns. Joint City CounciUPlanning Commission Study Session -August 19, 2008 The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint Study Session on August 19, 2008 to discuss: 1) the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations; 2) gross vs. net density requirements; and 3) usable yard requirements. The Study Session Staff Report included three policy alternatives for consideration by the City Council (Please refer to the City Council/Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report and Meeting Minutes that are included as Attachment 3 [pages 1-14] and Attachment 4, respectively). The City Council directed Staff to proceed with Alternative A and prepare General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan Amendments to create the following: 1. Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations; 2. Minimum 15-foot rear yard setback requirements for units with private rear yards; and 3. Minimum 20-foot rear yard setback requirements for 1 in 5 units with private rear yards. Page 3 of 7 Map 1-Vicinity Map Planning Commission Meeting -September 9, 2008 Staff prepared the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan Amendments based on the direction received from the City Council at the Study Session on August 19, 2008. On September 9, 2008 the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to review the proposed General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan Amendments (Please refer to the September 9, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report and Draft Meeting Minutes, included as Attachments 5 and 6). Three members of the public spoke. about the proposed modifications including Kevin Fryer from Mission Valley Properties representing the Jordan Ranch property, Pat Croak representing the Croak property, and Jeff Lawrence representing Braddock and Logan. All three spoke against the proposed amendments and expressed concerns regarding the topography of the properties, the potential loss of units, and the lack of flexibility in the proposed amendments. Following a discussion of the proposed amendments by the Planning Commission, a motion recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendments was put to a vote. The vote was 2-2-1 with Commissioners Biddle and Wehrenberg in support, Commissioners Schaub and Tomlinson against, and Commissioner King absent. In accordance with the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure and Section 2.12.040 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Chairman-Rules-Records-Meetings), a tie vote ultimately defeats a motion unless a subsequent motion is passed. A subsequent motion was not presented;. therefore, the Planning Commission did not recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments. City Council Meeting -October 7, 2008 The City Council held a public hearing to consider the proposed General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan Amendments on October 7; 2008 (Please refer to the October 7, 2008 City Council Staff Report and Draft Meeting Minutes, included as Attachments 7 and 8). During the public hearing, Kevin Fryer from Mission Valley Properties and Pat Croak representing the Croak property spoke against the proposed Amendments. Similar to the presentation at the September 9, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Fryer presented an example of one product type that they are considering for the proposed Medium-Low Density portion of the Jordan property. The product type example consists of clusters of four single-family detached units built around 500 square-foot, private yards that have a dimension of approximately 20 feet by 25 feet. This product type did not appear to meet the proposed 15 foot to 20 foot rear yard setback requirement proposal by the City Council Mr. Fryer expressed concern regarding the topography of the Jordan property and the lack of flexibility regarding rear yard setback requirements. Mr. Fryer indicated that the northern 3.4 acres of the proposed Medium-Low Density is too steep to develop. He felt it would be difficult to achieve the midpoint density as well as provide usable yards using the cluster development example if the northern 3.4 acres has limited development potential. He stated that the lack of flexibility regarding the proposed rear yard setback requirements was of greater concern than the potential loss of units associated with the proposed product type. Pat Croak expressed similar concerns to those of Mr. Fryer regarding the topography of the Croak property and the unintended consequences that may occur as a result of the proposal to modify the land use designations and rear yard setback requirements. Page 4 of 7 ~~ z o2 Following extensive discussion, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a General Plan, Eastern ublin Specific Plan, and Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan Amendments to include the following: General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments ^ Require 50% of the units within the existing Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties to include private yards. Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment ^ ,Require 50% of the units within the existing Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties to provide a minimum 400 square-foot private, usable yard with a minimum dimension of 18 feet by 18 feet; and ^ Require that common areas be provided for additional units that do not provide private yards that meet the standards as noted above. Planning Commission Meeting -October 28, 2008 . Staff prepared the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan Amendments based on the direction received from the- City Council on October` 7, 2008. On October 28, 2008 the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to review the proposed General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan Amendments (Please refer to the October 28, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report and Meeting Minutes included as Attachments 9 and 10). No members of the public spoke at the Public Hearing regarding the Project. The Planning Commission discussed the proposed amendments and voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner King was absent) to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and. Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan Amendments. Please refer to Attachment 10 for the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. The following is a discussion of the proposed General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan Amendments for the Croak and Jordan properties. The proposed amendments are based on the direction received from the City Council on October 7, 2008, ANALYSIS: General Plan/Eastern Dublin ,Specific Plan Amendment As previously stated, portions of the Croak and Jordan properties have an existing General Plan. land use designation of Medium Density (6.1-14 du/acre). Please refer to Map 2 (to the right) for the location of the existing Medium Density designation and Table 1 (below) for information regarding the existing Medium Density land use designation on these two properties. Page 5 of 7 Map 2 -Existing Medium Density Table 1-Existing Medium Density Land Use Designations io~~ `~'~ Pro a p ~ Land Use Density Desi nation Ran a Midpoint Densit Acres Dwelling Units Croak Medium Density 6.1-14 du/ac 10 du/ac 10.4 ac 104 units Jordan Medium Density 6.1-14 du/ac 10 du/ac 23.4 ac 234 units Total 33.8 acres 338 units The proposed General Plan Amendment would require that 50% of the units that are constructed within the existing Medium Density designation on the Croak and Jordan properties include private yards for each unit. The proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment would continue to allow development to occur at the midpoint of the density range as anticipated in the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the Fallon Village SEIR and would maintain the existing jobs/housing balance. Conclusion -General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment The General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment will ensure that 50% of the units that are constructed on the Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties have private yards. However, the land use designations do not guarantee the size of these private yards. Therefore, the proposed Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment (discussed below) includes minimum development standards for private yards on the Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties. The proposed General Plan Amendments are included in Attachment 1 of this Staff Report.. Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment The properties in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan have Planned Development zoning with development standards that are tailored to each development. The Planned Development zoning with customized development standards are intended to provide greater flexibility and creativity than traditional zoning. The Croak and Jordan properties are subject to the Fallon Village Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan which includes development standards. The proposed Planned Development Stage 1 Development-Plan Amendment (Attachment 2) would modify the existing development standards to require the following for the Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties: ^ 50% of the units provide a minimum 400 square-foot, private, flat, fenced yard with a minimum dimension of 18 feet by 18 feet; and . ^ Common areas shall be provided for additional units that do not provide private yards that meet the standards as noted above. Examples of what could typically occur in a 400 square-foot yard with a minimum dimension of 18 feet by 18 feet include children's play equipment, a patio with table and chairs, a garden, or a hot tub. The City Council did not define what constitutes "common areas" so that will be studied when a. Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review is submitted for the sites in the future. In accordance with the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, a Planned Development Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review are required before development-can occur on the Croak and Jordan properties. The Planned Development Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review will be brought forward to the Planning Commission for review when the City receives a Planning Application for the Croak and Jordan properties. Conclusion -Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment The proposed private yard development standards would apply to attached and detached units within the existing Medium Density designation on the Croak and Jordan properties. The proposed development Page 6 of 7 standards would ensure that 50% of the units provide private yards in the Medium Density designation that ~~~ 2p2 are large enough 'to accommodate typical leisurely activities for a private residence. The Planned Development zoning with customized development standards will continue to allow flexibility and creativity while providing minimum private yard standards. The proposed Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment is included in Attachment 2 of this Staff Report. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Project has been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act, State California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and the Dublin Environmental Guidelines. On December 6, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 222-OS certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2005062010) to the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, a program Environmental Impact Report, initially certified by the City of Dublin in 1993 (SCH#91103064) and the. Eastern Dublin Property Owners Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2001052114) certified in 2002 by Resolution 40-02 for the Fallon Village Project. The prior Environmental Impact Reports are available for review in the Community Development Department. The proposed project is within the scope of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 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. NOTICING: In accordance with State law, a public notice regarding this hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject properties. A public notice was also sent to the City's interested parties list, published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. CONCLUSION: The City Council has the authority to modify General Plan and Specific Plan Land Use Designations at any time. On October ~7, 2008, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment requiring 5.0% of the units in the Medium Density land use designation to provide private usable yards, and common areas for units that do not have private yards. The City Council further directed Staff to prepare a Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment to establish minimum development standards for private yards in the Medium Density designation. The proposed amendments to the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan will implement the City Council direction and ensure a variety of housing types with private, flat yards. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments and recommended that the City Council approve these amendments. Any substantive changes to the proposed General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan Amendments would require the Planning Commission to review the proposed modifications and make a recommendation to the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing; 3) Receive public testimony; 4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; and 5) Take the following actions: a) Adopt a Resolution amending the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to require that 50% of the units within the Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties provide private yards; and b) Waive the first reading and introduce the Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan to establish revised development standards for private yards within the Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties. Page 7 of 7 ~ ~~ ~~ RESOLUTION NO. XX - 08 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN TO REQUIRE THAT 50% OF THE UNITS WITHIN THE MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES PROVIDE PRIVATE YARDS (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 evaluate the methods to require a variety of product types, with private. yards ~ within the existing Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties, which are generally located north of the future Central Parkway extension, east of Croak Road and within the 1,134-acre Fallon Village project area; 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 Plan Amendment and Specific Plan on January 7, 1994 and 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; and WHEREAS, in connection with the adoption of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and pursuant to ,CEQA Guidelines section 15168, the City certified a Program Environmental Impact Report ("Program EIR") (SCH No. 91103064) which 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 is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, in connection with the annexation and prezoning of the East Dublin Property Owners (EDPO) Area, which.includes the Croak and Jordan properties, into the City of Dublin, the City Council certified a Supplemental EIR (SCH No. 2001052114) by Resolution No. 40-02 which adopted supplemental mitigation measures, mitigation findings, a statement of overriding consideration and a mitigation monitoring program, all of which continue to apply to the project axea; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005 the City Council adopted a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for the Fallon Village project area, which includes the Croak and Jordan properties by Resolution No. 223-05, which is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005, the City Council also adopted Resolution No. 222-OS certifying a Supplemental ,Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH #2005062010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Supplemental EIR for the Eastern Dublin Property Owners (EDPO) which is I incorporated herein by reference; and ~~$''''~ 6 ` °2 ~ ~ 4 C g ~ ns ... ..~ d ~ '~ ~~ . WHEREAS, the General Plan identifies land use designations, densities, policies related to density calculations, and includes a General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 1-la) which shows the location of land 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 Map" map (Figure 4.1). indicates the location of land uses within the Eastern Dublin Specific Pian area; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the California CEQA Guidelines require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, 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 the proposed project is within the scope of the Fallon Village SEIR and no additional environmental review is necessary; and WHEREAS, the City Council held public hearings on said project and provided Staff with direction on Apri13, 2007, October 16, 2007, November 27, 2007, August 19, 2008, September 9, 2008, and October 7, 2008; and WHEREAS, a joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session was held on August 19, 2008, and the City Council provided Staff with further direction; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on said project and provided recommendations to the City Council on November 27, 2007, September 9, 2008, and October 28, 2008; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 08-33 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 November 18, 2008, 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 November 18, 2008, 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, including prior EIRs, and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project. . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby fmd that the following amendments to the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are in the public interest and will not have an adverse affect on health or safety or be detrimental to the public 2 welfare or be injurious to property or public improvement and that the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent. BE IT' FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby find 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 RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby approve the following amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan: Section I. General-Plan Amendments. Subsection i. Figure 1-la, General Plan Land Use Map is hereby replaced with the following revised General Plan Land Use Map which includes a note indicating that "50% of the units within the Medium Density land use designation on the Croalc and Jordan properties shall have private, flat yards„: ,,~~ Q U B L: I N G E \ E R ~ L P L C ?V (Figure f-Ta9 /s1.~ I. .1 \~ n' g1 S E It~I "rt ~ as amended through (~~veeatber 18. ~U©S 1 ~~ t,_..___._ __` ..... ........ ~~ -,,~ r x.srn Eronr.e ~.anlnp xru `,+~~,!,,~'~° 1 t y t ~# a ""+, - ,_ j :.~ '.i. ~~.~~-p" i aye _^ e ~ 1}~_~~K. ~ ~ 'ems ~ ~~ ~ :.• ~_~__ :a..~._ .• Fii~licf2or=-Puh_'G~p.n ~pnca Cu ~ me i~l'In2u^i^. R r ihiR `9 u~ C ,.ealf_~a-,.-i.F - P.r..it"Sc+ ®Fi•F4 fb4.-::..°.Kwmn -p~.24a.r•el~ew . - 07.^Sp:. S cl.~r.-....3Cs.~~ ~ R:ai: s,eS I ~G, mRFa _ - I lasil Frk . P, 1icj5•w:F3i4-- -~tsr.n FznyS~.~`d - S.w+Po.?~ -!hei.•a Fark,•Tn:_:dsni O:tle:-^-rsc. E ... ~,,,. '~ w ...» --' rr a u,. r.+Kam;t_I..tivn=..~..,•sud=~~acm~ ?r.,-idan:ial Pla%rra. oAn CinRa ~ ~ -,,,, • ?.adR.•:c1,EaVf_?s!a~it Wit... `OC C•sn.p.i2.6f -rnl , ~~ Es r'.d rL..e._?: x.5eu :i•ry .FrY:.. 'Y~ ~Fnm l~.-_a,..a R•.. _.w•d f tt~'~.•SL~a 3er foiris!IL'A±-C3 chr.•eal c.s. •ti.r..a Ee4.+-a.dFm~g.v.. E«nPay _ .ri `~. ~ _-.i C.aj.~.~i -saP SRO F:7 ei: cI ~•~ _ NJ~ .a .1 ~! 1 rd 'eP i F Y if - • ? ' ~'aai.ncFi..~u.rv ~ ` . ly ... . ; . w e ~lL_ u~/ " .SL."ct7;~;L4vy~~i.,5iliv4.t.-:7 c5,~nc1 ~[[iaro _._VaIIg J~~c ~~ ~~ ,1 ~w . ±[v1.~ws,+.rFrr~'S.i-~;?ri Cridli..,ms. _ _ .L'~y ~. CI~iR„~,,., .•~~...o rv. -.....,.. L ~~ ItY'k'"°" "•i Y~ yCI~tS ~ C.~.it ~. cr°.r..x.., 3 Subsection ii. Table 2.1 (Land Use Summary: Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Area) is hereby amended to add the footnotes shown with a double underline TABLE 2.1 LAND USE SUMMARY: EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AREA (Amended: Resolution 223-05,.58-07, 37-08, and XX-08) Classification Acres Intensity** Units Factor Yield RESIDENTIAL Du's/acre Du's Persons/du Population High Density 69.9 35 2,447 2.0 4,894 Medium-High Density 132.4 20 2,616 2.0 5,232 Medium-Density*** 558.2 10 5,582 2.0 11,164 Single Family 864.8 4 3,459 3.2 11,069 Mixed Use**** 96 2.0 192 Rural Residential 710.5 .O1 7 3.2 22 TOTAL 2,335.8 14,239 32,605 • COMMERCIAL Acres Floor Area Ratio (Gross) Square Feet (millions) Square Feet / Employee Jobs General Commercial 347.9 .35/.25 4.228 510 8,290 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 .35/.30 .819 490 1,671 Campus Office 189.35 .75/.35 3.052 260 11,739 Industrial Park****** 114.7 .25/.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 TOTAL: 228.7 18 parks OPEN SPACE 649.6 PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC Public/Semi-Public 101 .25 1.120 590 1,899 Semi-Public***** ** 13.1 .25 Schools Elementary School 63.2 5 schools Junior High School 25.2 1 school High School 0 0 school School Subtotal 88.4 6 schools TOTAL: 202.5 TRANSIT CENTER (Total) 90.7 - Cam us Office includin ancilla retail 38.3 - High-Density Residential 31.5 - Park 12.2 - Public/Semi-Public (Transit-Related) 8.7 GRAND TOTAL 4,295.9 *Table 2.1 appears as Table " 2A" in the Eastern Dublin GPA. It was relabeled herein for formatting purposes. * *Numbers represent amid-range considered reasonable given the permitted density range. ** *50% of the units within the Medium Density land use desienation on the Croak and Jordan properties shall have private. flat yards. - ****For the purpose of this table, Mixed Use acreage only will be considered Commercial, not residential, to avoid duplication in tabulation of overall total acres. 4 I ~~=~ ~, e1-~-.. *****The Sq Ft/Employees figure utilized for General CommerciaUCampus Office is the average of the figure used for General Commercial and Campus Office uses. ******The .28 FAR figure utilized for Industrial Park refers to Industrial Park areas within Fallon Village. *******The location of Semi-Public sites on the Jordan, Croak and Chen properties of Fallon Village will be determined at the time of PD-Stage 2 Development Plan approval. The Semi-Public site on Jordan will be 2.0 net acres within the Village Center; the Semi-Public site on Croak will be 2.0 net acres; and the Semi-Public site on Chen will be 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 was changed to Semi-Public and 2.5 acres of Medium High Density residential land on Chen was changed to Semi-Public. These assumptions may change at the time of PD-Stage 2 Development Plan approval. Section II. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment. Subsection i. Table 4.1 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary) is hereby amended to add the footnotes shown with a double underline: TABLE 4.1 EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE SUMMARY (Amended Per Resolution No. 66-03, 47-04, 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, XX-OS Land Use Description LAND AREA DENSITY YIELD COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL General Commercial 356.8 acres .25-.35 FAR 4.122 MSF General Commercial/Campus Office ' 72.7 acres .28 FAR .887 MSF Industrial Park' 61.3 acres .25-.28 FAR .747 MSF Nei hborhood Commercial 61.4 acres .30-.35 FAR .871 MSF Mixed Use 6.4 acres .30-1.0 FAR .083 MSF Cam us Office 192.66 acres .35-.75 FAR 3.730 MSF Subtotal 751.3 acres 10.44 MSF RESIDENTIAL Hi h Densi 68.2 acres 35 du/ac 2,387 du Medium Hi h Densi 144.5 acres 20 du/ac 2,858 du Medium Densit ~' 511.3 acres 10 du/ac 5,113 du Sin le Famil 872.6 acres 4 du/ac 3,490 du Rural Residential/A ic. 697.4 acres .Ol du/ac 7 du Mixed Use 6.4 acres*** 15du/ac 96 du Subtotal 2,300 acres 13,951du 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 Elementar School 66.5 acres 5 schools Junior Hi h School 21.3 acres 1 school Subtotal 87.8 acres 1_7 ~~j~ov PARKS AND OPEN SPACE City Park 56.3 acres 1 park Community Park 97.0 acres 3 arks Nei liborhood Park 49.0 acres 7 arks Neighborhood S uare 16.7 acres 6 parks Subtotal 219 acres 17 parks O en Space 607.5 acres TOTAL LAND AREA 4,073.5 acres ' *The .28 FAR for Industrial Park refers to the Industrial Park areas in Fallon Village. *5n%, of the nn;t.S within the Medium Density land use designation on the Croalc and Jordan vronerties shall have private. flat yards. ***The 6.4 acres is the same acreage as listed in the Mixed Use cells. The 6.4 acres under Residential is not included in the sum of Residential uses in this table. 83,635 square feet of commercial and 96 units are ' anticipated on the mixed use sites (total). T11e FAR for Mixed Use governs both commercial and residential uses. Subsection ii. Figure 4.1 (Land Use Map) is hereby replaced with the .following revised Figure 4.1 (Land Use Map) which includes a note indicating that "~50% of the units within the Medium Density land use designation on the Croalc and Jordan properties shall have private, flat yards": >. n~wnat ~w4 N~ y' _. ~ ~ .,p4 rltiG ~aY _ epi~ep 1=1~11C~ 4.1 Land llse lHap ~~ - --- ~ ~ ~..,.,~.4. ,~ R ~ p F , 1~ O~cr ~ 4 k' ^` A~ e p ~ rvww w.rw. ~ti _i~ ~ ~' ~ an.rnw ii ~~-;- .: ~ ~~~ Parks Re~eri!e Fo ces Training ;4rea ~ •..-~, nor ~.~..w~.....~..~:, ' (Cam Parks) ~~r~'~ ~...w.~~ tii ~r.r~rr.a.a..r ~i ~~~~~: ~ - - ~wea•..w~+.. .+ ~ ~ ~ ti~~} 1. -- - - _. en./rrr ~~ ~- ~ocrty o! AtsrrtcEa - ~. 0.?. Department r- _ of Jv:t1R ~ ~ ~' far!rnYYh.'M~ - '~` ~L~ ~4r 1~p'mTCSe t~7M~ _... _. ... CPiRIb _ ~~.~rw.~w v.. "" U tY~M ~/I•/ ~ paln4yay!Cnal a u~a~"'~` e;~cL~ ~ _ .t~ y f •• ~ MaeMSemt Wi~1YJ _L~`~ 7f SUS ~ ma~urL.~r ~~ .w t a p -~-- + yam,, :'„`ti `cam e ~'weN'+.`~tw~+Iw 6 Section III. All provisions of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan not amended by this resolution shall remain in full force and effect. Section VI. -This Resolution shall take effect thirty (3.0) days after the date of adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of November by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIlV: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor G:\PA#12007\07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density\City Council\CC 11.18.08\CC Reso MD GPA SPA 11.18.08.DOC 7 6 ~ .:.~ ORDINANCE NO. XX - 08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH AMENDED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ESTABLISH REVISED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE YARDS WITHIN THE MEDIUM DENSITY LAND~USE DESIGNATION ON 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 1. RECITALS A. By Ordinance No. 32-OS the City Council rezoned the approximately 1,134-acre Fallon Village project area generally located north of I-580 and east of Fallon Road to the Planned Development Zoning District (PA 04-044) and adopted a Stage 1 Development Plan for the entire project area which includes the Croak and Jordan properties (APN 905-0002-001, 905-0002-002, AND 985-0027-007). B. This Ordinance amends the Stage 1 Development Plan approved in Ordinance No. 32-OS by the City Council on December 20, 2005. Section 2. FINDINGS A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council fmds as follows: 1. The Planned Development (PD) Rezoning, with amended Stage 1 Development Plan, (PA 07-056) meets the puYpose and intent of Chapter 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 and 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 areas 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 Village Center ~to the Low Density neighborhoods to the north and east; and 3}the uses are consistent 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. B. Pursuant to Section 8.120.OSO.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council fords as follows: 1. The PD Rezoning with amended Stage 1 Development Plan, will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the su~ounding areas because: 1) the land uses and site plan establish residential uses; 2) the proposed residential uses will provide a transition from Page 1 of 4 ;, w~ '' ~/~ 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 consistent 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. 2. The Project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the zoning district being proposed because: l) the amended land uses and site plan are consistent with the amended General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) land use designation of Medium Density Residential (6.1-14 dulacre); 2) the Fallon Village -site is flatter towards the south with rolling hills generally north, and development is concentrated in less constrained areas; and 3) the flexibility of the l?D allows future development to be tailored to onsite conditions. The PD Rezoning, with amended Stage 1 Development Plan, will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental 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 development will comply with all applicable development regulations and standards and will implement all adopted mitigation measures. 4. The PD Rezoning, with amended Stage 1 Development Plan, is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because: 1) the proposed uses on the site are consistent with the General Plan and EDSP land use designations; 2) the development standards for private yards will not result in an increase in the total number of residential dwellings anticipated for the subject properties by the General Plan and EDSP; and 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-OS 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#91103064) 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. 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: 10.4+ 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 905-0002-001, and 905-0002-002); and 23.4+ 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 4 A location map of the rezoning area is shown below: Section 4. AMENDED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN Z!~ Zov The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the subject properties is set forth in the Fallon Village Stage 1 Development Plan adopted by Ordinance 32-OS except as amended below; which amendments are hereby approved. Any amendments to the Development Plans shall be in accordance with Section 8.32.080, Planned Development Zoning District, of the Dublin Mtuucipal Code or its successors. PD-Planned Development Zoning District Amended Stage 1 Development Plan Fallon Village (PA OS-038, PA 07-056) This is an amended Stage 1 Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Planned Development Zoning District, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance for the portions of the Croalc and Jordan properties with a Medium Density designation (APN 905-0002-001, 905-0002-002, and 985-0027-007). The Croalc and Jordan properties consist of 10.4 acres and 23.4 acres respectively. A Stage 2 Development Plan is required pursuant to the provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Amended Stage 1 Development Plan. The Stage 1 Development Plan remains as approved by Ordinance 32-05, except that the Development Standards for Usable Yards for Medium Density attached and detached units is replaced with the following development standards. 1. Development Standards. The Development Standards are amended to include the following private yard requirements for attached and detached housing units within the existing Medium Density designations on the Croalc and Jordan properties. Page 3 of 4 A.,-i a. 50% of the units within the existing Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties shall provide private yards that meet the following minimum development standards: i. Minimum 400 s.f. of contiguous private, flat yard area; ii. Minimum dimension of 18'x18'; and iii. Include privacy fencing. b. Common areas shall be provided for additional units that do not provide private yards that meet the standards as noted above. Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE This Ordinance shall take effect 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 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 2na day of December by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:\PA#12007\07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density\City CouncillCC 11.18.08\CC Ordinance MD PD Am 11.18.08.DOC Page 4 of 4 CITY CLERK File # OLTJ~ J®-®® . ~z.o-3a AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MEETING DATE: August 19, 2008 SUBJECT: ~ 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 ATTACHMENTS: 1) City Council Staff Report dated April . 3, 2007 with Attachments. 2) City Council Meeting Minutes from Apri13, 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. 9 • 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. ~/ ~ JY '_ 0) Tassajara Meadows Unit. l Site Plan RECOMMENDATION: ~ Staff recommends that the City Council and Planning Commission 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 U7 RP 1 .,f 1 A 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 tlus time. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Backgroiuid The City Colulcil held a Strategic Planning Session on Januaiy 12, 2007. During this Strategic Planning Sessioiz the City Cowicil 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 liomes with larger private yards on undeveloped land within the Bastem Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area that has a Medium Density (6.1-14 dt~/acre) land use designation. Staff studied the densities, residential. land use policies, anti the status designated for residential development wtlzui the EDSP and prepared a Sta alternatives for City Council consideration at the Apri13, 2007 City Council 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 (GPA/5PA) to equally divide the. existing Meditun Density portioir of the Croalc and Jordan properties uitd the following new laud use designations: ^ Medium-Low Density(6.1-14.dL~%acre);and. ^ Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre). Staff then reviewed the existing land use 1 Fallon Village Center, and the City of Dul October 16, 2007 City Council Meeting Council expressed a concern over the exii acreage. The City Council also expressed. Medium-Low Density designation (Attar prepare a GPAISPA and Stage 1 Develo create private usable yards: Map 1- ns for the Croak and Jordan properties, the con illage Policy Statement, and prepared a Staff Rf achment 3). At the October 16, 2007 meetir policy to calculate densities based on gross ratl .ire to include minimum yard. requirements fart] .nt 4). On a motion, the City Council direr' it Plan Amendment as described below with Page 2 of 14 the land Mai net itatF to goal to -, e ~ 1. C~•eate Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medi~un-Mid Density (10.1-14 dulacre) land4 use designations to replace the existing Medium Density (6.1-14 du/acre) laud 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 Mediwn-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 anendments to the Planning Commission on November 27, 2007 (Attachments 5 and. ~, The Planning Commssion 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 (6.1-10 units per net residential acre) Units in this density range will be detached, zero-lot line, duplex, and/or townhouse developments suitable for fanuly 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 maybe similar or varied. I ocation of Proposed Land Uses The. existing Medium Density sites on each property are proposed and Meditml-Mid Density as shown on Map 2. The proposed land uses maiitain the transition from the more intense High Density Residential alid Mixed Use at the core of the Fallon Village Center to the less intense Low Density Residential uses that surrotmd the Village Center. 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 shidied it the Fallon Village SEIR and would continue to ensure the existing jobs/housing balance (Please refer to Attachment 3, Tables 2, 3 and 4 far a unit comparison). The Luiits would simply be redistributed across the proposed Medium- Low Density and Medium-Mid Density designations and no additional environmental review would be regtrired. Map 2 -Proposed Land 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 infotn~ation. Page 3 of 14 -~wwr1 Conch~sion -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 Croalc and Jordan properties. The 1V1edLim-Low Density designation would also ensure that the homes have private yards. However, the la1~d use designations do not guarantee the size of these private yards. A policy that requires a rninir~zum r•ern' y4rd 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 cturently 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, t11e net a~ site to determine densities. The G.S 1 gross acre site is constrained by a creek and th public streets. As a result, the net or developable portion of the property (which excl streets) is 3.99 net acres and is highlighted in orange in the net density example. T (Table 1) identifies the permitted number of units and density based on the gross and site. In both examples, the units are located on the same developable portion of the s creek area). The gross density example liar amore units because the density is calcu overall (gross) area of the site. Similarly,. the average lot size is smaller using the gross because more lots are clustered on the developable portion of the property. The snlal impact the size of the private yards unless maximum lot coverage and muumum standards are applied to the project. Using gross density allows more units to b developable portion of the project site when compared~to the project with a net density. Cross Density 1Jxample ~~{''f%~'~ GROSS kREA F~/. .r ~~~•~~~ PROJECT 601.RlDAdtY Net Density Example would setback on the Page 4 of 14 rear yard e clustered !,r'f :NET AREA ~~-~ PROJECT BOUND~IRY GROSS AREA =6.51 AC. ~_, ~~ , ~~ Table 1- Gross vs. Net Dens. Units Units Gross Acres Net Acres !(_rnec ilPnai~vl (Net Den. Calculations Gross Density 6 51 acres 3 99 acres 62 units 38 units ~ 9.52 unitslacre 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 prepazed 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 aze 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 vaziety •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 aze 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 yazd azeas" include grass area, playgrounds, and swimming pool facilities. The development standazds for the exiting Stage 1 PD for the Croak and Jordan properties aze 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. r_ __ a _r7 A -~~~- rr.,hiP 2_ p,-;vote Yard ReauirEment~ -Medium-Low & Mediu~--Mid Densty'~^ Lot Size 4 800+ s.f. 2,5Q0+ s.f, 250 s.f. 300 s.f: Private Yard Minimum area Per Unit Yard area may be provided in more than one location win a lot: 'Yard area may b~ provided in -more than one location wrn a bt: Min. rear yard area: 170 s.f. Min. rear yard area: 170 s.f. f Min. cou and area 80 s.f.: . Min. cou and area 80 s. Private Yard Minimum Dimension 8' 8' *Thesc are existing standards for the Low and Medium l~ens~ty Lana use•liesi~anons iur u« rauun . tuagv ..~. '`Can substitute common area equal to 150s.f. per unit in lieu of private yard area in the Medium-Ivfid Density. A yard with a minimum depth or lengfili of 8' would Ue fairIy limited in size. Examples of whit could occur in a yard of this size include a small patio and garden, a bistro table and chairs or lounge chairs and a bazb~que. However, these amenities would leave very little room for a children's play area or play equipment. Please see the followiig photos from Roxbury for an example of what can occur in a yazd with a depth of 8'. The following plo# plan and photos illustrate the type of home and private yard that has lieen achieved on a 1,800 s.f lot. The plot plan below depicts ~ unit is a single-family detached home located iii the Roxbury development and includes 3 bedrooms, 2.5 batluooms, aild a two car garage. Plot Plan -1,82'7 s.f. lot (43.5% Lot Coverage Page 6 of 14 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 yazd 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: Plannin~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 GPA, 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 azea. 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 azea 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 du/acre). 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 fora 2-story home and 40% lot coverage for a single story home, and a minimum rear yazd setback of 20'. 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 aze built today. Thus they are generally built below the maximum lot coverage requirement for the R-Y 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. Toi,lp d• Avpraea llPVPlnnment StatlStlCS Lot Size House Size Lot Coverage 6,862 s.f. 1,478 s.f. ~ 22% yeS~~~,,,:~._ .~_ .. ~~~~ ~o?i Eastern Dubliiz Specific Pldii -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 Meditun Density land in the EDSP. Table 5 below provides a breakdown of the. nwnber of constructed attached and detached Medium Density units as well as the amount of remaining units to be determined in die EDSP. Table 5 -Medium Uensiry unit ly~~c lu ~u~ ~~,N, Unit Type Number of Units % of Total l Detached 1,893 units 36.4% Attached 1,615 units 42.7% To Be Determined 926 units 20•g% Total Number of Unifs 4,434 units -- Lot sizes for Nleduni 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 RoxbLUy. 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. Table G: Avera a Develo . ment Statistics - Tassa'ara Meadows Unit 1 Lot Size. House Size Lot Coverage 3,579 S.f. 1,897 s.f. 53% Page $ of 14 ,.,.: P- vld~ Zoe Staff spoke with a local real estate. agent about the market for suigle-family homes iil the portion of the Primacy Pla~iniig Area bounded by San Ramon Road to the west, the Iron I3orse Trail to the east, the northern City Liuuts 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 sinilar 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 Primacy Plarniing Area attract more first time home buyers who want a large yard, while the Medium Density homes in the EDSP tend to attract current condoniiniiun owners and buyers that want to downsize their home and do not want to maiitain a large yard and an older home. Conclusion: The homes in the Priinaiy Planning Area as described above are not a Medium Density product. These homes in the PrulZaty Plannng Area satisfy a different market need than the Medium Density Homes located within the EDSP. The detached Mediiuii Density homes that have been constructed in the ED5P tend to cover a large portion of the lot with smaller yard setbacks, therefore resulting in fairly small yaxd 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 Meditun 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 nunimum rear yard setback requirement to guarantee usable private. yards. Rear yard sizes in the Medium Density Designation iii 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 - 2 .~r~t + CO11C1uS1011: Private usable yards can be achieved within the Medium Density Designation. However,. the size of the yard can fluctuate within this density range. Tlie required maximum lot coverage and minimum rear yard set back play a significant role in detenlline 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. 1VetAcre~ge Cirlculafio~: 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 tIre Croak and Jordan properties have not submitted development proposals for review by Staff. Therefore, Staff cannot evaluate the fii11 impact of using a net density calculation on these properties. However, the land use plan (MaP 3 below) for Fallon Village (which includes tha Croak and Jordan properties) was created using information in the Resoluee Management Plan (RMP) that was prepared for the project area. The RMP identified envirolunental constrailits within the plan area. These constrained areas were designated as Open Space or Rural Residential/Agniculture• in order to limit their development potential. Tlerefore, the ilipact 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. Staff used the Tassajara Meadows Unit 1 development, located at the northwest comer of Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive, to illustrate the potential unpacts of a net density calculation (Please refer to Attachment 10 for the land use plan). Tassajara Meadows co>lsists of 109 Medium Density detached units ou 13.3-acres. The following table illustrates the Gross and Net Density calculations for the site. T~hIP d _ Tscsaiara Meadows. Unit 1 Density Calculation Gross Acres Net Acres Gross Density Net Density* 13.3 9.0 8.2 dulacre 12.11 du/acre * Excludes streets and common areas Page 10 of 14 Map 3 -Fallon Village Land Use Plan ~~~; ~' V - '~--I Similar to Jordan Ranch, the environmentally constrained creek to the west of Tassajaza Meadows is designated Open Space and does not impact the net density. However, the Tassajaza 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 azeas have already been designated as Open Space on the Croak and Jordan properties. The constrained azeas of the Croak and Jordan properties aze 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 fmancial 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 fora variety of product types to address future mazket 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 azeas on land designated Medium-Low Density. Limited Application of Policy . Planning Commission Concern #5: The Planning Commission felt that the current policies aze 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 .. ,.. . which currently includes 338 units or 7.6% of the anticipated Medium Density units in the EDSP azea. 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 orr the Croak and Jordan properties. Need for Additional Data Planning Commission Concern #6: The Planning Commission would like to see mazket 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 Iand 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 prepaze. The construction and sale of new homes in the EDSP area is ongoing which makes it diiT}cult 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 yazd 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 yazds. 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 reaz 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 l _ ~. 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 azeas. 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 standazds. 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 yazd that can accommodate a small patio and bazbeque 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 reaz 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 yazds 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 aparhnents 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 reaz yard setback, requirements; and 2) direct Staff to prepare the appropriate General Plan and EDSP Amendments az~d 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 aze 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 yazd 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 yazds. 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 azea 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' yazd dimension contained in the existing PD development standazds will not provide a large enough yard to accommodate many common leisurely activities often associated with a rear yard. Therefore, as part of this alternative Staff recommends an amendment to the existing Stage 1 PD to require a minimum 15'-20' flat usable reaz yazd 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 prepaze 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 RE C OllrIlVIENDATIOI~: Staff recommends that the City Council and Planning Commission receive presentation and direct Staff to proceed with either: D) Alternative A :and prepaze 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 reaz 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. '~ -- , ~ p -. -1 C~~~ OF ~'~'y rrr ~ ~~~ t~~~~il `~~~~ CITY CLERK File # -., AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:. April 3, 2007 SUB.TECT: 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 azea. Report prepared by Jefj<Baker, Se~tior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Map.• 2) Village Policy Statement. 3) Eastem Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Categories. 4) Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan Criteria. 5) Table of Built or Approved Projects with Vested . Development Rights. • 6) Map of Built or Approved Projects with Vested Development Rights. 7) Map of Land with Stage 1 Development Plans, but without Vested Development Rights. 8) Map of Land without Development Entitlements and without Vested Development Rights. 9) Table of Land without Vested Development Rights. 10) Map of Land without Vested Development Rights. ~ 1) RECOMNtENDATION. Receive Staff presentation; ~ ~ - Z) Receive public testimony; '•~ 3) Deliberate; and 4) Direct Staff'to either: a. Prepaze General PlanlSpecific Plan Amendments to include two new land use designations including Medium-Low (6.1-10 du/acre) 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/Specifia Plan Amendments to include two new land use designations including ' Medium-Low (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium (10.1-14 du/acre) and prepaze a.Specific Plan Amendment to ' adopt development standards that require a minimum usable yard azea; or COPY TO: Property Owners File L ITEM NO:~ ~ ~ ~ '~'~sr j Page t of 12 . ATTAC MENT 1 G:~stem Dublin pmsitykesr 4.3.07 Fitt Dublin Drnsity.DOC .ry y y~ .. ~ 1 .y' ~r ~r i d. Continue to implement the existing General Plan and Specific Plan policies. FINANCIAI, 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) azea 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 azea in order for the City Council to provide Staff with direction regarding current residential land 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 of the 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 ]and use options for the azea 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 azba 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 prepazed 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 Z of 12 7) Table 1: Residential Land Uses and Density in Easters Dublin Residential Land Use Designation Density Rural ResidentiaUA .'culture 1 dwellin unit du /100 acres Sin le Famil 0.9-6.0 du/acre Medium Densi 6.1-14.0 du/acre Medium-Hi h Densi 14.1-25.0 du/acre Hi h Densi 25.1+ du/acre The EDSP contains Guiding Policies regazding these reside~ial 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/slops, and other communityfacilities". 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) neaz the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, Interstate 580. and Dublin Boulevazd. The higher density residential land uses (i.e. Medium Density, Medium-High Density, and High Density) are also concentrated near these commercial uses. T'he 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 5peciSc Plan are Single Family Residential, and Rural ResidentiaUAgriculture 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 azea 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 Tassajaza Village Center have been scaled back as a result of the environmentally sensitive habitat in the project azea. 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 aze designated for Medium Density and Medium-High Density development include the Fredrick, Mission Peak and Silvers properties which aze discussed later in this Staff Report. Vazgas, ' Page 3 of 12 3~~~ov ,~ The commercial core of the Fallon Village Center is located f ~" ~~~ - south of the future Central Parkway extension and is designated ~`. ~ ~' • ~ •' for mixed use develo ment i.e. commercial and residential . f _ Fallon Village The Fallon Village Center was designed to be consistent with the : ~ a •'=~ ~ • City of Dublin Village Policy Statement (Attachment 2) which t . • • ' ' ~~~ ^ ~• - ; ,, _ • encourages a variety of housing types. This commercial core is '' '~. ~' a • it surrounded by Medium=High Density residential that transitions '--'~• ' - I i -` ~ 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 I °= ._ «_ Croak properties. - ~ • _ _ __ _ _ _~ - _ - - _ _ - 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 residential land use designations/densities in the EDSP allow for a variety of housing types including single-family detached homes, detached cluster homes, townhouses, and stacked aparknents and condominiums. The following is a list of the residential land use designations in the EDSP, and a description of the housing types that aze typical for each of the residential land uses, followed by a photograph of the various housing types. Rural ResidentiaUAgricnlture (1 dW100 acres) Detached single family: The home typically includes accessory structures associated with agricultural uses. Single Family (0.9-6.0 dulacre) Traditional detached single family home: +-~ r~ Typically located on lots that range in size 5,000- `` ~ s ~"~ ~ ~%~! ^- - ` 10,000 square feet with a backyard. ~m • ~~: • < <. ; . -~s' • r'"~ -- - ~. Medium-Density (6.1-14.0 dWacre) Small !ot detached single family home: Typically with a small usable rear yazd area ~.e. rear yard depth of 10'). ~, • ..,~ r~ ~ ..~ ~., i. .~ ~T ' y ~ Page 4 of 12 ^ Detached clrcrter 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 gazage 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. ~~, ~~' ::; ., _.~... . ' ~ ~ r _ ,: Medium-High Density (14.1-25.0 do/acre) ^ Apartments/Condominiums*: Typically a 3-5 story stacked product (i.e. units on top of one another) with a small patio or balcony. t 4:.,.. :~E-K,:. ~ . , _.r~ Page 5 of 12 ^ 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 squazc feet of private usable space. ~2 ~.. _ 11 F3igh Density (25.1+ du/acre) Apartments/Condominiums': Typically a 46 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 aze similaz to each other except that apartrr-ents aze offered for rent and condominiums are offered for sale. Status ojEntitlenents jor Land Designated jar Resldentia! 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 azea 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 Pian as descnbed in Attachment 4. While there are avariety ofpermits/agreements required for development, there are only two specific types that vest an Applicant's right to develop, which arc a DA and a Vesting Tentative Map (VTivl). 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 complete 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 ali 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 aze also s 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 aze also a limited number of properties that do not have any entitlements and therefore do not have vested development rights. Page 6 of 12 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 ah-eady 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 aze included as Attachments 5 and 6, respectively. These developments• include a variety of housing types as noted above. Apartments/condotniniums are focused neaz transit and commercial centers as well as detached cluster homes and townhomes with small yard areas along Dublin Boulevard and Tassajaza Road. Traditional single-family homes with larger backyards aze located in the northern portions of the EDSP area,-away from the commercial shopping areas and transit centers. band with a Stage 1 Development Plan. but withou[ Vested Development Rights There aze seven properties that have an approved Stage 1 Development Plan that establishes the maximum number of dwelling units that maybe developed. Table 2 includes a list of the properties within the EDSP that have obtained approval of a Stage 1 Development Plan. A Stage 1 Development Plan is required as a condition of annexation. The Stage 1 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- Designation Acreage Maximum Dwelling Units Mission Peak (currently under review for a Stage 2 PD and SDR) Single Family Rural ResidentiaUAgriculture 19.5 44.1 103 0 d Single Family 48-acres 192 an Jor Medium Density 23.4-acres 234 Medium-High Density Mixed Use 19.8-acres ~ 6.4-acres 542 96 Chen Medium-Hi Densit 4.0-acres 130 Croak Single-Family 115.4-acres 469 Medium Density 10.4-acres 104 Rural ResidentiaUA 'culture 19.4-acres 0 Anderson Medium Derisi 7.0-acres 70 Ri etti Medium Densit 9.6-acres 96 Branau h Medium Densi 9.7-acres 97 Maximum Dwellin Units: 2133 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 witlrord 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 The Vargas,. Moller, and Tipper properties are currently located outside of the City Limits but loco...., _ ~, ®r~ within the City's sphere of influence. The City is currently processing an application to annex these three "'1 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 Fredrick, 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 Plan/ Land Potential Units Property Owner Acreage Use Designation Based on Land Use Desi nation Fredrick ~ 3.4 - Medium-High 48-85 Densi Residental Moller*+ 226.0 Low Density & 0-413 RuraUResidentia]/ A 'culture Tipper" 8.2 Medium Density ~ 50-115 Residential Vazgas* 4.4 Medium Density & 59-110 Medium-High Densi Cam Parks 0 Public Lands** -- * Located outside of the City Limits, but within the City's Sphere of Influence '' Located outside of the EDSP azea ** Property is zoned Agriculture Fredrick Property The Fredrick property currently has General PlanlSpecific 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 Development Plan to reduce the density on the site from Medium-High Density Residential and Neighborkood Commercial to Single 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 pazking. 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 can ently 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 Plaz>/5pecific Plan Amendment and Stage 1 Development Plan to reduce the density of the entire 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 Fredrick 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 Properhs The current General Plan Land Use Designation for the Moller property is Low Density Residential and , ~, !~, ZCQ 'c.'- Rural ResidentiaVAgriculture. C+n March 21, 2006, the City Council authorized Staff to study a request 'T/ "(~ 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 can-ent 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. Camn Pazks Reserve Forces Training Area Reserve Forces Trainins Area The City is currently working with representatives of the United States Army regarding future private development of approximately 187 acres at Pazks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Pazks). The 187- acre Camp Pazks site is located to the north of Transit Center. Tlie 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 Plait Land Use designation of Public Lands). However, the City has completed a community visioning process for development of this property. The pre~'en-ed development alternative identified through this visioning process includes a combination of single-family residential, medium-high density residential and high density residential land 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. ANALYSIS: 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 azea. 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 if the 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. Ia 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 ( ~iQ'~ 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. Land with Vested Development Rights: DAs and V't'Ms 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 temunate 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 13 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 development (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 required 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 development 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 aze 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 densities 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 yazd sizes; C) adopt new land use designations and adopt new development standadds to the EDSP that require minimum yazd sizes; or-D) continue to implement the existing General Plan/Specifie 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 accommodate a detached single-family housing type that includes a usable rear yazd area. Densities between 10.1-14 du/acre result in lot sizes that range from approximately 3,110 to 4,310 square feet in size. These aze relatively small lot sizes and are more difficult to develop a detached housing type with a usable yard area while maintaining a Page 10 of 12 minimum distance between buildings. Detached units with usable yards in this density range~alre 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 du/acre, and Medium 10.1-14 dulacre). 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: Tn order to adopt new land use categories, the City Council would need to: 1) direct Staff to prepaze General PIan/5pecific Plan Amendments to create two new designations that include Medium-Low (6:1-10 du/acre) and Medium (10.1-14 du/acre); 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. ~fdopt New Development Standards The EDSP requires the adoption of PD zoning districts for all property with the EDSP azea. PD 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 dedelopment 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 yazd standards in the EDSP. In:plementation: In order to adopt new development standards the City Council would need to:. l} 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 standazds. C. Continue to Implement Existing General Plan/Specfic 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 duect staff to continue implementing the existing General Plan and Specific Plan politics. Page 11 of 12 ~1 ~ 2 ~ ~ ~`~ 2 ~''' CONCLUSION: ~ -~.. The City Council has the authority to modify General Plan and Specific Plan Land Use Designafions (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,standazds, 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 develapment 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: 1) 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 du/acre) and Medium (10.1-14 du/acre}; b) Prepare a Specific Plan Amendment to adopt development standards that require a minimum usable yani azea; c) 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/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 -•• ,,.;,.,, . i,.,4n~d,~^R~a!~~tdye~.~~-• se~rw -y,~ ~. ..: ~~~:a-.~. `~r. ': ...-v'r~F.~.+-'S7it`.6~1;~~?+pfi.i..., -", ~ ,.: ;: 1 . ' ~ ~ Zo-z 191(~-~' ~' ,~ ~~l ELI ~ CITY OF DUBLIN VILLAGE POLICY STA.TEMEllTT z. _ ~.~ ~~'~ ii_ ~aia ~ - ~ G ~? t li iF v tL weft F.ev~noM i.: ~ u yi Y R4 .i h S LI . ~ ^ R D [! ^ ss 17 A: 74 F: „ vf2 1. , - 1 :i. I MOiIM ItFYAiIOx r ' SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 i Attachment 2 ~~ ~~~- VILLAGE POLICY Introduction The Policy described below is not a Planning 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. . Aoalicability 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 Staffwith specific recommendations on: 1. Possible Village Sites 2. Later modifications to the General Plan and Specific Plans to mandate the location and characteri"sties of Villages. Only when changes are made to the Planning documents noted above wilt this Policy become a legal requirement. • The I~illaeePoliev a?~ ~z ~~ `' A Village is defined as a physical development of land that has been designed to encourage compact development of an arcs 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-fiiendly design should be required. Villages should have these characteristics: 1 A Village location should be compatible with the local environment including surrounding Iand 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 azeas, community facilities and publidprivate facilities) should be easily accessible; 4 Trails, pedestrian walkways and street linkages should be established to bring the parts and elements of the Village together; 5 Street and Pedestrian linkages should link to transportation spines including buses and transit services; I 6 The Village should have a strong "edge" defining the boundaries. This could include major streets, architectural or landscaped azeas; 7 Village size should reflect development that promotes pedestrian wal]cability, permits a sufficient mixture of residential and public/private uses and convenient commercial. azeas. ' 8 Specific identity should be fostered for the Village areas {special signage, unique design elements, public plazas etc.) Imalementation 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 prepazed by Staff for review and adoption by the Planning Commission and City Council. Z o.~,,. Program 4P: The City shall work with East Bay Regional Parks District regazding the provision of staging azeas in the Specific Plan azea. 4.8 LAND USE CATEGORIES This section describes each of the ]and use classifications used in the Land Use Map in Figure 4.1. Chapter 6 on Resource Management end 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 aze considered appropriate for each Specific Plan land use designation Table 41 summarizes land use acreages in the planning area by the designations described below. 4.8.1 RESIDENTIAL Rural Residential/Agriculture (.Ol 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 Pazks and Open Space, or PublicJSemi-Public uses. Assumed household size is 3.2 persons per unik Singlele 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 32 persons per unit. Mediu_ m D_ ensity (6.1 to 14.0 units per gross residential acre). Provides for a mix of single family detached and attached units and mulfi-family units. The density range allows for detached, zero-lot line, duplex, townhouse, and garden apartment development It is intended that within azeas 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 igh D .+c;tv (14.1 to 25.0 units per gross residential aa~e). 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 tirdinance open space requirements, Assumed household size is 2.0 persons per unit Hig D itv (ti,l or more units per gross residential acre). Provides for apaztment and condominium development in the Town Center. Development at these densities must meet the majority of their parking requirements with under-structure parking. With cazeful design, densities of up to lOD units per acre can be achieved without exceeding four stories. Assumed household size. is 20 persons per unit. 46 Attachment 3 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT Chapter 8.32 CgAp~g, g,32 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT 8.32.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is ta: A. Establish a Planned Development Zoning District thmugh 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 azeas of the City. E. Encourage efficient use of land for preservation of sensitive enviromnental 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 compahble with the area. H. Allow for creative and imaginative design that will promote amenities beyond those eicpected in conventional developments. 8.32.DZ0 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 Plaa. 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 1 Development Plan shalt be adopted for the entire planned Development District site with the reclassification ofthe property to the Planned City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 32-1 September, 1997 Attachment 4 ~Z~2- 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 phoro, other information necessary for the review of the proposed project; and any provisions as further descn'bed 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 1 Development Plan at the time bf 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, Stags 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 ro 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 Plaa. The Stage 1 Development Plan shall include all of the following information and materials for the entire Planned Development Zoning District site: Statement of proposed uses. A written Statement of Proposed Uses; including permitted, conditional, and accessory uses. 2. Stage 1 Site Plan. A Stage 1 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 Clty of Dublin Zoning Ordnance 32-2 September, 1997 • ~G~y 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 appficable 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. Phas[ng 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. B. 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. Aetiai 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 developmenk 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 32-3 Septemtier,1997 .r~ ~n~ PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT " Chapter 8.32 1. Statement of compatibllity with Stage 1 Development Plan. A written statement demonshating 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 100 feet beyond its boundary; existing and proposed circulation system; cxisting structures and proposed general building areas; contours; parking areas, driveways and loading areas in general; limits of grading; and phasing boundaries per the Stage 1 Development Plan. 4. Site area, proposed densities. Gross and net azea of the Stage 2 site; maximum densities for residential and non-nesidential development by type, minimum densities where applicable for compliance with the Dublin General Plan or applicable Specific Plans; and maximum nunibeis of residential units by type and or maximum non-residential squaze footage for each use. " " 5. Development Regulatloas. Development regulations for lot azeas, lot squan; footage per dwelling unit, lot width and frontage, lot depth, setbacks, distances between residences, maximum lot coverage, common useable outdoor space, floor azea 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 standazds, 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. Qtber information as required by the Department of Community Development as necessary for the substantive and enduonmental review of the proposed project. 8.32.050 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 32=4 September, 1997 ~~ 1a Built or Approved Projects with vested Development Rights • Status _ Eastern Dublin Specific # o f DIJs * "gp'°Y`d ta) • Housing Type Cnder Conrinetbn NC) Project Name plan, Land Use Com leted Camelia Place High Density . , 121 Stacked Apartments UC Transit Canter Elan at Dublin Station High Density 260 Condominiums drum deli ) UG (Transit Center) High Density 305 , Apamnents UC Avalon Bay raavit Center Transit Center Site A High Density 418 To be determined wl . (DA & Stage 1) SDR Transit Center Site C Hi Densi Sh ~' 405 Stacked Apartments '°` (DA & Stage I) (currently under review for a Sta e 2 Rczoae ead SDR Metropolitan at Dublin Campus Office (permits 300 eo mum a i A Station 300 du) s gn) ~ Transit Center . Archstone A artments Medium-Hi Densi 324 - Stacked a artments C C , Emerald Park A artments Medium-Hi Densi 368 347 Stacked a artments le family Sin C ' Summerglen Single Family & Medium g detached homes.(w/ Density rivate and Creekside/Brookside Sin le Famil g y 277 Single family detached homes C Dublin Green Medium Density 295 Single family detached homes (w/• C • rivate and Waterford Mixed Use ~ Medium Density 390 204 A artments ~ Single family C • C Tassajan Meadows . detached home (w/ rivate ards • Roxbury Medium Density 108 Single family detached homes (w/ UC rivate ard) 172 Singe family & C • Rtva/Ratnsong detached cluster (w! • rivate s The Villages Hi Densi & Medium- ~ tY 1,396 Stacked condominiums & UC ' High Density townhouses Groves Th High Density 930 Stacked apartments & UC ' e condominiums 'Area F Medium Density 1,112 Detached cluster UC • homes (w/ small yard), townhouses, & stacked condominiums Vcrona Single Family 121 Single family ,_,.__t,ea UC Attachment 5 5ao~ zoz ., ~p~2©z U~~ Zov r .,~ ~. ~~~ ~D Land without Vested Development Rights ProjeM Land Use Designation Maamum Development potential (in units) Mission Peak Single Family & Rural ResidentiaUA 'culture 103^ Jordan • Single Family, Medium Density, Medium-High Densi & Mixed Use 1,064^ Chen Medium-Hi Densi 130^ Croak Single Family & Rural ResidentiaUA 'culture 573^ Anderson Medium Densit 70^ etti Medium Densit 96^ Branau Medium Densit 97^ Moller RanchlCasamira Vailey Single Family & Rural ResidentiaUA 'culture 0-413 Vargas Medium & Medium-High Densi 59-110 Fredrick Medium-Hi Densi 48-85 * Ti er Medium Densi 50-115 Cam parks Public Land N!A "Based on adopted Stage 1 Development Plan *Based on density range. for General Plan Land Use Designation ~ ~ za -,~. a ~a~ _ ~.G-~~' ~~J1~V l~ VT ~~ Vll I `iDul,~iu+ Og Tfi~ CITY OF Dt1$LIN g$6~UI.i~tg M~'1'INfi - ~gL S, 500 CLOSED SESSION A closed session was held at 6:48 p.m., regarding: I. CONFERENCE WITHRF.~4L PROPERTyNEGOTIATORS (Government Code section 5495 8) property: 11759 Dublin Blvd. (Dublin Square Shopping Center) City Negotiator: City Manager mac,, a California 1~Tegotiating parties: City of Dublin; Berkeley Land Company, Corporation Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, April 3, 2007, in the A regular meeting was called to order at 7:04 Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The. meeting p.m. by Mayor Lockhart. ~ _~ _. ROLL CAIN' . p'RESENT: Councilmembers Hildenbrand, Oravetz, Sbranti and Scholz, and Mayor Lockhart. ABSENT: None . _ ~. - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE the Council, Staff and those present. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited by - ~ DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MIlVUTES VOLUME 26 REGULAR MEETING „ Apri13, 2007 PAGE 118 Attachment 2 ~~~ zoz- Linda Mandolini, Executive Director of Eden Housing, thanked the Council and Staff for effoxfis 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 Apri124 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 7:53 p.m. 8.I (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 Apri13, 2007 PAGE 126 -~, ~ a ~- 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 H~~ • the access located. He was unable to get secondary access to his property. 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 NIINUTES VOLUME 26 . .REGULAR MEETING Aprik 3, 2007 . PAGE 127 ~~~ ZD2 .f 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 aMedium-High density category, he was willing tQ.look at where it might be appropriate to create aMedium-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 (~) Z.U Vm. Hildenbrand commented why should the City let a developer m ~ ~ ~Ve~ e investment, then come before the Council and not have plans app them revised- Why not make those changes before that developer made that huge investment. 'I~vo years ago the Planning Commission came before the Council al 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 gut if the project was for a Stage 2 PD, for example, the Coun s or the~zoning some reason for fixrning it down. If it was not within the density ranS _ for the land use densities in the General Plan, then the Council esullt mi t be a the low was not going to get to the Council not being within the rang $h • end or the high.end, but when the Council adopted the City's General Plan and Spec~c 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 P~ ~ ~~~~ level. When you were below that, the Council could not arbitrarily . The Council and Staff discussed what numben worms v~nthin tha structure of the unplanned and which developers had not bee long City's General Plan for eastern Dublin. Council was directed to awes that w totally. that detailed properties and acreage. Thero were four p~ at the Medium unplanned now, Croak, Jordan, Camp Parks and Chen. In Looking 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 saynthat all the i it~~ ~do~ density or Medium-High because the City had do ~' done closer to the Medium-High and High only because in order to build, it was being freeway. He was willirRg 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 Z6 ' REGULAR MEETING Apri13, 2007 PAGE 129 ~ o o~ 2~?- Vm. Ht7denbrand 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 aMedium-Low density category would achieve, at least conceptually, 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. Iiildenbrand 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. 5branti reiterated that looking at a density category of Medium-Low would achieve some of the detached housing options being suggested. By having a Medium, Mediurim- High and Medium-Low density it would achieve that. But there were not many properties that this would affect. Mayor Lockhart suggested hooking at the few properties that were Ieft 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. I3ildenbrand was advocating. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES • VOLUME 26 REGULAR MEETING Apri13, 2007 • PAGE 130 ~? f - ~® ~ 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-H~,gh, etc• 'The discussion had in part focused on creating aMedium-Low density category, talang 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, far 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 E]R 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 aMedium-High density category, there was a Medium density category, but there was not aMedium-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 1VIINUTES VOLUME 26 . REGULAR MEETING Apri13, 2007 PAGE 131 ~12r~j zo~- ~,. would still fall within the range of the number of units that lied ~ 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 aMedium-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 Crn. 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. 9 DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL NIINUTES VOLUME 26 REGULAR MEETING April 3, 2007 PAGE 132 ~~~ On motion of Cm. Sbranti, seconded by Vm. Hillenbrand 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 (60 dan du/acre) and Medium (10.1-14 du/acres) in relation to three properties, Croak, J and Chen. i Request to Initiate a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to Modify the Existing Land Designations at 6960 Tassa~ara Read, Commonly Referred to as the Fredrick Proper~C 9:08 pm. 8.2 (410-55/420-SO) Senior Planner Erica Fraser presented-the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would consider a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment Sfixdy request. Cm. Sbranti asked Staff if there was any other property with a neigkiborhood commercial designation once it was taken away from this property. Community Development Director Jeri Ram stated that _there was some Agricultural zoned ]and 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 RESOLUTION NO. 39 - O7 11PPROVII~IG THE INTI7ATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECffIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY TO MODIFY THE EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS TO REDUCE THE DWELLING UNIT DENSITY AND REMOVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATID AT 6960 TASSAJARA ROAD (~IPN 986-0004-002-03) PA 07-004 --~ .DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL NIIl~IiTTES VOLUME 26 REGULAR MEETING. Apri13, 2007 PAGE 133 ~ ~~j2o~ ~~ °~ ~, 9 `~~~1 ~~ ~~ CITY_CLERK Flle # Q~~ ~ i ., AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 16, 2007 SUBJECT: 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 ATTACHMENTS: 1) City Council Staff Report date Apri13, 2007 w/ attachments • 2) City Council Meeting Minutes from April 3,_2007 3) •Table of Built or Approved Projects • 4) Map of Built or Approved Projects RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Receive public testimony; • 3) Deliberate; and 4) Direct Staff to: A} Prepare a General Plan/Eastem 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; or 2) Provide Staff with Alternative direction. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None at this time: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Background The City Council held a Strategic Planning Session on 7anuary 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 COPX TO: Property Owners File " • ~ ITEM NO. _ Page 1 of 10 ' G:1Fsrtan Dublin De+uitylecar 10.(6.07 Fau Dublin Densiry.DOC Attachment 3 V ~s~ ~n~ yards on undeveloped land within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan {EDSP) area that has a 4vledium 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 ovithin 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; ar 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 Apri13, 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 Chea) within the EDSP that have no entitlements beyond Stage 1 development plans as shown in Table 1 below. Table 1- Land without Current Planning Proposals Pro Land Usa Desl nation Density Ran a Acres Croak- SI Fami 0.9-6 dulac 115.4 ac Medium Dens' 6.1'-14 dulac 10.4 ac Jordan Sin le-Enroll 0.9-& dulac 48 ac Medium Dens' 6.1-14 dulac 23.4 ac Medium-Hi h Dens 14.1-25 dulac 19.8 ac Chen Medium-Hi h Dens' 14.1-25 dulacre 6.5 The City Council directed Staff to study a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (GPA/SPA) to create new Medium-Law 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 aMedium-High Density land • use designation (please see Table 1). Therefore, the Chcn property is not included in the analysis contained in this Staff Report. Similarly, the Jordan property includes 21.8-acres of land with aMedium- 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 = ° •• 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 GPA/SPA for Fallon Village on December 6, 2005 (Resolution 223-OS). A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared for the Fallon Village GPA/SPA and certified by the City Council on December 6, 2005 (Resolution 222-OS). 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 du/acre). Please refer to Table 2 below for details regarding the residential densities of property ~ included in this GPA/SPA study. A Fiscal Analysis was also completed to ensure ajobs/housing balance in the EDSP and to ensure that new development paid far itself without relying on the General Fund. Table 2 -Existing Land Use Designations '1lab~ z~v Pro ert Land Use Desi nation Density Ran a Midpoint Densi Acres Dwelling Units Croak Sin le-Famil 0.9-6 du/ac 4 du/ac 115.4 ac 462 units Medium Densi 6.1-14 du/ac 10 du/ac 10.4 ac 104 units Jordan Sin le-Famil 0.9-6 du/ac 4 du/ac 48 ac 192 units Medium Densi 6.1-14 du/ac 10 du/ac 23.4 ac 234 units Medium-Hi h Densi 14.1-25 du/ac 25 du/ac^ 19.8 ac 495 units" Chen Medium-Hi h Densi 14.1-25 du/acre 20 dulac 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 PlanlSpecific 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 tnaximum of 100 units (4 acres X 25 units/acre = 100 units). ANALYSIS: 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 Palicy 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 ~~ ~~ these designations; an analysis of the proposed densities; and maps showing the proposed location for these proposed designations. Proposed General Plan/Eastern 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). Units 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 du/acre) 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. MediumLow Density (6.1-10 du/acre) Small lot detached single family home: Typically with a small usable rear yard area (i.e. rear yard depth of 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. Page 4 of 10 r ~ ~~~ZOZ ^ Duplex: Typically two units built side by side with a shared common wall and a small usable yard area (i.e. rear depth of approximately 10 feet). Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre) Alley loaded single family detached homes ~ ~. .. ,~';a: Typically built with a detached garage that is .~ 41~ separated from the house by a private yard area ~' „.r r. with depth of approximately 10 feet. "'rT,~ ~.,~""°* ^ 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 Apartments/Condominiums*: Typically a 2-3 story stacked product (i.e. units on top of one another) with a small patio or balcony. -~~c~j ~ ~ ~, .i ~s * 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 4 / ~ ~, included in this Staff Report). The Medium Density ~~~,~' s a A~ . - ; ` 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 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 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. 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 jobs/housing 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. go-~2e~ Table 3: Croak Property -Proposed Mediu~Low Density & Medium-Mid Density Units at Impact on Land Use Designation Density Midpoint ~~ Mid-Point Total Units at Range Density Density Midpoint Densi 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 ,~. Page 7 of 10 ~~ MMDF tL7 AC Fallon Village Center Boundary Jordan Ranch 8 i ~j aoz ~ ~?~~ Proposed Land Use Map ~ ~ In order to maintain the transition in intensity of -' - _ - ~, - ~ land uses from the core of the Fallon Village Center ~'~` `~ ti to the less intense single-family uses to the north ~oR ; and east, Staff proposes to locate the new Medium- aR n.e Ac u.7 A~ t ~ ~ ~''~~ ~ Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre) site immediately to ~ ! ' ~ the east of the existing Medium-High Density site - and adjacent to the future Central Parkway. The „~ 5 ~ Proposed proposed Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/acre) ."` ` f - ~ _ _ Medium-Low site would be located to the east of the proposed ~_ .~;~:, A MOP ' Density Medium-Mid Density site to provide a transition _ . .L~ 7 AC - ~ ' ~ from the higher density of the Village Center to the Low Density neighborhoods to the north and east. Proposed Medium-Mid ` ~~~~ Density ~ E~_ ~~.~~ u,. ° aC ~ a~a 1$ I Cd, /Cs~ e ~ ~35A ~~~ ~ • I t~ ~ ~ r:; 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. , Jc 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 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 jobs/housing 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. Page8of10 ~ l a ~z- Table 4: Jordan Ranch -Proposed Medium-Low Density & Medium-Mid Density Units at impact on Land Use Designation Density Midpoint Acres Mid-Point Total U~ts Range Density Density at Midpo nt Densit 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 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 du/acre) adjacent to the existing Medium-High Density land use. The Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/acre) 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. Fallon Village Stage 1 Planned Development The Croak and Jordan properties are all located within the Fallon Village Planned Development (PD) zoning district. A Stage 1 Development Plan (Stage 1 PD) was adopted by the City Council on December 20, 2005 (Ordinance 32-OS). The Stage 1 PD has a number of different elements including a site plan and proposed densities for each property within the PD district. The Stage 1 PD is required to be consistent with the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Therefore, a Stage 1 PD Amendment will be required to ensure consistency with the General Plan and Specific Plan. Staff will prepare a Stage 1 PD Amendment along with the proposed GPA/SPA 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 Apri13, 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 Page9of10 (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 dulacre) .for the existing Medium Density"port~in of the Croak, Jordan and Chen properties in order to encourage an additional variety of housing stock with ~ Z /~ 2 OZ usable yards. Accordingly, Staff, has prepazed a GPA/SPA Study for consideration by the City Council. ''°°((,JJ Since the Chen property has no lands that are designated Medium Density, the Chen property was not included in this GPA/SPA Study. Staff is requesting that the City Council provide Staff with further direction regazding the proposed land use designations for the Croak, Jordan and Chen properties. If the City Council elects to proceed with this GPA/SPA and Stage 1 PD Amendment, Staff will prepaze the appropriate documents for review and consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. RECOMMENDATTON: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Receive public testimony; 3) Deliberate; and 4) Direct Staff to: A) Prepaze 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/Eastem 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; or 2) Provide Staff with Alternative direction. Page 10 of 10 ~ ~~ ~ ~a.n~s og T~ ctTY couxcu~ 0~ T~ CITY 0~ DUBLIN ~6:UL~$ TINE - OCTOB~ 16, .8007 CLOSED SESSION Silent Roll Call: Councihnembers 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 Trivia Cackler); Finishmaster, Inc. (Tom Eastland or Greg • CaWoun); Ultimate Home Solutions (Andrew Hunter or Joe Bolin); Consignment & More (Simin or Hermin LaIefar); Chef s 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 LTTIGATION Government Code section 54956.9, subdivision a. City of Dublin v. Ralph Gil, et al, Alameda Superior Court No. VG05241773. 4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation parsnant to Government Code section 54956.9, subdivision c (one potential case) -Dropped fromAgeRda • DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 26 REGULAR MEETING • October 16, 2007 PAGE 423 Attachment 4 S ~ ~ ~~ 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 Ezisting Medium Density Land Use Designation 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 Amendment 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 amedium- high density land use designation and the Iordan 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 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-. 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 ]tichazd 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 azea 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. Cm. 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 Richazd 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 Z6 REGULAR' MEETING October 16, 3007 PAGE 432 ,~ ~, 'z~ Vm. Hildenbrand responded that is how some developers get around the density requirements; they buildup 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 azea 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 yazd 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 aze in the medium-mid density, the higher end of the medium density range. City Manager Ambmse asked if the 6 - ZO 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 Pian Amendment that accomplishes that. Vm. 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 MIlVUTES VOLUME 26 REGULAR MEETING October 16, 2007 PAGE 433 ~~ ~~~. 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 azeas 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, particulazly 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 properly owners in support. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 26 REGULAR MEETING October 16, 2007 PAGE 434 ~~ ~ r~ 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 Cm. Oravetz voting no, the City Council directed Staff to proceed with preparation of a General P~an/Eastem 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 71 8:35p.m. 8.1 (600-40) Approval of First Amendment to Access and Maintenance Agreement with Tassajara Creek Maintenance Association for Landscape Maintenance of Creek Parcels Owned by the AlamedaCounty Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone ~ 8:35 p.m. 8.2 (600-30) DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 26 REGULAR MEETING October 16, 2007 '~ -t PAGE 435 ~~ ~~~ AGENDA STATEMENT Pi.ANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 27, 2007 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: (Legislative Action) - PA 07-056 Croak and Jordaa Medium Density: General Plan Amendment, Eastem Dublin Specit3c Fian Amendment, and Fallor. 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. Reporf prepared by Jeff Baker, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution recommending the City Council adopt a Resolution approving a General Plan/Eastem Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Y~ I~,,~ , 1 to: 1) change the existing Meditun Density Land Use Designation on 1 v~1N 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 included 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 Ming Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties with the draft Ordinance included as Exhibit A. 3) City Council Staff Report dated Apri13, 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 RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public Bearing; 3) Receive public testimony; 4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; and S) Adopt the following Resolution:.: a. Resolution (Attaclvnent 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 du/acre) and Metiium-Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre) designations; and COPY TO: Property Owners File ITEM NO. Page 1 of 12 , G:1PAN12U07107-056 Croak end Jordan Medium Densily~Planning Commissiun~par 1127.D7 East Dublin Lknsity.DOC Attachment 5 ~® ~~- b. Resolution (Attachment 2) .recommending '~i`~'Crty~~ 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. 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 homes, stacked flats, etc.) with private yards on undeveloped land within the Eastern Dublin Specific Pl:ur (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 Apri13, 2007, City Council meeting (Attachmen: 3 -City Council Staff Report dated April 3, Z007). 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. City Council Direction tin 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 cxpresse~l 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 Tice City Council identified three properties (Croak, Jordan and Chen) within the EDSP that have no entitlements beyond Stage 1 de•~elopment plans as shown in Table 1 below. Table 1-Land without Current Planning Proposals Pro Land Use Deli nation Density Ran a Aeres Croak 5i le-Pamir 0.9-6 du/ac 115.4 ac Medium Dens' 6.1-14 dula.: 10.4 ac Jordan Sin le-Pamir 0.9-6 du/ac 48 ac Medium Densi 6.1-14 dulac 23.4 ac Medium-H' h Dens' 14.1-25 du/~c 19.8 ac Chen Medium-Hi Densi 14.1-25 du/acre 6.5 The City Council directed Staff to study a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (GPA/SPA) 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 1\4edium Density land use designation (6.1-14 dulacre) on the Croak, Jordan and Chen properties. Page 2 of 12 i`j ~o~ 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 P1an~Specific,Plan land use designations for these properties were adopted by the City Council with the GI'A/SPA for Fallon Village on December 6, 2005 (Resolution 223-05). A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared for the Fallon Village GPAlSPA 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 du/acre). 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 jobs/housing balance in the EDSP and to ensure that new development paid for itself without relying on the General Fund. Table 2 -Existing Land Use Designations ^ The Fallon Village SEIR studied development at the maximum density (25 dWacre) 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 haz 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 de ignated as Medium-High Density. The SP site etiiectively reduces the residential development to approximately 4-acr•;s. The SEIR studied development at the midpoint of the density range for the fu116.5-acre parcel allowing up to 13t1 units az shown in Table 2 above. However, the density range on the net 4-acre site permits a maximum of I [ 0 units (4 acres X 25 units/acre = 100 units). Staff reviewed the existing land use patterns for the Croak, Jorda~t, 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 l li, 200'n Staff presented a description of the proposed land use designations and descriptions of potential housing types that coutd be developed within these designations; an analysis of the proposed densities; and maps showing the proposed location . for these proposed designations. Pro a Land Use Des nation Density Ran a Midpoint pens Acres Dwelling Units Croak Sin le-Famil 0.9-8 dWac 4 du/ac .115.4 ac 462 units Medium Densi 6.1-14 du/ac 10 dWac 10.4 ac 104 units Jordan Sin le-Fami 0.9-11 dWac 4 dWac 48 ac 192 units Medium Densi ' 6.1-14 du/ac 10 dWac 23.4 ac 234 units Medium-Hi h Densi 14.1-25 du/ac 25 du/aC` 19.8 ac 495 units" Chen Medium-Hi h Densi 14.1-25 du/acre 20 dWac 6.5' 130 units' ~, Page 3 of 12 Map 1-Existing J[.asd Use Designations ~~.~ z©~- 'The entire residential portion of the Chen property consists of 6.5-acres with aMedium-High Density land use desigtation (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 October 16, 2007. Similarly, the Jordan property includes 21.8-acres of land with aMedium-High Density designation that was not included in the analysis. On October I6, 2007, the City Council reviewed the Staff Report :rod the GPA/SPA Study in order to provide Staff with further direction regarding the proposed land use policies for the Croak and 7ordan properties. The City Council expressed a concern over the 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. On a motion, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a GPA/SPA and Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment to: 1) Create Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre) 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 Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment The proposed General Plan Amendments include the following as described in Exlnbit A to Attachment 1: ^ Definitions for the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid De+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 1: ^ Definitions for the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations ^ Amendments to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Map for the Croak and Jordan properties ^ Amendments to the text and various tables within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan 1) Proposed Land Use Designations Staff has prepared the following definitions for the proposed Maiium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density land use designations which address the direction by the (:ity Council to include private usable yard areas for development within the proposed Medium-Low De:tsity designation: Residential: MediunrLow Density (6.1-10 units per net residential acre). Unifs in this density range will be detached, zero-lot line, duplex, and/or townhouse developments suitable for family living with private flat usable outdoor yar9 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 outdoor yard areas that accommodate Page 4 of 12 ~ ~ ~.oz leisurely activities typically associated with a residence or usable common areas that acwmmo~p(e recreational and leisurely activities. Unit types and densities nay be similar or varied. Asstmmed household size is two persons per unit. . Tn 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 Generai Flan and the EDSP. 2) Defnition 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 overall project site.- The clustering of development can result in exceeding the density for the developable area but remaining within the density range for the overall project site. The following tattle (Table 3) illustrates the density calculation fora 10 acre project site using the gross and the nest acreage of the site. The resulting project would appear much more dense than the same number of units on anon-constrained parcel. Table 3 -Gross vs. Net Density Calculation Example Parcel Slzo Constraints t>QValopable Stts Land Use Desl nation Mid-point Densi Jnits Gros: Density Net Density 10 acres Creek: 3 acres 5 arras Medium Density 10 dolor 1(b units (1C acres x 10 du/ac 20 dulac Streets: 2 acres (6.1-14 dolor) (100 units/70 ac) (100 unitsl5 ac) 10 units At the City Council meeting on October 16, 2007, the City Cowicil directed the use of a net acreage calculation to determine the density of development on land will: the proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density designations. The net acreage calculation excludes public/private streets, pazks, open space, and common areas, as well as geologically and environmentally constrained areas. Therefore, the proposed GPA/SPA includes a requirement to calculate density based on net acreage for the proposed Medium-Low an¢ Medium-Mid Density land use designations on]y: 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 of the site excludingpublic and private streets, parks, open space, common areas, environmental y constrained areas, and areas with slopes that exceed 30'x. Development shall not be clustered on one portion of the project where the development Krould 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 azeas 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 provide either a usable common area or private yatd azea. 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 The proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density land 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 then: 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. 3. General Plax 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 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 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 Squaze that is surrounded by Mixed Use, 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. a. 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. -- 'J" --~ 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 desi~ations. Table 4 Fallon Village (below) shows the density range for the proposed "' Center Iioundai Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density sites on the Croak property. Development at the midpoint ~ •. _ of the proposed density range would result in the 114ap 2-Existing Land Use Designations same number of units (l04 units) that were studied in the Fallon Village SEIR for the existing Medium Density designation (see Table 4) and continue to ensure the existing jobs/housing fiscal balan~:e. 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 6 of l2 ~~ ~ z o2- Table 4: Croak Property -Proposed Medium-Low Density & Medium-Mid Density Units at Impact on Land Usa Deslynatlon Density >Vlldpolnt Acn:s Mid-Point Total UnNs at Range ~~~ Midpoint Density Dins' Medium-Low Densi 6.1-10 dulac 8 dulac 5.2 ac 42 units - Medium-Mid Density 10.1-14 dulac 12 dulac 5.2 ac 62 units - • _ Total 10.4 ac 104 units None Proposed Lancr Use Map In order to nr:rintain the transition in intensity of land uses from the core of the Fallon Village Center to the less intense single-family rues 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 to the future Central Pazkway. -The proposed Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/acre) 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. Map 3 -Proposed Land Use Designations (Creak 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. Pro osed Densi Y ~ •~ ;~ : ;~ ~' P 13' ~ .~t~ir~. . The Medium Density site on the Jordan property ~ •~•a!~,ti< ~, would be divided into two 11.7-acre sites designated Medium-Low Density and Medium- Mid Density. Table S (below) shows the density ~ Fallon Village range for the proposed Medium-Low and Center Bouridaz oueu o ~~o Medium-Mid Density sites on the Jordan property. Like the Croak property, development at the midpoint of the proposed density range Dap 4 -Existing Land Use Designations would result in the same number of units (234 units) that were studied in fire Fallon Village SEIR for the existing Medium Density designation (see Table 5) and continue to ensure the existing jobs/housir~g fiscal balance. These units would Page 7 of 12 ~~ ~p ~° simply be redistributed across the proposed Medium-I.ow Density and Medium-Mid Density designations and no addition~d environmental review would M: required. - Table 5: Jordan Ranch -Proposed Medium-Low Density & Medium=Mid Density Impact on Land Use Destgnatlon Denclty Rangs MidFoint Density Acres Units at Mid-Point Total Units ~ Midpoint Density Dens Medium-Low Density 6.1-t0 dulac 8 du/ac 11.7 a.: 94 units - Medium-Mid Density 1D.1-14 dulac 12 dulac -11.7 ac 140 units - Total 23.4 ac 234 un'tls None Proposed '-'" Medium-Mid nipic Density ;,• ~ e.v ¢ ~~ 1.4,: ' 475 ~C Proposed Medium-Mid Density . Fallon Vitlage Center Boundary Map 5 -Proposed Land Use Designations (Jordan Property) Proposed Land Lse Map In order to mainGun 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 (10.1-14 du/acre) adjacent to the exisfing Medium-High Density land use. The Medium-Low De ssity (6.1-10 du/acre) 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 N.:edium-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. General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments The proposed amendments to the General Plan and EDSP 1) define t}ie 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 tables 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 amendment as discussed below. Fallon Village Stage 1 Development Plan The Croak and Jordan properties are located within the Fallon Village Planned Development (PD) zoning district (PA 04-040). The PD zoning with Stage 1 Development Plan were adopted by the City Council on December 20, 2005 (Ordinance 32-OS). 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 tieneral Plan and EDSP policies. 1t 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 I Development Plan include a revised Stage 1 Site Plan for the riew land use categories, a modified list of permitted uses, and revised development standards for the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land ases as described in Exhibit A of Attachment 2. Page 8 of 12 ~~ ~~ Usable Private Yard Requirement ~ `~ The proposed General Plan Amendment includes a requirement :o provide private usable yards for development within the Medium-[.ow Density designation. Sinvlarly, 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 I. ' 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 azeas or usable private yams 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 common 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-].ow 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-Lew and Medium-Mid Density ^ Comman area requirements and usable yard requirements for ]vleditmm-Mid Density Detached Units with Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density Desittrt:ttions The existing Stage 1. Development Plan includes a matrix with development standazds, including usable yazd 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 modiFed to include the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations. The standards included in Table: 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, ratite a - rrtvace rata Kequrrements -Medium-Low & Medium-M id Density Detached Units Lot Sae 1,800+ s.f, 2,500+ s.f. ' 250 s.f. 300 s.f. Yard area may be provided in Yard area may be provided in more than one location w!n tt bt more than one location wtin a lot Private Yard Minimum Area Per Min. rear yard area: 170 s:f. Min. rear yard area: 170 s.f. Unit` Min. cou rd area BO s.f. Min. cou b area 80 s.f. Private Yard Minimum Dimension' 8' 8~ 'These are existing standazds For the Low and Medium Density Land Use Designations . Attached Units with Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density Desienations The development standards provide minimum usable yard requirements for attached housing (i.e, mw- home, etc.} within the Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Den:;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 pn~viding private usable yard areas as described in Table 7 or common areas as described in Table 8 '~elow. The proposed development standards, as described in Exhibit A to Attachment 2, will ensure th~.t all residential development on land designated Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density is consistent with the General Plan policies regazding usable yards. Page 9 of 12 ~~: r ;.aE.~ "".$wr^" a ~ ;; Table 7 -Private Yard Requirements -Medium-Low & Medium-Mid Density Attached I n~i is Private Yard Minimum Area Per Unit . i5D s.f. Private Yard Minimum Dimension 8~ Common Area Requirements for Medium-Mid Density The Medium-Mid Density will allow a vanety of product types whic.l include attached and detached units that could include either. private yards or common areas based on the product design. Therefore, the proposed Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment includes minimum requirements for both private yards as described in Table 7 above and common azeas as descnbed in Table 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-Mitt Density Attached Units Common Area Minimum Area Per Unit 150 s.f. The proposed amendments to the Stage 1 Development Plan include 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 Me,iium-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 the: EDSP area that da not have vested development rights, notifying them of the City Council Meeting o:r April 3, 2007 and the meeting on October 16, 2007. Staff also contacted representatives of the Croak, :iordan and Chen properties to discuss the direction from the City Council at the April 3'~ and October 16`t meetings. In accordance with State law, a public notice regarding the hearing on November 27, 2007, was 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, tlse 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-OS certifying a' Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH #2005062010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR, a program EIIt, initially certified by the City of Dublin in 1993 (SCH#91103064) and the Eastern Dublin Property Owners SEIR (SCH # 2001052114} certified in 2002 by Resolution 40-02 for the Fallon Village project. The prior EIlts aze 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 inc;revsed 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 10 of 12 ~°t~ 2°~ ~- use designations including Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density (16.1-14i du/acre) for the existing Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties and to amend the existing Stage 1 Development PIan 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 Hearirg 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 hledium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/acre) 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 Cn~ak and Jordan properties. Page 11 of 12 t~,~~a~: GENERAL INFORMATION: ~_ , - APPLICANT': t City of Dublin PROPERTY OWNERS: Francis Croak 1262 Gabriel Court San Leandro, CA 94;i77 Tony Varni Vami, Fraiser, Hatt~'ell & Rodgers 650 A Street Hayward, CA 94543 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002 APN 985-0027-007 LOCATION: , EXISTING ZONING: PD -Medium Density Residential EXISTING GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC ONS Medium Density Residential (6.1-14 du/acre) : PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATI ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project has burr reviewed under the California State CEQA t (CEQA) A li , c ty Environmental Qua Guidelines and the Dublin Environmental Guidelines. On December 6, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2:?Z-OS certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIIt) (SCH #2005062010} to the Eastern Dublin ElR, a progiam EIR, initially certified by the City of .Dublin in 1993 (SCH#91103064) and the Eastern Dublin Property Owners SEIR (SCH # 2001052114) certified in 2002 by Resolution 40-02 far the Fallon Village. project. The prior EIRs are avai.able for review in the Community Development Department. The proposed project is within the scope of the SEIR for the Fallon Village project area becau:.e 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. Page 12 of 12 ~o~ ~Q~.. Planning Commission 1Vlinutes 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 LeQair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cin. 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 (I'A 0040) and the Stage 2 Development Plan for Positano (I'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 similaz 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 aze capped with concrete or stone, not foam 4'lanaing ('mnmistti+rs 128 ~ NavemfierZ7, :OQ7 ~R;grrGr'4tcdti~,g Attachment 6 tc~~' --. • RESOLUTION N0.07 - 60 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 FALCON VILLAGE (PA 04-040) AND THE STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR POSITANO (PA OS-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 azeas specifically which are usable yazds 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 Vazgas 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 squaze feet, then deduct 250 square feet for a yazd, then 5 ft off both sides for the length of the yard and then there must be a driveway and some kind of front yazd set back that leaves a very small house footprint. He thought the footprint would be less than 1200 squaze feet. Q'laaning C'ammirsir*.: 132 Nmcmbcr~i, POUF ~jCqu(as?K.aYiag ~ ~ ~ Mr. Baker continued with the Staff Report. 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 stated that the diagrams the Commission was referring to aze 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 L 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 aze required aze 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 unbuiIdable. Cm. Tomlinson agreed with Cliair Schaub that the yards would be unusable. He felt the yards were not practical and the drawings showed odd shaped yazds. He stated that most people don t use their yazds 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 aze 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 r,,;,,;T„um standazd 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 yazd azea and sti1I achieve the lot density. Chair Schaub stated that they were discussing a minimum Iot 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 atrade-off to have the yazds with no required minimum lot size or have a larger squaze 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 yazd concept, where the goal is to provide recreational activities for children, etc. He felt that the proposed yazds aze as useless as the current situation. He felt that to solve the problem there should be common azeas, open space and pazk areas within a development instead and that would be a usable area for children. WCannirrg (:ammirsiua 133 T•i>re:nGcrZF, 3007 ~~yuG:r!#irarting a~ Cm. Biddle stated that this is an existing standazd for Medium Mid Density as a part ~ 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 30'0. 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 aze 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 aze 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 aze 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 Pazks project. Chair Schaub opened the Public Hearing. Q':artning GOmnnsrum 134 ~ JYm.~em5erZ7, 20Ui 9Zfgvlar:Mecting ~ ~ 2oz Pat Goak, Property Owner, 4617 James Ave., Castro Valley, CA., spoke on behalf of th~Croak property. He was concemed about how this proposal will affect his property and his ability to develop the land as he had originally planned. Chair Schaub asked Ivlr. Goak 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 Goak property in Table 2 in the Staff Report and that was the number he would be allowed to build regazdless of the outcome of this item Iv1r. Goak 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. Goak 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. Goak answered yes. Chair Schaub suggested that this is one way of looking at the land that was given up. Mr. Baker stated that the IIR for Fallon Village studied 573 units on the Croak Property. The public/ semi-public requirement is a designation of 2 acres somewhere on the Goak property. _ He stated that the public/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 aze 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 aze 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. IVIr. Goak stated that the public/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 . azea. 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 public/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 gazage and a usable yardR the footprint of the house would be so small that the developer would have tq build up. ;Ywrrnirrg (;ammisaiaa 135 _rvin:embrr2F, ~OUi ~gyrrfar?Kcetrrg ~~U ~~~~~ Ms. Wilson suggested looking at the table in the attached Ordinance on page Ei of 10 which shows that all the criteria akeady 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 reaz yazd setbacks, including usable yazds. She continued that when a developer submits for a Stage 2 SDR they must meet the current existing standazds 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 sma111ots/court homes designations with two new land use designatons. So the standazds already exist but aze just further defined by the new Land use categories. Chair Schaub suggested looking at the faz right column on the table which is labeled "Medium- Low, Medium-Mid and Medium Density Single Family Detached Small Lots/Court Home'. He was concerned about what the footprint would be of a house on an 1800 squaze foot lot. Ms. Wilson answered that it would be based on the development standazds on the table that had been discussed. She stated that Staff does not know the particulaz design of the products that will be submitted, however, all of the development standazds were approved and proposed to the City by Braddock and Logan'who led the proposal for alI the property owners for the entire Fallon Village azea. She continued that based on standazds of development all of these development standards are required to be met and can be met for .these particulaz developments. Chair Schaub suggested that the City has added 250 square feet to those standards. Ms. Wilson answered that they had not added 250 squaze feet but that the standard akeady 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 DU/acre but that the standazds also apply to the medium-low, 6.1 to 10 DU/acres 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 akeady existed in the Stage 1 PD for the entire Fallon Village azea, 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. 4'foanvtg (:nmmrsrian 136 ?~~m'zm6rr?7, 20Ui ~R~yuLrs:Meetrng ~ ~ ~ ~ zoo 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 down 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 teen "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 Iow 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 azea, wetland habitat, etc. Those azeas were not designated by the General Plan as open space which would have been taken out of the pazcel. Then going back to the Fallon Village area the net vs. gross may not have a significant consequence since, azeas such as the creek area aze designated as Open Space and is currently on the General Plan Map designated as Open Space and therefore not a part of a developable pazcel. Mr. Croak stated he was toncerned about topography on his property and if he looses units with the net profess in the medium density categories -would he be allowed to absorb the units. into the low density area where they aze 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 azea. 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 vazious restric#ions. +Yfunnirt~ Connisrinr. 137 ;+fm:amher2T, 3UUF 2l~gitLm ~feexing Ms. Wilson stated that there is the potential for that to happen. She stated that typically the EIR's aze 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 aze 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 similaz 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 cari at any time make other changes but have not given that direction but they could ask to see net density used for all Iand use designation Chair Schaub thought it was less of a problem in low density but where it gets harder is on the lazger 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 taITcing 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 faz 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. ~ ,. sY(artnin ~nmmicriurr 138 ?4imtrabcr2%~OIJS ~`~sfas!MIa~Ming lG~- ~ ~pz 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 mazket 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 sepazately. 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 Vazgas, Tipper, Frederick and Moller. Ms. Wilson stated that Moller, Frederick, Vazgas 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 "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. Crim. King asked if the recommendation is legislative and requires findings. Ms. Wilson stated yes that the policy must find external consistency within documents. 4'lanrtirrg Commissum 139 i'1 ~~r~embrrl F, .(7Ui Rr(~4~t/.`4Lra7trtg . ~. ~~ Cm. King asked how the directive from the City Council came about and how density bec~tr-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 smaIler 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 aze trying to build a product with a yazd 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. Ctn. 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 Covncil 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 forwazd 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 yazds in that azea 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 lazge lots available in the City. He stated that those young people want a home similaz 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 down t help plan the City. He stated that the rY(nnnnri(Gommvsitm 140 Navem6cr27, 3(rD9 rR~gefar!4fecti>ag i ~ fj 20~ ,_. ~-, Commission down t really know what the need is and therefore cannot plan anything past the last General Plan update. Iv1s. 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 azea 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 Tassajaza Road all have yazds. 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 aze reducing the flexibility on half of the pazcel 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 aze now used as permanent housing and aze lazget with more amenities, etc. He said that interior squaze footage is what people look for in a home, the yazd 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 lazger now and the developer wants to provide as Iazge a home as possible which means smaller yazds 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 squaze foot house on the lot or a 6,000 square foot house and he continued that if the Council wants to provide larger yazds, the issue is not density or units per acre but the discussion should be about FAR's, setbacks, and Iot 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 mazkets 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 concemed 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. 2'(annirrd (,'ommirsiaa 141 ~nem6er?7, 2007 T~gu(ar 3ienrag ~ ~2~ ~~~ ~1 ~~ Cm. Biddle agreed with Cm. Tomlinson that the potential will change the flexibility o~ protects 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 regazding a usable yazd 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 pazks close by that would serve as a place to congregate as well as a play azea. Chair Schaub agreed that more common areas for this density would be preferable as opposed to requiring the individua1250 square foot private usable Yazd. 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 X3-07 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 squaze footage information as well. 1vls. 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 comrriunity 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 regazding 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. iyis. 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. rt'(anning ('ammicsian l42 Nm,embcr Zi, 3U11% ~gg~efar 54feeNng 1I'~ ~j 2D 2 ,. 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 squaze feet of yard azea would not change. the conversation about density. Ivls. 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 aze 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 Councihnember C7avetz 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 mazket 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 aze 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 Iive in Dublin. Chair Schaub stated that the discussion regazding 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 squaze. 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. ~PfanrzuiE C'ommirsiim I43 Nncrrsficrl7, 3(N1i Rrgnlar!tir.C.ing ~~~ , Cm. Biddle stated that he thought that the comment referred to new homes only in one area of the City and didri t refer to planning the whole city. Cm. King stated that there may be, as the Chair thought, plenty of housing inventory in the ~~ 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. lvls. 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 aze 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 Plarming 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 yazds 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 aze a variety of product types that already exist as noted in the table in the Staff Report that aze already built and sold. 5) The Commission fel# 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 yazds. 6) The Commission felt that if they really believe there is a shortfall in a certain mazket then we need facts (formal study) to help them understand the total inventory that is available to buy. 4'lnnn{np (,'ammissimc 144 Tix~rm.6cr?7, 30UF RgFIuLT'' ~;utiag ~ !~ Zo Ms. Wilson asked if there was anything else that the Commission would like to articulate to't'he City Council. She askedthe 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 Comnssion 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 ~YCanning ('ommirrinn 145 .rM1'in:embc7Z ; 3~Ui sq}BrrGu~!4fexting ~lU, Zoe NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Cm. Tomlinson wanted to complement the scan and the Commission on the Lowes project. He felt that it turned out fantastic and it was a great job. Ivls. 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. ADTOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bill Schaub Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Mary Jo Wilson, AICP Planning Manager G: ~MlN VfES ~2007~ Plmrnirrg Cmmnission ~77.27.07.dac • 146 m~m:e~rbrrzr, soup tYlanniny (;ann:icainn 2teynLsr!4icr.7ing ii7c~ aaz. RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 61 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CObIIYIISSION 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-OOOZ-0Ol; AND 945-0002-002) 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 aze generally located north of the future Central Parkway exteasion ani east of Croak Road and within the 1,134-acre Fallon Village project area (APN 985-0027-007, 905-000:2-001, AND 905-0002-002); and WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan was originally adoptecl on February 11, 1985, and has been amended a number of times since that date; and WHEREAS, the Envirorunental Impact Report for the original General Plan was prepazed and adopted in 1984 and subsequent environmental reviews have beers 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 Gepcral P:.an Amendment and Specific Plan on January 7, 1994, both plans have been amended a number of Ames 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 EIIt was integral to the planning process and examined the direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts, broad policy alternatives and azea-wide mitigation measures for development within eastern Dublin; and WHEREAS, the East Dublin Property Owners (EDPO), requested annexation and prezoning of the EDPO.Annexation Area, which includes the Croak and Jordan properties, .into the City of Dublin. Tn connection with the annexation and prezoning request the City Council 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 project approval, the City Council adopted supplemental mitigation measures, mitigation findings, a statement 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 includes the Croak and ]ordan properties on December 6, 2005 by Resolution 223-OS that is available for review in the Planning Division and incorporated herein by reference; and AttaC~BIIt 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a. WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 222-OS certifying a Supplemental Enviromnental Impact Report (SE1R) (SCH #2005062010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Supplemental EIR for the Eastern. Dublin Property Owners (EDPO) which is available for review in the Community Development Department and is herein incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, the General Plan cuaently identifies land use designations, densities, policies related to density calculations, and the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure i-la) that shows the location of land 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 Map" map (Figure 4.1) that shows the location of land uses within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; ar..d WHEREAS, the City Council discussed the Medium Density land use designation and on April 3, 2007, and October 16, 2007, authorized a General Plan Amendme~rt and Eastern Dublin Specifc 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 l~md 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 WIiEREAS, 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 (`Tlanning Commission') held a public hearing on said project on November 27, 2007; and '~Vf~REAS, a Staff Report was subavtted, 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 heaz and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth, including prior EIRs, and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project WHEREAS, the Planning Cammission recommended tha: the City Council not ap}~rove 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 regazding density calculations using net rather than gross acreage calculations; 3) cun-ent 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 regazding to :coverage, setbacks and design. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and coaect and made a part of this resolution. I k~ 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 Exlu'bit A, which Resolution approves a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendment for the existing Medium Density portion of the Croak and Iordan 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) Definition 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 1-1 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 27'~ day of N~ivember 2007 by the following vote: AYES: Schaub, Wehrenberg, Tomlinson, Biddle and king NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: --=--~6L=".'' _ QCs ' ~--~. Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: P arming a G:IPAfllI007107-056 Croak andJoidmi ~tlediwn DensirylP7anning CommiuenniPCRera GPA EQTPA DaiaLDOC 3 ~'~ RESOLUTION NO. XX - 07 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT A1VI1 EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FC1R THE MEDIUM DENSITY .. PORTION OF THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES TO NEW MEDIUM-LOW DENSITY AND MEDIUM-MID DENSITY DESIGNATIONS (APN 985-0027-D07, 905-0002-001, ANI) 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 Creak and Jordan properties which are generally located north of the future Central Parkway extension anti east of Croak Road and within the 1,134acre Fallon Village project an:a (APN 985-0027-007, 9D5-000:'.-OOI, AND 905-0002-002); and WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan was originally adopter. 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 end 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 bf times since that date, to provide a comprehensive planning tTamework for future development of the eastern Dublin area. In connection with this approval, the City certified a Program Environmental Imp<<ct Report ("Program EIR' pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 151b8 (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, bc~~ad policy alternatives and area-wide mitigation measures for development within eastern Dublin; and WHEREAS, the East Dublin Property Owners (EDPO), 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 C~~uncil certified a Supplemental EIR (SGH No. 2001052114) by Resolution 40-02 that is available for review in the Planning Division and is incorporated herein by reference. Gt connection with the 2002 projet:t approval, the City Council adapted supplemental mitigation measures, mitigation findings, a statement of overriding consideration and a mitigation monitoring program. All adopted supplemental mitigatictin 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 loidan properties, on December b, 2005 by Resolution 223-OS which is available for revie•v in the Planning Division; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 222-OS certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH #200506:?010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR and Exhibit A I2L ~° the Supplemental E[R for the Eastern Dublin Property Owners which is available for review in the Community Development Department and is herein incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, the General Plan can-ently identifies •land use designations, densities, policies related to density calculations, and the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure l-la) that shows the location of land 'uses within the City of Dublin and the Sphere of Influence; and WHEREAS, the Larsd Use section of the Eastern Dublin ~~pecific Plan currently includes text related to Specific Plan Land Use Designations, and the "Land Use T`tap" reap (Figure 4.l) that shows the location of land uses within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and • ~ WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEC~A), together with the State CEQA Guidelines requirathat certain projects be reviewed for environmenal impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and . WHEREAS, the proposed project is within the. scope of tt:e Fallon Village SEIR because the project does not result in an increased number of units or density be~•ond 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, 20D7; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated November 27, 2007, 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 Amendrr.ent; and WHEREAS, on November 27, 2007, the Planning Com•ission 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 anel 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 apporlunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council 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 project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are tme and correct and. made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby approve the following amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan b:used 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 acrd that the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent. 2 ~~~ ~ca~ Section 1. .Genera! Plan Amendmenu. Subsection i. Replace the first paragraph a8e~ the section heading "Density Measurements" in Section 1.8.1 (Land Use Classifications) with the following: "Residential densities aze 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 fallowing 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 acre based upon net acreage that is ~:alculate:d as follows: . Residential densities shall be calculated based on the total developable area of the site excluding public and private streets, barks, 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 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 ilt.Add the fallowing 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-!a)*" after "Residential" Single-Family°: Residential: 4ledlum-Low Density (6. L-10 wits 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;i associated with a residence . Unit types and densities may be similar or varie,i. Assumed household size is two persons per wait Residential: Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 traits net residential acre). This density range allows detached, zero-tat line, duplex townhouse, and/or garden apartment developments suitahle for family living with private flat usable outdoor yard azeas 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 siinilaz or varied. Assumed household size is two persons per unit" ,Z~~ ~. r) Subsection iv.Replari; Figure l-la; Uencrsl Plan C.m)d l!sc ~1ap with the re~~is~l Gencr.(1 Plan Ladd l'se ti1ap, updated [1vough December a 1, ZUt)7 helo~~'. F~' D U fi 1. 1 Y C, G M F. K .~ 1_ t. .a N I~igurc 1-lu ~ •`. •. Aa iun.•nded through D~i~mbcr 3 [. ?0(17 r __ ~y.~ r 1 ~t s~. ~~.s~i~~Fr~iy,: ~[ [ 1 e, ,.,a1,. ~,.... .. 't,~. ..T~jl $. ~ E M~, ~~, '!T'f "~>:12;fC.•~.~t ~~[L (i•.n.91:YL. W.'tU~ fa .ye'3..( P_~,1>~htA l+(Irt ~_~_ ..-.. .~ ins ..v,. •. ~• , .J _ _ .,..,.. .. $$ wr -. ~ r i rn Ydiryh.ra6:uas - (t/ .[ . .- , ' $uhsection ~•. Replace Table 3.1 (Lang Lisc Summary: Eastern Dublin Cien~rrl Plan Amendment Ar~:f) «•ith the follim~im~ revis(~d Table 2.1: LAnU I.SE Sl:ktVAR1': EASiER1y DU[3LI\ (iF.\F.R,\l.l'L~1N A\IENf)Sdfi\'f:\RE 1 (:lnmudal: Rr.-w,tn(ian 223_c)~. iR-u ~. xx-u71 Clnssific:uian .\cr~ Intcnsin~• l!nirs fitClnr Yi¢IJ _RESID6N'1'IAI. ~ Du'. ucrr [)u'a Pcrs•ms du Pnpulatian Ili~~b prncir: b(r.9 35 ?.347 3.U -l.ril-1 ~'Tc~fi,nn•l li_h Uasiry _ f 2i,1 3q 3.jr1R ? q ~.UI G 1:ictiiunrlha.ity 531.3 )p ;,}13 ~?d Iif.(,3ti Valium-~Ii~Lh`n.i(~>'" IG') 1'_ :(i:' 'b 3q6 ~htlium-Lau Ucu;irv`s" Ih,9 g 135 '_.Il ?ifP Sinxlr Pumif} _ ~G+.B 3 l.~i?;) I .i.? I 1 I,b'~ _ Rw:i! R~sidrntial : Ul.i I p - ,;., ~ ~, 1'()7.x1. ?a3.S 14,) b9 . 2,4'i i ' COt;I~'1F.RCL\l. Act(.' Flxr:\re:, R:uia (Gns>i Squm'c Fcer Unillianx) I Syuan: E~-er , kmpla)~ti I labs C,Ln~7:dfntnmtreial 34'9 .35•'5 3.23X ~ 51 (, ,r`'yft la~;~~- sss- Grneral Commercial/Cam Offiee 72.7 .28 .687 385 490 2,303 171 Mixed Use 5.4 575 .3/1.0 357 30 083 .619 490 I,b71 Neighborhood Commercial 16936 . . 75/ 35 3.OSZ 260 11,739 Ca us Office r 114.7 . . .251.28 L329 590 2,253 Industrial Park'r.r 788.6 9.615 26,427 TOTAL PARKS AND PUBLIC RECREATION Ciry Perk 56.3 I park Community Park 97.0 ~ 2 perks Neighbuthoal Park 47.1 B parks Neighborhood Square 16.6 6 parks Regional Park 11.7 I park 226.7 I B parks TOTAL: OPEN SPACE M9'6 PUBLIGSEMf-PUBLIC Publid5emi-Public 101 .25 1.120 590 1,899 Semi Public 13.1 .25 Schools Elemrntnry School 632 S schools Junior High School 252 1 school Hi h School 0 0 school School Subtotal 68.4 6 schools TOTAL: 202'5 TRANSIT CENTER (Total) 90.7 - Cam us Office includin ancille retail) 38.3 - Fii h-Densit Residential 315 - Park 12.2 - Publid5emi-Public Transit-Related 6.7 GRAND TOTAL 4.295.9 Table Z.1 appears as Table " 2A" in the Fasten Dublin GPA. It was relabeled herein for formatting purposes. "Numbers represent amid-range considernl reasonable given the permitted densiq range. ~~'Numbers represcn[ a mid-range but may vary because density based on net devcl ~pable acroage calculation. ~~"The Sq FVEmployees figure utilized for General CommerciaVCampus Office is the average of the figure used for General Commercial and Campus.Office uses. +*'•For the purpose of this table, Mixed Ure acreage only will be considered Commercial, not residential, to avoid duplication in tabulation of overall total acres. •++++The .28 FAR figure utilized for industrial Pazk refers to industrial Park art:as within Fallon Village. ' rrrrrr•l•he locations oFSemi-Public. sites on the lordan, Croak and Chen propertirt of Fallon Village wilt be determined at the time of PD-2 approval. The site on Jordan will be 2.0 net acres within the Village C:enler, the site on Croak, Z.0 net acres: and the site on Chen, 2.5 oat 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 Has changed to Semi-Public and 2.5 acres mf Medium High Density residential land on Chen was changed to Semi-Public. Tl.ese assumptions may change at the time of PD-2 approval. Subsection vi. Revise "Implementing Policy C" under Section 2.1.3 (Residential Compatibility) as follows: Require a planned development zoning process for all development proposals over 6.0 units per gross residential acre. Section [I. Eastern Dublin Speclftc Plan Amendment. ~~~ ,. Subsection i. Revise the first sentence of the first paragraph of Section 3.3.3 (Land Use Categories} to read as follows: "The Residential land uses category has seven ~:lassifications: High Density (HDR), Medium-High Density (MHDR), Medium De:tsity (MDR), Medium-Mid Density (MMDR), Medium-Low Density (MLDR); Single-Famiiy (SF), and Rural Residential/A~iculture (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 PL.LN LAND USE SUMMARY (Amended Per ReeoluHon No. 66-03, 47-04, 22}-05, 58-07, n[-07) Land Use Deseri lion LAND AREA . DENS[Tl' YIELD COMMERCIAUIN DUSTRIAL General Commercial 356.8 acres .25-.3:~ FAR 4.122 MSF General CommerciallCampus Office 72.7 acres .28 I'AR .887 MSF Industrial Park• 61.3 acres .25-.Zf~ FAR .747 MSF Nei hborhood Commercial 61.4 acres .3Q-.3:~ FAR .&71 MSF Mixed Use 6.4 acres .30-1.(~ FAR .Oli3 MSF Cam us Office ~ 192.66 acres .35-.7:~ FAR 3.730 MSF Subtotal 7513 acres ID.44 MSF RESIDENTIAL Hi h Densit 68.2 acres 35 d~/ac 2,387 du Medium Hi h Densit 1375 acres 20 d~/ac 2,7?0 du Medium Densit 464.5 acres 10 d~/ac 4,845 du Medium-Mid Densit 16.9 acres 12 du/dc 203 du Medium-Low Densi 16.9 acres 8 dit/ac 135 du Sin le Famil 872.6 acres 4 du/ac 3,490 du Rural Residential/A ric. 697.4 acres .Ol du/ac 7du Mixed USe 6.4 acres•• ISdu/ac 96 du Subtotal 2,300 acres 13,913 du PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC Public/Semi=Public 982 acres .241~AR 1.027 MSF Semi-Public 9.3 acres .25 I~AR Subtotal 107.5 acres 1.D27 MSF SCHOOLS Elements School 665 acres S schools unior Hi h School 21.3 acres 1 school Subtotal 87.8 acres i~t~ ~ Boa PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Ci Park 56.3 acres 1. ark Communi Park 97.0 acres 3 arks Nei hborhood Park 49.0 acres 7 arks Nei boyhood S ware 16.7 acres 6 arks Subtotal 219 aces 17 arks O n S ace 6075 acres TOTAL LAND AREA 4,073.5 acres "The .26 FAP. Eor industrial Parl: refers to the Industrial Park areas in Fallon village. '"The b.4 acres is the same acreage as listed in the Mixed Use cells. The 6.4 acres under Residential is not included in the sum of Residential uses in this table. 83,635 square `eel 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 tii.Replace 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 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY - (lunended Per Rewlutiun No, 97.09, 273-05, xz-07) Land Use Desi ation Devela ment S Ft/Em to ees Persons/du Po uiation Cwntnercial 266 1 lndustrial Park ?47 MSF 590 ~ , 303 2 Genera! ..i87 MSF 365 , CommerciaUCampus Office' General Commercial 4122 MSF 510 8,082 Nei hborhood Commercial .385 MSF 490 1,806 Mixed Use" !)83 MSF 49D 171 Cam us Office 3.730 MSF 260 14,346 Public/Semi Public 1.027 MSF 590 1,740 Semi-Public X90 ' 29,714 TOTAL: 17.481 MSP Residtritiaf Z 0 4,774 Hi h Densi 2,387 . 0 2 5,500 Medium Hi h Densi 2,750 . Medium Densi 4,845 2.0 .9,690 Medium-Mid Densi 2D3. 2'D 406 Medium-Low Densi 135 2.0 270 Sin le Famil 3,490 3.2 11,169 Mixed Use" 96 2.U 192 Rural Residential/A ic. 4 3.Z ~ TOTAL: ~ 13,913 32,023 Updated 12R~7 ~~~~ -, "'['he Sq Ft/Employees figure utilized for General CommerciaUCaml~us Office is the average of the figures used for General, Commercial and Campus.Office uses, '•[nc[udes Mixed Use units (6.4 acres and 96 du) within Fallon Viilage Center.83,635 square feet of commercial and 96 units are anticipated on the mixed use sites (rota!). The FAR for Mixed Use is the maximum area foc all developrr.ent (i.e. total of residential and commercial) on designated sties. Subsection iv. Add the following residential land use designations 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 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. 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. Assumed household size is two persons per unit.^ Subsection v. Replace Table 4.9 (Fallon Village Center Subt~rea Development Potential) with the following revised Table 4.9: TABLE 4.9 FALCON VILLAGE CENTER SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTEi`1TIAL tAmmded Per Resolution No. xt-07) Desi nation Acres Densi Develo ment Potential Mixed Use 6.4 .30 FAR 83,635 sf, Commercial Subtotal 6.4 20 du/ac 83,635 sf Mixed Use -Residential Units' I5 du/ac 96 du Medium-Low Densi 16.9 8 du/ac 135 du Medium-Mid Densi 16.9 12 du/ac 203 du Medium lii h Residential 23.8 20 du/ac 542 du Residential Subtotal 64 _ 976 du Nei hborhood Park 2.7 _ -- Communi Park 18.3 - _ O en S ace 3.6 _ _ Park/Open Space Subtotal 24.6 - 1 community park 1 nei hborhood s uaze Semi- ublie 4.5 _ _ Total 93.1 - 83,365 sf commercial 1,000 du 1 community pazk 1 nei borhood s uaze ~ ~ ~~ ~ Subsection vi. Rz{dace Figure ~.1 (Land Use htap) with the rc~'iscd Figure -l.l (L:u~tl Llsa tap) up~latzd duuugh Dueember _~ 1. ?U07 belote. i land Use hlap ::~~ Parks Reserve Farces Training Area ~'}=,?~ ~.~~' ~, '- - (Camp Parks; _ :~.;, '~, ; yrr• •~~ i~. .~? .. '_ . ~ "fir` .•: ~. ~x• .a..' .! ~.Y Subsection ~•ii. Rey isc ['sllon ~'illag~ Center lurrtion of r'~pPendi~ ? (F.astem Dublin Sp~~:itic Ptah LiL1LL I+SC Juuurru~y us , ....,...,. Planning Subareas Land Use Cate o ~ .....~...__.- Area I Densi 5 ware Feet Units Fallon Vilta a Center Ntiecd Usa 6.4 1~ duiac, .34 FAK R.i,63a `)l, 4lydium-I-lit;h Density ~esidenHal 32.8 2~ '~7 -~ hl~~lium-~1i~iDensih FLe>idential 16 i1 f2 , 2t1,; Medium-Lo~ti• Density lesidentia( 1C~9 i S 13, _. Semi-Public' ~•5 Nei~~hburlwod S;luare '•! Community Park 18.3 O en S ace ;•6 - ' Total 93.1 I 976 83,635 9 lz.~i ~j ~ o Z Subsection viu. Replace the information for #201ordan and #30 Croak in Appendix 4 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary by Land Owners) with the following: Owner/Land Use Cate o Aces Densi S ware Feet Units ll20 JORDAN Mixed Use 6.4 15 / .30 83,635 96 Medium EIi Densi Residential 19.8 20 542 Medium-Mid Densi 11.7 12 140 Medium-Low Densi ~ 11.7 8 94 Sin le Famil Residential 48.0 4 192 Elementar School 10.0 Nei hborhood Park 5.8 • Nei hborhood ware 2.7 Communi Park 11.1 Semi-Public* 2.0 n S ace 60S Total 189.7 83,635 .1,064 Owner/Land Use Cate o Acres Densi S ware Feet Units A30 CROAK Medium-Mid Densi 5.2 12 62 Medium-Low Densi 5.2 8 42 Sin le Famil Residential 115.4 4 469 Rural Residential/A ricultural 19.4 Nei hborhood Park 11.5 Semi-Public" 2.0 n S ace 6.8 Total 165.5 573 Section III. All provisions of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan not amended by this resolution shat! remain in full force and effect. BE [T FURTHER RESOLVED that the proposed map and text amendments to the General Plan and, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are. consistent with all other goats, policies and implementing programs set forth in the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment shall be effective 30 days after the date of approval. 10 i ,~ ;~ ~Da PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor G~ YAKS?OOT•DT-056 Crcuk and Jordan Malium Uemity!City Coonci4CC Rosa GPA SPk.DOC ~ ~~l j ~ RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 62 A RESOLt1TiON OF THE PLANNING COI1111I[SSION • OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL NOT 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 9(IS-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 thy: Croak and Jordan properties which are generally located north of the future Central Parkway extension aid east of Croak Road and within the 1,134acre Fallon Village project area (APN 985-0027-007, 905-000::-001, 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 Village project area, which includes the Croak and Jordan properties (PA 04040), Ordinance 32-05, incorporated herein by reference; and WIiEREAS, 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, approve 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 envimnmen-.al impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, on December G, 2005, the City Council adoptai Resolution No. 222-05 certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH #2005062010) to the Eastern Dublin E1R, a program EIR, initiallj+ certified by the City of Dublin in 1993 (SCF[#911030ti4) 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's 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 ~, ~.o~. _, WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted, and incorporated herein by reference, recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the General flan Amendment and. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, the PD rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment for Fallon Village; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth, including the prior EIlts, and'used its independent judgment to evaluate the project; and ,the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council not approve the proposed Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage I Development Plan for the Croak and Jordan properties because the Planning Commission found that: 1) the proposal created infiexibilit}, 2) selectively modified Citywide policies regazding 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 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 regazding lot coverage, setbacks and design. NOW, 'rgEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission could not recommend the findings in the attached draft Ordinance and therefore recommeLds 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 Ordinance: I) 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 temporary uses for the new Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density designations; and 3) Development standards for private usable yards and common azeas within the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27'~ day of November 2007 by the following vote: AYES: .Schaub, Wehrenberg, Tomlinson, Biddle and Fang NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: ~r ~ ~, Plane ng aver G:IPAg110W10 ~ondJoid r~iu+nDrnsltylPlawningCnmmialonlPCRvoSlagelPDAxdlknW.nOC ORDINANCE N0.07- XX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY Ct~UNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIA' APPROVING A PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING AND AMENDED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR'CHE MEDIUM DENSITY POItTiON 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 HERIi;BY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. RECITALS A. By Ordinance No. 32-OS the City Council rezoned the approximately 1,134-acre Fallon Village project area generally located north of I-580 and east of Fallo:t Road to the Planned Development Zoning District (PA 04-044) and adopted a Stage 1 Development Plan for the entire project area which includes the Croak and Jordan properties (APN 905-0002-001, 905-OC02-002, AND 985-0027-007). B. This Ordinance adopts an amendment to the Stage l Development Plan approved in Ordinance No. 32-OS by the City Council on December 20, 2005. Section 2. FINDINGS A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of'the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows: The Planned Development (PD) Rezoning, with amended Stage I Development Plan, (PA t77--056) meets the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.31 of the Zoning G'rdinance because: it will encourage a variety of different product types with usable private yard ;ueas while providing flexibility. As amended the PD will continue to provide a comprehensive and 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. Z The PD Rezoning, with amendei! Stage 1 Development Plan, will be harmonious and compatible -vith existing and fuhve development in the surrounding areas 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 Village Center to the Low .Density neighborhoods to the north and east; and 3) the uses are consistent 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. B. Pursuant to Section 8.120.OSO.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows: 1. 77re PD Rezoning, with amended Stage l Development Plan, will be harmonious and compatible with eYrsting and,/ature de»elopment in the surrounding area:; becarcre: 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•Ilage Center to the Low Density neighborhoods to the north and east; and 3) the uses are consistent with the higher intensity Page 1 of 10 Euliibit A 13 ~!'~ boy of uses anticipated for the Fallon Village Center and will continue to promote an active, pedestrian oriented development in the Fallon Village Center. 1. The Project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity bfthe zoning district being proposed because: l) the 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 the south with rolling'hills generally north, and development is 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 1 Development Plan, will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing nr working in the vicinity, or 6e detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare becatcse: the Stage 1 Development Plan has been designed in accordance with the City of Dublin General Plan azrd the EDSP, and future development will comply with all applicable development regulations and standards and will implement a] l adopted mitigation measures. 4. The PD Rezoning, with amended Stage 1 Development flan, is consistent with the Dublin Genem! Plan and Eastern Dublin Specifc Plan beearcre: !)the proposed uses on the site are consistent with the amended General Plan and EDSP lantl use designations; 2) the amended uses will not result in an increase in the total number of residential 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-OS certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact R~:port (SEIR) (SCH #2005D62010) to the Eastern Dubtin EIR, a program EIR, initially certifies. by the City of Dublin in 1993 (SCH#91103064) and the Eastern Dublin Property Owners SE[R (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 Departrirent. The proposed proje+:t 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 prop,:rties, 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: 10.4± net acres located in an azea 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-a)02-001, 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 i~~ .1 lu~atinn map of thr rcroning area is shown bcaciw: Section -t. ,1~•1CNDL'U ST,1GE 1 DEVELU['~iENT PL:1N 1'ltc rc;ulatiuns lin• the use, de~~elupment, improvement, and maintenance of the subject properties is set ti~rth in the F Ihm Village Stage 1 Development P-an adopted through Ordinance 3?-0S and as ~unended below, which amcndn~cnts arc hereby uppm~ed. Any amendments to the De+•elopmcn~t Plans shall be in occur+l:uice a<iih Section 8.3'.080, Planned Develaprnrnt 7_c~ning nistrict, of lhv Dublin `v4unii;ipal Code :u• its cu+::;essors. • f'U-Planned Development Zoning District Amended Stage 1 Development Plan Fallon Village (YA f)5-03R, PA 07-056) this is an :unutded Stage 1 Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 5.33, Pianricd L~evclupment Zoning District, of the Duhlin• Zoning Urdinance for the portions of the Creak and Jordan properties +sith ~i tiicdium-Lu++~ Density and `•tediwn-\~lid Duisity designation {APN 905-4003-U01, 905-4gt)3-f)Q3, and U8~-[)O27-40'• ). 'the t'r+~ak and Jordan properties consist of 10.E acres and 33.~~acres respectively. Amended Stage I De~•elonment Plan. The Suite I Uevelctpmettt Plan re~tnains as spprcn•cd through (7rdinanw s?-U~, except as spcci6ed bclrnv. 1. Statcn~ent of Proposed Uses. The Stmt 1 Development Plan is amended to include the follo+sing permitted, conditionally p+;rntitted, and tunporary land uses iiir the Medium-Loup and Medium-A•lid Density dcsigttations: ' PD - Iliedium-i.ory Density Residenlia! Intent. The Medium-Lciw Density land use. designation is established to: a) resu•+~c appre+priately iocat~Yl area! tier family livin~~ in a variet;• of types of dwellings ai ~ reasonable range of Page 3 o f l {) ~3c~ ~~ ~ ~ populations densities consistent with sound standards of public health and safety; b} preserve as many as possible of the desirable characteristics of the one 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 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 [tow 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 Uses Please refer to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.108 for a list of permitted temporary uses and permit procedures. PD -Medium-Mid Density Residentlal Intent. The Medium-Mid Density land use designation is established to: a) reserve appropriately located areas for family living 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 desirable characteristics of the one 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 ofd street loading of trucks; and f) protect residential properties from the hazards, noise and congestion created by commercial and industrial traffic. Page 4 of 10 Permitted Uses i- Accessory structures and uses in accordance with Section 8.40.030 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Animal keeping _ residential Community care facility/sma11(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 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 re&x 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 N:edium-Mid Density designations. a. Multi-family attached housing with aMedium-Mid Density designation shall provide one of the following: i. Each unit shall include a minimum 250 s.f. flat usable private yard with a minimum dimension in any one direction of 8'; or ii. Each development shall provide a minimum of I50 :..f. per unit of usable common area that will accommodate recreation and leisure activities b. Row homes with aMedium-Low Density designation: Each unit shall include a minimum 250 s.f. flat usable private yard with a minimum dimension in :my one direction of 8'. c. Single-family detached housing with s Low, Mediur: Low, Medium-Mid and Medium Density designation: .The following table shows residential development standards and plotting concepts for Lo~v, Medium-Low, Medium-Mid and .Medium Density single-family detached housing: Page 5 of 10 ~~ ~ ~$ 8~ ! ~ N r m~ n 1 Z Qy q _~~ 26 5 m ~ G G Z E`` E`` E`` °~ r '.' ~ E ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ Y o 0 0 0 ^ NQY~ E~ n ~~ ~^ 5 ~ d ~ ~ N~ c ~ 5 °~ ~'~ g b ~ : V G ~ E ~ ~ 3 p _ - c S 8 ~ n .S h o ~ k 1 y 0 0 4 b s~9, ~ 2 ~ e~ ~ g . _~ LS g _ ~ I L _ G G ~ G E `~ ~'^ ~ s o { 9 + ~ ~ ~ O f~ y M ,~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~ y ~ . ~~F ~ ~ ~ ka! ~ ~~ '1 ~ ~ ~ q ~ ~ C N ~ ~ - W ~£E `^ ^ h N !~ r gam. ~ O ~ -- ~ ~ V - c - ~ ~ ~ ~ B~ '~: Io~ =eg Y . - g ~ Y _ _ ~ p _ ~ ~ O N ~ N y a Y E b _ r g ~~yS~''~ ' Iii 9 C s y Y . ~ 0~ X 9 C r N ~~ ~ C _ w N p a0 = ' ~ S ~ C O ut ~' V GI V '~ > C ~ C C ~~ ~~'~Y4 ~ ~ ~p C ~ ~ Y ~ pN 8 ~ N L c V „ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A y s CJ' C ~ ~i U r N ~ N ^ K ~ ~ Q S E~ ~~ n IV .s y u .~ 3 h ~ m a ~ `o o o ° ~ & r ~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E~ e e ~ i i O ~ ~ : ~ 4, C u t ~' E N ~ 4 p i ~ 'tS E ~ ° - Y ~ °v ~ ~ ~$ ~ b `"33 E ~ ~ ~ 5 ~E 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 'R' S ~ E E e a ~~ ~ a n s K ~ ~ r ~ r i u r i ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ .( pp U i °~ u~+ ~ ~ ~ 8 F V ~~ r ~ a ~ ~ e 4 4 ~ u v i ~ ~ ~ €Ea N~ c pp~ ~$ y ~ ~ p a ~ ., w ~ ~ ~~~ Typical Plotting Concepts NOTE:ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS ONLY. 3005E 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 area - 220 SF. Min. courtyard area - 80 SF, iglN ~ fl ' I ~ I BO SFMiri. Traffic _ ° v a `O c~p Traffic ViA eilaity ~ ~r„ c ~ 1_ ~' Visibility TWO-STORY TWO-STORY TWO-STORY TWO-STORY CORNER LOT INTERIOR LOT INTERIOR LOT CORNER LOT LEGEND 0 i st Story Elements LOT COVERAGE: 55% Max 0 2nd Story Massing (No One-story Requirement) ~~ ~~ Usable Rear Yard 141in: Area NEIGHBORHOODS OF LOTS 250Q SF AND GREATER LOW, MEDIUM-LOW. MEDIUM-MID AND MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FA141LY DETACHED SMALL LOT Page 7 of l0 250 SF total flat yard area [Typ) with a min e'dimeniwn.Yard area may be provide in more than one location within a lot. Min. rear yard - t 7D 5 Min courtyard -80 S LEGEND 0 1st Story Elements ~] 2nd and 3ni Story Massing Usable Yard Min. Area LOTLOVERA~E: 5595 Max (No One-Story Requirement) NEIGHBORHOODS OF I BOO 5F AND GREATER MEDIUM-LOW, MEDIUM-MID AND MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED SMALL LOTS/COURT' HOMrS. ' Page S of 10 RECIPROGL USE EASEMEfJTS 250 SF total flat yard area (Typ) with a min.8' dlmenslon.Yard area may be provided In more than one IocaUon within a lot Mln. rear yard -170 SF Min. courtyard - 80 SF (COURT TER HOMES N75 JRT Typical Plotting Concepts NOTE:ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN.ARE MINIMUM DIMENSION50NLY. i ~a v~~j y~-~ ,~ ~ . 3. Sta~c 1 Site Pion. ThL: amenllrxl Stage 15ita flan inci7rpnrates IIIe 3~ledium-Corr Density anJ 'l\'Fed1U171-1•!Id Di;Lt~IIV' laltd t15~ dC51`_na~lUn+ in puce ut'~•icdium lhn,ity designation on the ('rnak , any! Jord:nt nrancttics. z ,. F~ilan Vitlage ~ ~"~ Stage 1 PD Amendment Site Plan I r' ~ aa. ~ ,..., n.....s r FAA ~.`n.Tr . '.~ i 1 v„ ~ ti.rw..nroe , .4 ~ .,.:,,,:,,..:. :1 ~ t ~ = - -- - - - - ----- [~ Z~'.. s„rTj~ ~~ ,~jr°~r ~ _ ^ ~ 1 4' Jl ~(~~R _ C ~`~• .III .i< i 1` ;ere{'µtry~Jr'r,.n~t;Ri~S[j7y~ifl, -~t .~ t a~~~'~ ..y, ,r. R 9?SAC r ~' a ~ - Cly'iPA ' ~ • . Cli1 L 7i~?~'i ' 'N*~. ~ ., . P i .~ ~ = -~~' ~ t t MLDR •7.9 AC`, ~ 1 a.7 a< y;,a~.~r r ^ry i.::;sJP:.:; 1 ~-'"~ ''~'$"•= ' ~ - ~ 97.5 AC r'~ GE'r"~ b` 'D- .may ~ ii .......•.sw ~'"~~ •i'~..i•. i ... .fit::' N; ~.-J.q:-~ '~ r.. 9 T:~ ~ :u: if 8: ~..~ :....~ ~. 1 ~ F9.. Wit... ...._ r. OU? ~4 60 LEb`-U 1 ~'k'+"e s. s ~ fir` 1~• ~ ~~_. ,;. ~ 2 .~cC ••: 1' _~i .:_ A w ~ erg (V1yY~ ..m.,. ~.. STAC[: F SITE F'LA` Page 9 of lU ~~ Zo~- . ,. ,. 4. Site Area, proposed densities. As follows: Land Use Acrea a Densi Sin le Famil Residential 403.6 acres 0-6.0 unitslacre Medium-Low Densit Residential 16.9 acres 6.1-10 units/acre .Medium-Mid Densi Residential 16.9 acres 10.1-14 unitslacre Medium Densit Residential 26.3 acres 6.1-14.0 unitslacce Medium Hi Densit Residential 23.8 acres 14.1-25.0 unitslacre Rural ResidentiaUA 'culture 142.9 acres 1 unit/100 acres Mixed Use 6.4 acres 0.3-1.00 FAR General Commercial 72.1 acres 0.20-0.60 FAR General CommerciallCam ins Office 72.7 acres 0.20-0.80 FAR Industrial Park/Cam us Office 61.3 acres 0.25-0.80 FAR Communi Park 18.3 acres - Nei hborhood Park 23.6 acres -- Nei hborhood S uare 8.0 acres -- O en S nce 2l l.Z acres - Element School 21.1 -acres ~ -- Semi Puhlic 8.6 acres 0.50 FAR Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE ,AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE This Ordinance shall take effect 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 Ordine~nce to be posted in at feast three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36433 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this day of by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk G:'•PAp'dIXIT07-056 Cmnk and 1o}dan Mdium Dmsny`Ci~y CoutxiP.CC Onlitunen PD.DOC Page l0 of 10 i e dci.'~ _ ~ - ,r r«w".:F ,:. _ :. ~%='rs~ab.,,er:.f ,r ri a r ' ~ ..., ~..- _ ~ . . ,... , -. y ~~... - - r I~~~z4~ t ~€ ~ ~~ s '~ - it ~ ~pp Ii K G iM ~ ~ +j ~ ~~ 8 1 ~ ~iC ~ ~~~ ~+ 0. ~ ~ ~1i!! ~ 1 1 i;~ ~ ~ ri j ~ ~ !~ ~ ~ri~ o e : i r a ~-i~iilii~ r~litl~t3.,1~,1111 ~~~~ii, ia.:#(t ,Fl, ~ ~ ~; 3 ~~~ 1 ~ ~ Zv ' ; t ~ ~ r,s ~- ~ ~ : ,i t~i 1~ ~ E liiiii ! tit! r~lii;~~l 1 ~ ~ ® ~ a ¢ ~ ,i1#~ii~ii; a~~~ii;i{i~~~;E###? i~;lilil i~li~;il~ ,~;1~ 1~~~~~ o p v d { ~ i~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ aroa rerrrssrl ! ! ! ! ~ l ! ! s ;f ~ ~ ~ ~' i .~ ~ ~ i s ~ s 8 i ,~ i s } s ; ~ `_ 9 9~ i i s 9 j ' ~ r ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ 9 s s .! 9 .g 6 s s ~ ~ ,. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ~ ! ! f f ~: f ! ! ! 1 i ~ ~ ~ `~ • ! ! ! ! ! ! i.~-~,~ ~,~ ~ t p 1 ~t .\,/ ~ - 1 f{ ~ Y -;. ~~~ ,~. ;;. .{ •.e ~r ~~ f..' ~"" ~ _ . ~. _ ~ ~ ~~ S `, DRAFT '.. ~4-.~ ~-0 ~t-CQ r~j2 d Z A special joint meeting of the Dublin City Council and Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 19, 2008, in the Regional Meeting Room at the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m., by Mayor Lockhart. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Council members ~Hildenbrand, Oravetz, and Scholz, Vice Mayor Sbranti and Mayor Lockhart. Planning Commissioners Biddle, Tomlinson, Wehrenberg, King and Chair Schaub ..._.._._M.__.._.._......._.__........~__........~_.........._. Mayor Lockhart opened the public comment portion of the meeting and hearing no comment, closed the public comment. CROAK AND JORDAN MEDIUM DENSITY STUDY SESSION PA 07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density Mayor Lockhart asked for the presentation from Staff. Jeff Baker, Senior Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub asked Mr. Baker to explain the primacy planning area. Mr. Baker stated the General Plan shows three planning areas: He continued the primary planning area.is the center of Dublin, everything west of Camp Parks and the Transit Center to Schaefer Ranch. He continued Schaefer Ranch is the western planning area and everything .east of Camp Parks is the Eastern Extended Planning Area. Mr. Baker stated the reason for the study session is to receive direction from the City Council and the Planning Commission on the proposed policy amendments.. Tae stated there are three alternatives up for discussion tonight: DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMIVIISSION MINUTES V OLU1VIIr %g `~ OF Dp~ SPECIAL MEETING m ,n~ir ~~ August 19, 2008 ```~"~/~ ~~-~ ~ ~~ DRAFT DRAFT Alternative A . - medium-low and medium-mid density uesigriatiori and also adopting a minimum.rear yard setback requirement. Alternative B - similar to Alternative A, but includes an additional requirement for a common area yard for products without a private yard and . also a net density policy. Alternative C - other direction from Council to Staff . Chair Schaub asked if the 1800 square foot lot Mr. Baker was discussing includes the 20 foot setback between the street and the patio. Mr. Baker answered it would depend on where the home is located on the lot. He continued the home Chair Schaub was referring to was an "alley loaded" home. He stated the home was not on an 1800 square foot lot; an 1800 square foot lot would have an alley and a paseo so that access to the home would be from the paseo. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there was open space behind the lot. Mr. Baker answered yes there is a park or common area outside their product yard. Chair Schaub mentioned the example is a 14.2 unit net density, not 6 unit net density, which changes the look of the project. Mr. Baker concluded his presentation and asked for feedback from the City Council and Planning Commission. Mayor Lockhart asked if there were any questions for Mr. Baker. There were no questions. Mayor Lockhart asked for feedback from the panel. Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned about what the market would be for these units and what is available within Dublin. She stated she would support Alternative A or C. She continued that with Alternative C the developers would have parking issues and it would be difficult for them to meet density with the amount of buildable space. Cm. Tomlinson felt that by splitting the property into two new zoning designations it would reduce the overall flexibility of what can be built on the site. He felt it could result in a more comprehensive development for the entire site with more public parks in exchange for more units. He stated the kind of yards that would be created would not be considered "usable" yards. He had concerns about the fairness of applying this new zoning designation to only two properties. He felt the "Net Density" concept is a potential DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING CONIlVIISSION MINUTES VOLUME xg ~,~ of °p~ ; . SPECIAL MEETING ,,; ~ ;~ August 19, 2008 ~"~-~~/ll -~~~2~z DRAFT ~.. _ ~.n,. 1 problem because it would significantly reduce the number. of units that can be built on the site. He stated when trying to create a yard using units/acre is not'the most appropriate way to calculate. He continued when building a 6,000 sq ft house vs. a 1500 sq ft townhome the lot coverage is different but each home is still considered one unit. He felt that if the goal is to create larger yards the issue should be lot coverage rather than density. Chair Schaub stated the Planning Comnssion had determined that the Net .Density calculation does not work very well. He stated the Commission asked Staff to leave density calculations per the General Plan and only include the net density calculation as a sidebar on the green sheet to give a feeling for the real density. He stated that he is concerned about the unforeseen consequences of taking steps for a problem that is .not clear. He felt that flexibility would be better than an arbitrary rule. Cm. King agreed with Cm. Wehrenberg who was concerned about the current housing market. He stated there was a comment at the last Planning Commission meeting that indicated the Plannng Commission should not be concerned with the market, but felt the Commission could not do effective .land use planning if they did not know what will be done with the land. He was also concerned about young families and the size of yard they would want. He preferred less density with easier parking but also some neighborhood open spaces. ~ He felt public space is more important than larger yards but again was not sure what people would what for their homes. He felt that most people prefer bigger yards but he could justify smaller yards if, in order to prevent urban sprawl, you must infill with higher density. He was not sure what to recommend but would prefer open neighborhood . space. Cm.. Biddle had some concerns regarding changing the net density calculation ~ for only a few properties. He stated the size of the yard is directly proportioned to the placement of the house on the lot. He suggested options to accommodate that placement would be zero lot lines, eliminating either the front yard or back yard, and perhaps one side of the side- yard setback. He~ felt more flexibility would help. He mentioned a product within the for- sale units at the new Arroyo Vista project where they used 3-story, split level units and created a small footprint. ~ . Mayor Lockhart asked if there were any members of the public who ~ would like to comment. Kevin Fryer; Mission .Valley Homes, representing the Jordan Ranch property owners, spoke ,regarding the project. He felt it was important to remember the policy being discussed would apply to only two specific properties with special physical limitations. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION NIINUTES VOLUME gx ING ~,~ of DUB~ti ~ SPECIAL MEET 19~ ~~ August 19, 2008 ~ ~ `\ ' l11 ~a~e 3 0, f 9 ~LlI~R~~~ ~ 4a ~ ~~~~ DRAFT ~• DRAFT He stated that within the 23.4 acres of medium density amid=range approach would yield approximately 230 units. He stated because of the topography of the site it is very difficult to work with. •~ He stated the goals of the medium density designation is to provide affordable and diverse housing products not only larger, more expensive homes with larger yards.. He stated the examples given in the presentation of a 1 S foot set back were built on relatively flat lots which make it an easier area to plan. He stated developers would like to have the most flexibility to~ bring a variety of products within the medium-density range. He stated requiring a 15 foot rear yard setback would eliminate all alley loaded products which include small lot detached, duets, duplexes, and larger townhouses that all have front and side yards associated with them. • He suggested if the. Council requires a minimum yard setback they should try to create as much flexibility as possible. He asked for the opportunity to bring forward a site plan that addresses the specific concerns of their site. He understands the Council's concerns and shares them as well. George Zika, former City Councilmember asked Mr. Fryer if there is 15 foot rear yard setback would that eliminate back loaded units and did he assume the requirement of a 20 foot set back in front. Mr. Fryer felt they could still have a front yard area or a private side yard area but the alley would take up the back of the unit so there would be no area for a rear yard. Mr. Fryer felt they would have to widen the lots to provide the space for usable rear yard. There was a discussion regarding the current requirement for front and rear yard setbacks. Mr. Pat Croak, property owner spoke regarding the project. He felt that Net Density was not the answer and that it takes away their flexibility with the kind of topography constraints and edge conditions that exist on the Jordan and Croak properties. He felt it would be unfair to apply Net Density to their two properties. He also felt it was difficult to predict the market but the fact that there is product limitation. would limit their project. He stated the unintended consequences of this change are also of concern. Councilmember Hildenbrand explained that in 2004, at the Council's Goals and Objectives meeting they discussed this subject and it has taken this long to review the issue and that is why there are only two properties left. She was concerned the perception was that the Council was singling these two properties out. She agreed with Cm. Biddle's comments that the placement of the house on the lot is the key. She felt the most important thing are the long term needs of the community and how to balance the current housing. stock. She felt that one of the unintended consequences of building The Villages is the lack of parking. She stated the residents are using their garages for storage not for parking their vehicles. She felt it was a good idea to build villages but they did not anticipate the DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VOLUME gX Gti~ OP DpB~ SPECIAL MEETING ~~ 19I '_Jp 18Z August 19, 2008 ~~~ ,t~___ . _rn ~~_ C~ . l tso~2oZ- ~~ DRAFT , --~ parking problem. She felt there are a lot of products in Dublin with very little yards. She continued there were a lot of people moving to San Ramon and Livermore because they can have a bigger yard in those cities. She felt that on the west side of Dublin there were a lot of home with larger lots, some smaller homes with larger lots but there are not many available. She felt that the residents of Dublin want more space and Dublin is not providing it. She stated this is an opportunity to provide a.different option. She felt that Net Density probably will not work at this time. She supports Alternative A with a requirement for a rear yard setback. Vice Mayor Sbanti stated he also supports Alternative A. He felt the City was very flexible with landowners and developers and avoided applying this issue to those properties that were well into the process with entitlements. He stated that by providing flexibility within the medium density range the City has consistently gotten the same type of product. He felt the market will produce what is most profitable for the developer and people will. buy what the ,market produces. He felt there was not the same volume of product on the west side of town. He stated while looking at the aerial photographs he noticed the City is not getting the yards that we need. He felt it was important for the Council to produce a community that has product differentiation. He felt Alternative A creates two ,types of density. He felt people want yards and some developments have common area but did not think the residents used the area and there is no adequate substitute for a private yard. He felt the City needed to plan with the best interest of the City even if it is the last two properties. He supports Alternative A. Councilmember Oravetz felt the yard issue is different then the net density issue. He stated the housing market in California is at its worst ever. He commented the City. does not want to limit the ideas of the development community and what they can build in Dublin. He complemented the Planning Commission on the job they do of reviewing projects before they come to the Council. He felt the Planning Commission has the pulse of the community as much as the Council does as far as housing and they review what will sell within Dublin. He stated the number one economy generator in Dublin is car sales and the Ford dealership just went out of business. He wanted the Council and Commission to consider that no more car sales means no more sales tax and putting restrictions on developers will reduce property taxes which is the second biggest economic ~ generator in the .City. He does not support putting any restrictions on developers and therefore supports Alternative C which is the plan that has been working. He felt in this economy it is not the time to restrict development. He wanted the City to be viewed as open minded not restrictive: He supports Alternative C. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VOLUME ~ L MEETING SPEC G~~ of D~a ti '~ IA m /~ „~~ m August 19, 2008 19 (u_ __~') ~ ~` ~~ 2'uge S of ~? ~L/POR~~~ . 1 ~ 1 2C~ DRAFT ~ DRAFT Councilmember Scholz commented having looked at Alternatives A ~ B she was concerned because she did not want to restrict developers but felt the City was crowded and the density was a big issue for her. She supports and agrees with Councilmember' Oravetz. She stated the five areas of concern that the Planning Commission sited are valuable and appreciates their .concerns. She wanted to hear more from the developers regarding their ideas. ~ She agreed with Cm. King regarding land use planning. She would .like to see bigger yards and more public space. She supports Alternative C. Councilmember Hildenbrand mentioned an example of the ~ Casamira Valley project, located north of Dublin off Tassajara Road, was approved with the idea to live smaller so there would be less sprawl and more density. She stated that when the Casamira Valley project first came to the Council they submitted stacked products and the Council felt it was too far away from transit and retail to be that dense. She continued the developer came back with a plan that took out the stacked product. She stated that Wallis Ranch submitted a product that included stacked condominiums which was not Council's intent for the area. She stated the intent was if the development was far away from shopping and commercial then it should be less dense. She felt that if the .City requires setbacks they will get a different variety. ~ She stated that in every project there was the highest density because the developers feel the only way to make a profit is by building the most units. Cm. King asked Councilmember. Hildenbrand which- plan she would prefer. Councilmember Hildenbrand answered she prefers Altemative A and stated she did not support net density. at this time and thought, if the City were going to require. Net Density they should have done it a long time ago. She also felt it was important to include the rear yard setback requirement. There was a discussion between Chair Schaub and Councihnember Hildenbrand regarding the Moller Ranch and Wallis Ranch projects and the types of units that were submitted. Councilmember Oravetz felt the Wallis Ranch project was an example v~here not having Net Density calculations caused unintended consequences and stated he would not advocate for Net Density at this time. He~ felt Roxbury was also a project with unintended consequences which calculated at 6 or 7 units per acre but if Net Density were used it was actually 14 units per acre. He liked the part of Alternative A where the unit count remains the same. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VOLUME xx ~ `~~ of o~8~ SPECIAL MEETING ~„~/~~~,n,~,~~\;~ 19 (rte='=7f~) 82 August 19, 2008 `l ~ . 1~2~ 2~~' DRAFT DRAFT Cm. King asked how Alternative A would help solve the parking and traffic issues~at The Villages. Councilmember Hilderibrand responded the Villages are very dense with some units having only cone-car garage but two people you both have cars and must park one on the street. Cm: King asked if the idea of larger rear yards necessitates more parking. Councilmember Hildenbrand responded the parking situation was an unintended consequence of assuming that by building The Villages the residents would use transit or walk instead of drive. She continued ,the residents do not use their garages for parking, but for storage and park on the street which has caused the parking problem. She continued the Council felt by allowing flexibility they would get a variety of housing types but what they got was either large homes or small homes with very little yards. Mayor Lockhart was concerned with Net Density vs. Gross Density because of projects like Wallis Ranch and others where she was surprised by the finished product. She felt it is difficult to understand all the different facets of the problem if you are not a professional. She stated she wanted to understand net density rather than require it. She stated she would not support the net density calculations for the last two properties in Dublin. She felt that would drastically change the way Dublin does business. She stated she would still like to have the information and will weigh the information when making a decision but won't penalize anyone. She stated she only has anecdotal information but hears from a lot of Dublin .residents and their concern about seeing the same type of housing over and over. They stated the housing products are the same, with the same look but with a different name. She stated the Council .will take responsibility for what was approved in the past, but felt even it this policy will affect only two properties they would like to have the option. She also stated that, these two properties do not have entitlements, and can be planned for the future and could be the last two shining examples of planning in Dublin. She felt back yards are important to residents of Dublin having lived on a street with very small back yards and the children play in the street in front of their home so their parents can supervise them. She stated the Council thought that Emerald Glen Park would be the answer~to the high density development but most parents do not allow theur-young children to go to the park unsupervised. She felt the park serves a great family use but does not independently serve all the families without yards. She stated she would like to see ari accommodation in the east that does not include a 3,000 square foot home so that young families ~ with small children can have a pet and a patio until they grow up and get the house. She commented that the new housing stock does not have that option. She would DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VOLUME xx ~,~,~ or DoB~ SPECIAL MEETING ~ ~» ~~~~~~~~~I')~~~ 19 (e*1= V 82 August 19, 2008 \\~`.7T~"///f Page : of ~ C467FOR ~5j 2a~ DRAFT ,~ .. - DRAFT -- ~ ~ i like to see the information on Net Density just to be able to weigh tie va~ue of a project but won't hold developers to a new standard. She feels product differentiation is a good thing for the community. She supports Alternative A. ~ . Mr: Baker asked for clarification regarding rear yard set backs in Alternative A, He stated ~- Staff is asking for a minimum of 15 to 20 feet of rear yard set back and asked which the Council would prefer. Mayor Lockhart asked if there could be an average between 15 and 20 feet based on lot size and an average for the overall project. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director suggested one in five units could have a 20 foot setback. Rich Ambrose, City Manager suggested they could require a certain percentage of units have a 20 foot setback and a certain percentage have a 15 foot setback and which would provide the developer some flexibility. Chair Schaub suggested drawing a plan that showed how a house would be built on an 1800 square foot lot with a 20 foot yard; add a garage and a driveway and that would leave only 400 square feet. Mr. Ambrose responded the consequences are they may not be able to have an 1800 square . foot lot because, to meet the requirement, they would have to create lots that work. Mayor Lockhart felt the Council would not be taking away the high density or medium high density they are simply saying as you feather back the project create the product that includes a backyard for residents who are not on~the park and give residents an alternative. VM Sbranti stated within tie medium designation there is medium and medium high, which balances and stated he supports the 15 ft minimum setback.. Mr. Ambrose suggested there could be a number requirement and the developers must work within that framework. VM Sbranti felt there should be a minimum 15 feet setback. Mr. Baker asked if the Council. wants to create a medium low and medium mid density designation and require a minimum 15 foot usable rear yard setback, 1 in 5 would have a DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VOLUlVlII ~ Gti~ pF DUB~d SPECIAL MEETING 19,~~~,~ August 19, 2008 ~~ ~ ~~ rv .... c~ .,~ ~ r . _ ..n -~~~jZOZ DRAFT •. DRAFT 20 foot setback and it would apply to medium low and medium mid units that have a rear yard. Mayor Lockhart responded yes. In favor: Hildenbrand, Sbranti and Lockhart Opposed: Oravetz and Scholz The meeting was adjourned at 6: S O. p.m. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLA,NNING.OOMMISSION MINUTES VOLUME gz ,~ of D~ SPECIAL MEETING ~rn ~ a~ 19 ~ August 19, 2008 • ~ ~'ffae 9 L{9 ' ~`C~/ll ~'Itfrr~0~ ~ ~ ~, Zo z- /// ~- ~ -i~ 82 1 AGENDA STATEMENT . ~~~ ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: Se tember 9 2008 y O`1LIFOR~1~ ~ P SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: (Legislative Action) - PA 07-056 Croak and • Jordan Medium Density: General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and Fallon Village PD - Stage 1~ Development Plan Amendment to change the existing Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties to Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density land use designations with minimum rear yard setback requirements. Report prepared by.Jeff Baker, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the City of 'Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin . Specific Plan to change the existing Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties to Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations, with the draft City Council Resolution included as Ezhiliit A. 2) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage . 1 Development Plan for the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid density designations on the Croak and Jordan properties, with the draft Ordinance. included as Exhibit A. 3)' City Council/Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report dated August 19, 2008 with attachments.. 4) City CounciUPlanni_ng Commission .Study Session draft Meeting Minutes dated August 19, 2008. 5) Resolution transferring original hearing • jurisdiction of these amendments to the City Council pursuant to Section 8.96.020.C,3 of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance due to the unique policy implications of these amendments. • RECONIlVIENDATION: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing; . 3) Receive public testimony; . 4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; and either 5) Adopt the following Resolution(s): a. Resolution. (Attachment 1) recommending that the City.Council adopt a Resolution approving a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the existing Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties to Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations; and ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPY TO: Property Owners Attachment S File ~ -, r ., ~, - ~, ~ Z i `l b. ~ Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending that the City Cou~icil adopt an Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone -with amended Stage 1 Development Plan for the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid density designations on the Croak and Jordan properties. OR: c. Resolution (Attachment 5) transferring original hearing jurisdiction ~to the City Council because of the unique. policy implication of these proposed amendments. 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 du/acre) land use designation. Staff studied the densities, residential land use policies, existing land use patterns, the City of Dublin Village Policy Statement, and the status of entitlements for the land designated for residential development within the EDSP. Staff Reports were prepared for the April 3, 2007, and October 16, 2007, City Council Meetings with different policy alternatives for City Council consideration. City Council Action - Apri13, 2007 & October 16, 2007 The City Council reviewed both of these Staff Reports and continued to express a desire to provide a housing product type that is between a stacked product and a -- --~ larger single-family detached unit (Attachment 3 pages 29-37 and ~ Jordan ,Croak ° ~ Ranch .Property 48-54) with a private usable yard. The City Council also ,:4<, ~, , expressed a concern over the existing policy to calculate densities ~ ~ ~~ v ~ ; ~.~.~ ; based on gross rather than net acreage. `,, The City Council identified two remaining Medium Density properties (Croak and Jordan) (Map 1 to the right) within the EDSP that do not have vested development rights and that do not have a current development application in process with the City. On a motion, the City Council .directed Staff to prepare General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments (GPA/SPA) and amend the PD Stage 1 Development Plan as described below with the goal of creating private usable yards: 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 Croalc 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. Planning Commission Action -November 27, 2007 Staff prepared a GPA, SPA, and Fallon Village Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment for the Croalc and Jordan properties• as directed by the City Council. On November 27, 2007, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to review the proposed amendments to the General Plan, EDSP, Page 2 of 7 Map 1-Vicinity Map ~, ~ toy Stage 1 Development Plan (Attachments 3 pgs 54-66 and 66-81). The Planning Commission raased a number of concerns with the proposed amendments, including~the following: 1. Medium density product type already exists; 2. Can achieve private yards in Medium Density; 3. Loss of units and fairness of Net Density; 4. Limit market demand flexibility; 5. Limited impact/application of policies; and 6. Need market study to verify market demands The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council not approve the proposed GPA, SPA and Fallon Village Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment. Please refer to Attachment 3 (pages 7-14) for a discussion of the Planning Commission concerns. Joint City CounciUPlanning Commission Study Session -August 19, 2008 The~City Council-and Planning Commission held a joint Study Session on August 19, 2008, to discuss the proposed land use designations,' gross vs. net density requirements, and usable yard requirements. The Study Session Staff Report (Attachment 3 pgs 1-14) included three policy alternatives for consideration by the City Council. The City Council directed Staff to proceed with Alternative A and prepare a GPA, SPA, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment to create the following: 1. Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations; 2. Minimum 15' rear yard setback requirements units with private rear yards; and 3. Minimum 20' rear yard setback requirements for 1 in 5 units with private rear yards. The following is a discussion ~of the proposed GPA, SPA, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment for the Croak and Jordan properties. The Planning Commission is requested to review the proposed amendments and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the adoption~of the proposed GPA, SPA and PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment. ANALYSIS: • Proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density Designations Land Use Designations Staff prepared the following defuutions for proposed new Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density land use designations on the Croak and Jordan properties: 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 yard 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 outdoor yard areas that • accommodate leisurely activities typically associated with a residence or usable common areas (tot lot, picnic area, s~~nmm~ng pool areas, etc.) that accommodate recreational and leisurely activities. Unit types and densities may be similar or varied. Assumed household size is two persons per unit." , .,"~ Location of Proposed Land Uses The existing Medium Density sites on the Croak and Jordan properties would be equally divided into Medium-Low 'and Medium-Mid Density as shown on Map 2 (to the right). The proposed land uses maintain the transition from the more intense High Density Residential and Mixed Use at the core of the Fallon Village Center to the less intense Low Density Residential uses that surround the Village Center. 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 maintain the existing jobs/housing balance. (Please refer to the October 16, 2007 City Council Staff Report Tables 2, 3 and 4 included in Attachment 3 on pgs 40, 44 and 46). 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. Conclusion -Land Use Designations The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations ensure that a variety of different housing types are constructed on the Croak and Jordan properties (i.e. detached and attached housing). The Medium-Low Density designation also ensures that. the homes have private yards. However, the land use designations do not guarantee the size of these private yards. Therefore, the proposed PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment (discussed below) includes minimum rear yard setback requirements to ensure that the private yards are large enough to be usable.. Rear Yard Setback 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 allows either a private usable yard for each unit or shared common areas. The properties in the EDSP have Planned Development (PD) zoning with development standards that are tailored to each development. PD zoning with customized development standards is intended to provide greater flexibility and creativity than traditional zoning. The Croak and Jordan properties are subject to the Fallon Village PD Stage 1 Development Plan which.includes development standards. The proposed PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment (Attachment 2, Exhibit A) would modify the existing development standards to require the following rear yard setback requirements for the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations as directed by the City Council at the August 19, 2008 Study Session: ^ Minimum 15' flat usable rear yard setback for attached and detached units with private yards; and ^ Minimum 20' flat usable rear yard setback for 1 out of every 5 attached and detached units with private yards.. . Examples of what could occur in a 15'-20' rear yard include children's play equipment, a patio with table and chairs, a garden, or a hot tub. The proposed Stage 1 PD Amendment includes a revised Stage 1 PD Site Plan showing the location of the land uses, and the 15'-20' rear yard setback requirement as described above. Please refer to Exhibit A of Attachment.2 for the proposed Stage 1. PD Amendments. Page 4 of 7 . Map 2 -Proposed 'Land Use Designations fr ~ ` In accordance with the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, a PD Stage 2 Development Plan is required before development can occur on the Croak and Jordan properties. The Stage 2 PD will include additional development standards for the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations that are tailored to the proposed development and that incorporate the required 15'-20' rear yard setback as required by the Stage 1 Development Plan. Conclusion -Private Yard Requirements The proposed 15'-20' flat usable rear yard setback requirement for the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Densities would apply to attached and detached units that include private rear yards. The proposed setback requirements are provided to ensure that the private yards Medium-Low and Medium- Mid Densities are large enough to accommodate leisurely activities that typically occur in rear yards. The PD zoning with customized development standards will continue to allow flexibility and creativity while providing a minimum rear yard setback. 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 and August 19, 2008, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to replace the existing Medium Density (6.1-14 du/acre) portion of the Croak and Jordan properties with Medium-Low (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre) land use designations. The City Council fi,rther directed Staff to prepare a PD Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan to include rear yard setback requirements for the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density. The proposed amendments to the General Plan, EDSP, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan will implement the City Council direction and ensure a variety of housing types with private usable rear yards. Planning Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council .on this project as noted above. However, should the Planning Commission determine that these amendments have policy implications that are unique the Commission may,. pursuant to Section 8.96.020.C.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, transfer its hearing jurisdiction to the City Council. Section 8.96.020.C.3, "Referral to City Council," states that "At any point in the project review process the Planning Commission may transfer original ,hearing jurisdiction to the City Council at its discretion because of policy implications, unique or unusual circumstances, or the magnitude of the project." Should the Planning Commission so desire to transfer the original hearing jurisdiction, Staff has included a Resolution (Attachment 5) that sets forth those unique policy implications. 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-OS 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#91103064) 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. 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. 1 ton ;~ ~ ,. RECOn~IlVIENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing; 3) Receive public testimony; 4) Close the Public Hearing. and deliberate; and either, 5) Adopt the following resolutions: a) Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending. that the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the existing Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties to Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations; and b) Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan'for the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid density designations on the Croak and Jordan properties OR c) Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 5) transferring original hearing jurisdiction to the City Council because of the unique policy implication of these proposed amendments. I(n-zoz. GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNERS: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: EXISTING GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: City of Dublin Francis Croak 1262 Gabriel Court San Leandro, CA 94577 Jordan Ranch LLC 5000 Hopyard Road, Ste. 170 Pleasanton, CA 94588 APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002 PD -Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential (6.1-14 du/acre) 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-OS 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#91103064) 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. 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. t c~~ ~~. `,~ - ll ~ \11 ~'lanning Commission 1Vlinutes ~~ Tuesday, September 9, 2008 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regulaz meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Comnussion was held on Tuesday, September 9, 2Q08, in the City Council Chambers located at 100. Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:05p.m. Present; Chair Schaub; Vice Chair Tomlinson; Commissioners ~Nehrenberg and Biddle; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Jeff B31cer, Senior Planner; and Debra LeQair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioners King ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg, seconded by Cm. Tomlinson the minutes of the August 26, 2008 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -NONE CONSENT CALENDAR.- NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - ' 8.1 PA 07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density (l:egislative Action): General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and Fallon Village PD -Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment to change the existing Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties to Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density land use designations with min;mum re~-r yard setback requirements. Jeff Baker, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub suggested to Mr. Baker that he change the warding regarding the alternatives to make it clearer. Mr. Baker agreed to review the wording. Cm_ Biddle mentioned the medium-low and medium-mid density designation assumes a household size of 2 persons/unit and asked what impact would that have on the product type. Mr. Baker answered none. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager answered it is an assumed average. Chair Schaub asked why not use the standazd household size. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed and mentioned the standard is 3.2 persons/household. cP(anning Commission September 9, 2008 ~gufarMeetirrg 103 Mr. Baker stated the 3.2 persons per household is standard used for single family and estate residential which aze larger products and an assumed larger household but for the medium, and medium high density the average in the General Plan is 2 persons per household. Chair Schaub asked what the zoning designations are for the :pr ~ ~~ ~e FallontVillage area and Jordan properties. Mr. Baker pointed out the different dens on the map. Chair Schaub stated if the Council chooses to require the 15' rear yard setback in the medium- mid designation, and if they choose the other options how would that be achieved. Mr. Baker stated that a portion of the property is required ntinu: d the medium-mid allowslfora required to have a minimum 15' rear yard setback. He co variety of product types so they may °th~setback rrVeulrementsyif no pn atee yazds then a yazds then they would need to meet ~ common area would be required. There are no development standazds for the common yard area. Chair Schaub asked if the developer decides to provide only a~mmonareas and no yards, how would Staff determine the adequate size of the yard. He t11e a1( ernatt a to these yards~dmg ~e minimum yard size and asked how we would determul Ms. Wilson answered it would be through the Stage 2 PD pr~xess where standards would be defined that would define the square footage allowances for th~~ common space. Chair Schaub felt the alternatives were too vague and wanted to ensure that it was clear to the City Council what the tradeoffs would be. Mr. Baker stated orte of the alternatives suggested at the Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session. on August 19, 2008 was for a standard size for open space or common azea but it was not part of the direction received from the City Council at that meeting. Cm. Tomlinson stated in the Staff Report•and the pr d feltthe actualc setbacks could be greater yards." He understood the property is not level an than required by trying to accommodate the topography but there could be a potential reduction in units if there is a 15' reaz yard setback requirement and the Iots aze not all flat. He felt the way the proposed Ordinance was written the Lots had to be flat. , . Mr. Baker answered a typical requirement. in most PDs is for ~i flat usable yard azea and agreed that requirement would impact the land plan. Chair Schaub commented a retaining wall could be done. M:s. Wilson stated they could grade and modify the topography also. Cm. Tomlinson stated retaining walls can be expensive butte from each of ~e lots. to transition from lot to lot but they could also cause a loss of at least 1 f " September 9, 2008 cPlasxing Commissiott ~gular 9Vteeting .104 ~~~~n~ Cm. Biddle stated the ordinance does not address front or side .setbacks and felt that woutaagive more flexibility. Chair Schaub commented Staff needs to ensure that when replacing the medium Iow and medium-mid designations in the Specific Plan it is pointed out that these. zonuig designations are for these two unique properties only. He stated this is necessary because there aze other medium density projects in the EDSP azea that aze already entitled. He also mentioned that most documents, EIR's, Specific Plans, etc. are on the City of Dublin website and can be accessed for the most up-to-date information. Chair Schaub asked if the total units differ in the Specific Plan and the General Plan which would take precedence.. Ms. Wilson answered the General Plan is the highest Ievel policy document and the EDSP has more specific data for the plan area and that the two documents must be reviewed together. , Chair Schaub commented that the Plaruung Commission has bc~n through a lot of issues; and is aware that the City Council wants these amendments to be approved. He felt the issue at the meeting was to discuss the implications of approving the amendments. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Chair Schaub and mentioned that in the Study Session minutes one of the developers •wanted to ciffer examples of possible site plans. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Kevin Fryer, Jordan Ranch representative-spoke regarding the project. He showed an example of a product type. He stated the developers share the same concerns as the Council and stated they have tried to provide a variety of housing types within the medium density designation. He stated the difficulty of providing those housing types and the unintended consequences of making such decisions without knowing the property could be a problem. He showed a residential cluster product with a courtyard cluster and courtyards on either side. He stated typically in between the units would be a paseo to access their front doors through the middle of the courtyard. He commented there are always four ho~ises in .this cluster product. He continued this product would put the pedestrian access into t11e courtyazd and the middle area would be four private•rear yards. He stated this pioducttakes the area typically dedicated to the paseo or common azea and divides it between all 4 units and creates 20'X25' fenced off private yazds. He stated each unit would have an approximately 500. square foot private rear yard. Chair Schaub asked what the unit per acre on the slide is. Mr. Fryer answered it is 10 to 11 units per acre on a flat site and would beconsidered amedium-mid or medium-low product. Mr. Fryer stated the rear yard setback requirement creates a definite lack of flexibility. He felt the product on the screen was the best he could present to the Commission that would, within the requirements of medium-low, still provide the rear yard :requirement. He felt this was the best product they could provide and felt the next level of products will have drawbacks. 2'fanning Commission Septem6er9, 2008 ~guCar 9Keetiag l OS Chair Schaub felt the site plan Mr. Fryer was proposing would not work because there is~c, way to draw the setbacks according to current requirements. Mr. Fryer thought the details. of how the setback requirement is defined will be important. Chair Schaub felt it' would be confusing to draw setbacks for in~egular lots or a house that wraps around and still meet the City Council's preference. Mr. Fryer stated this site plan shows the largest rear yard he has seen of a product for a medium density. He stated they would most likely place the product ;long the open space edge of the property and then run the pedestrian trail along that edge u~.stead of hiding the trail behind someone's yard. He continued it would be an inviting feature with front doors where the pedestrian access is. Chair Schaub asked how Iarge the rear yards are. Mr. Fryer answered the average minimum yard size 20'X24'. He felt this product is within the spirit of vJhat the City Council is trying to provide. He was concerned the product could fail because ley this example the private yard area is not in the.rear yard area. Cm. Tomlinson asked the size of the lots. Mr. Fryer answered they are approximately 4,000 square foot lots. Chair Schaub asked what percentage of the Land is usable. Mr. Fryer answered 70% usable on the flat site. He felt the concern is the northern portion of tY~e medium density section of the property has 3.4 acres of totally unusable hillside. He stated ~~n a map it appears to be part of the 23.4 acres of medium density, but in reality it is over 30°~ sloped hill. He continued that if they bifurcate medium density and create a medium low area that is 11.5 acres, there are 3.4 acres which are totally unusable and that leaves 8.3 acres a~ld they must deliver 94 units to reach that density. He stated it is the topography of the property. that is making it difficult to deliver the product. He stated the developers are in support of the lower unit count and alright with the large private yards within the medium-low density ~~rea and felt this was the product that they will bring forward. He stated the product does not ~~urrently meet the low end of the medium low density range and felt that netting out the 3.4 acses of unusable land would help them. Chair Schaub asked how many units they would be short. Mr. Fryer answered they anticipated to be short by 38 units. Chair Schaub mentioned the plans are written at midpoint and if they come in below midpoint the City will loose potential fees and tax income. Mr. Fryer stated because of the 3.4 acres of unusable land and its topography, to get to the midpoint on the site there would have to be a very dense prc-duct and that product would not provide the minimum yard required within medium low. He suggested putting something in the language that excludes those 3.4 acres from the density calculation for the Jordan site. He felt that if they could exclude those unusable acres they coulcl come forward with this product on the mediuin~low area and have 20'X24' yards on all these units. 1n(anning Commission SepteM6er 9, 1008 ~gufar Meeting 106 ~:~ Chair Schaub stated that if the. City wanted this type of product they would have to change tlt~ . way setbacks are drawn now which is 16 feet from the back of the house to the lot line. . Cm: Tomlinson suggested the Comm~~Gion could leave the rules in tact. Chair Schaub commented there should be flexibility in the Zoning Ordinance for edge properties where you cannot draw a rectangle lot. Ms. Wilson stated there aze provisions in the Zoning Ordinance for a wide variety of lot shapes that can be designed and if there is a triangular lot that comes to a point at the rear yazd there is a process for calculating the setback as defined in the Zoning Ordinance. Ivir. Fryer felt with a real plan and. knowing the spirit of what is trying to be achieved it may impact the Council regazding the stringent nature of the language and suggested building some flexibility into the code so the Council can allow for the spirit oi: the requirements. There was a discussion regarding side setbacks, zero lot lines and the property lines for alley loaded units, and how to define front setbacks. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the layout of the houses on the streets and the width of the streets would impact emergency vehicle access. IVIr. Fryer answered the streets will comply with City standazd;~ as drawn. Pat Croak, property owner and Dublin resident spoke regarding the project. He felt the amendment was not a good idea. Mr. Croak stated there ~n-ill be the same problems on his property that Mr. Fryer spoke of for the Jordan property. He Eelt the unintended consequences which would result from trying to meet rigid requirements tivithout flexibility would make it hazder for him to develop his property. He agreed with 1VIs. Wilson that the stage 2 PD process would handle most issues and asked for the maximum amount of flexibility while still meeting the spirit of the requirements. Jeff Lawrence, .Braddock and Logan spoke regarding the project. Ivlr. Lawrence gave a brief history of his project. He stated that through the process of approving the EDPO properties the result was approximately 3,100 residential units with range of densities and a variety of product types. He stated that by reducing the lot sizes they will lase density, the lots and fees are expensive and the fees could go up. He asked that the Planning Commission review the original entitlements for these properties which show that a range of densities already exists. 1-ie was also concerned about the topography of the Croak and Jordan properties. Chair Schaub presented slides to the Planning Co*nmitsion, Staff and attendees. He felt that under the proposed amendment, at medium-low 6-10du/acre, the setback/yazd requirement would be possible. He felt the realities of the two densities under the proposed amendment are; the medium-low density designation at 6-10du/acre when. a 16 foot rear yard setback is possible; but the medium-mid density designation at 10-14dLi/acre it would not be possible to meet the required setbacks. He stated that if the medium-irdd can only be built at 10du/acre the developer would loose 34 units. He stated if the developers build at the new density cPfanning Commission Septem6er9, 2008 ~yular Meeting l U~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~) designation, they could loose 100 units. He also expressed concerns related to the potentia)`Ioss of infrastructure funds and City fees and the annual tax base. Chair Schaub also stated concern with achieving well designed product types. He felt the idea was to increase the variety of product but felt that Dublin has a huge variety ~ of products currently. He was concerned about the kinds of developments that could be built with the new restrictions and that some of the current projects could not have been built. He stated that if the Commission recommends the amendment they will remove the medium-medium. out of the medium density designation because it would be unbuildable. He felt the developers would build at the maximum- of the medium-low at 10du/acre an~i they can t build at 11du/acre because the house cannot be built with the standard requirernents. He stated they would be basically building at the midpoint, which is okay.. He felt that by approving the amendment they have effectively made the midpoint 10du/acre and they ~=annot build above the midpoint and didn t think anyone would build below the midpoint. Chair Schaub was concerned with the outcome if the amendment is approved. Jeff Lawrence stated if the intent of the Council is to have Larger rear yards he suggested instead of dealing with a specific density area, during the PD or SDF: process require a percentage of yards to have a minimum usable rear yard area or impose a percentage within the development. Chair Schaub asked if IVir. Lawrence was proposing that the City leave the current regulations in tact and require a certain percentage of the development for the medium density area: Mr. Lawrence responded yes. Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Cm. Biddle felt there were still a lot of flexibility in the area with the placement of the house, side and front setbacks, as well. as flexibility in storage and. parking. He felt the proposed amendment has enough flexibility. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Mr. Lawrence regarding why not just improvise with what is now required in the medium density designation. She stated she is okay with what is proposed, but she also wants to know what kind of flexibility we will gi~~e the developers when reviewing the unusable portions and felt that not every house will meet every requirement. She continued there might be too much specificity in the new zoning which ~_ould put too much restriction on the developers. She understood the Planning Commission dais not look at economics, but only findings and felt the Commission could make the findings. She stated she would approve the amendment but would want the City Council to be aware of the information Chair Schaub has brought forth at this meeting. Chair Schaub stated the Commission has never looked at fiscal implications of a project but it is within the Commission's responsibility. Cm. Wehrenberg felt it was not the Planning Comm;~.sion's role and responsibility but is the City Council's responsibility. cPlanning Commission September9, 2008 ~gufaf96feeting leg Cm. Tomlinson stated he had been concerned about this amendment since it was first proposed and with the information Chair Schaub presented today he wens even more concerned. He felt whenever zoning is divided into smaller and smaller areas it reduces the flexibility of the overall project. He stated Chair Schaub's presentation showed how the amendment would take away from the flexibility that the Planning Commission is trying to achieve. He felt the proposed amendment would achieve the opposite of what tt-e Council wanted which was a variety of housing types and homes with'lazger private reaz yards. He felt it would not provide a variety of housing types but provide similar housing types. He liked the product type that Ivir. Fryer presented but felt it would not fit on the property. He stated also the property is not flat and has 3.4 acres of unusable land. He continued that looking at the overall scale of Dublin Ranch with its 1,000 acres and then creating new zoning designations for two small properties who unfortunately do not have their entitlements in place, thereby reducing their zoning of the property, and a lot of the costs of infrastructure, etc. would increase those fees that the developer would normally. try to keep down He felt there were problems with the fundamental fairness of the amendment. He stated there were comments at the Study Session that housing within the east area of Dublin is very similar. HEM felt that was not true, that there is a variety of product types, i.e., apartments, single family homes, and condominiums in that area. He felt the difference between the east and west side of Dublin is that the east side does not have mature trees yet so you can see all the housing but it will look different in a few years. He felt the site plan that was presented would create more usable yard space than a 15 foot flat rear yard. Cm. Tomlinson stated he will not support the amendment. He felt there are plenty of rules that allow for flexibility akeady in place. Cm. Wehrenberg asked why they wouldn't look at the simple approach, requiring a certain number of lots to be larger with rear yards instead of changing the zoning. Mr. Baker answered that the Council, at the Study Session, included direction to have 1 in 5 homes achieve a 20 ft rear yard as opposed to a 15 ft rear Yazd which requires 20°~ of the development to have 20 ft rear yards. Chair Schaub stated he does not support the amendment. He felt the amendment reduces the type of product that can be built and the flexibility of design. He understood what the Council is trying to do and suggested allowing some flexibility with the higher medium-mid density. He felt that as the zoning areas are divided into smaller and smaller areas the product ends up being a box. He felt the City did not want 3 story houses with a small footprint. He felt what the Council wants to do is good but does not think more restrictions is the way to accomplish it. Crn. Biddle commented they are very early in the process and have only seen one example if what could be done. Cm. Tomlinson felt the key part of the rule is the rear yazd setback to achieve usable rear yards, the Council felt that if the setback was 15'-20' and the problem is the unintended consequences various other product types that dori t meet the definition and but have a better solution for a larger yard. He stated the Comm;~.sion could make the direction submit your project under the current rules but we'll be looking for some kind of usable rear yard. rt'fanrting Comrnicsion Septem6er9, 2008 ~gufat Meeting 109 Chair Schaub stated the Commission and Staff have put many hours and work into this project and suggested the Commission defer the decision to the Council and not vote on it. Cm. Tomlinson did not agree and felt the proposal deserves a ~~ote. Cm. Biddle agreed with Cm. Tomlinson and was not in favor o.E deferring the decision. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Tomlinson but looking at the findings she would approve the amendment as proposed. On a motion by Cm Biddle and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg~on a vote of 2-2-1 with Cm. Kind absent, the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the Cif Council to adopt the proposed modifications to the General Plan and Stage 1 PD of Fallon Villas Ms. Wilson stated if their vote results in a tie it ultimately defeats the motion and unless there is a subsequent motion that passes the item, the result is to not recommend the proposed modification to the General Plan and Stage 1 PD for Fallon. Village to the City Council for adoption Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Commission recommends the amendment to the City Council could the information that was received at this meeting, which. was compelling information to deny it, be included for their decision. Cm. Tomlinson mentioned that the City Council will still hear the motion even though the Planning Commission denied it. Chair Schaub stated the information that he brought to the meeting would be included in the minutes of this meeting. Ms. Wilson stated the information will be given to the City Council as an attachment to the Staff Report. Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned that the Chair Schaub's information should be included in. the presentation to the City Council not just included in the minutes as an attachment. • Chair Schaub stated he would like to review the minutes of this meeting before they went to the City Council. Ms. Wilson explained that the minutes are prepared for the City Council by Friday following the meeting. Chair Schaub stated that the Planning Commission is not recommending the amendment unless there is a motion to change something in the amendment that would change the Planning Commission vote and that would need to be a revi~~ion Cm. Biddle felt it was broad enough language and would not change it. Ms. Wilson stated that the Council will receive the minutes of this meeting and can take the discussion into consideration. 2'lanning Commresion ~gular 9Keeting 11 Q September 9, 2008 RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 22 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN TO CHANGE THE EXISTING MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION CIN THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES TO MEDIUM LOW AND MEDIUM-MID DENSITY DESIGNATIONS (APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002) PA 07-056. RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 23 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING C~ OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PD- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH AMENDED STA(=E 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MEDIUM-LOW AND MEDIUM-MID DENSITY DESIGNATIONS ON THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES (APN 985-0027-007, 90.5-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002) • PA 07-056 NEW OR UNFINISIi~D BUSINESS -NONE OTHER BUSINESS - NO . 10.1 Brief INFORMATION lY reports from the Plazuning Commission and/ or Staff, including Committee Repo ~~and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense,.~AB 1234). Ms. Wilson stated there potentially could be or 6:OOpm and possibly a special meeting on let her know of their availability. y Session on the September 23, 2008 at 5:30 nber 30, 2()08 and asked the Commission to ~, She also informed the Commission that the addressing o3~thE; rear portion of the Elephant Bar has been painted. ~ ~ . 4'lanning commission Septem6er9, 2008 ?~gular~feeting 111 ~~°~UBC,~ ~ CITY CLERK X11 File # ^©©©-©© C~ ~ ~ 30 \~lII rtvn~~`_ AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING: DATE: October 7, 2008 SUBJECT: Public Hearing - PA 07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density: General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan to change the existing Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties to Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density land use designations with minimum rear yard setback requirements. Report prepared by Jeff Baker, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution amending the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the existing Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties to Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations. 2) ~ Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan for the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations on the Croak and Jordan properties. 3) City Council/Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report dated August 19, 2008 with attachments. • 4) City Council/Planning Commission Study Session Meeting Minutes . dated August 19, 2008. ' S) Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 9, 2008 without attachments. 6} Planning Commission draft Meeting Minutes dated September 9, 2008. 7) Planning Commission Resolution recommending that the City • Council adopt a Resolution amending the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the existing Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties to Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations. 8) • Planning Commission Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development . Rezone. with amended Stage 1 Development Plan for the Medium- Low and Medium-Mid Density designations on the Croak and Jordan properties. COPY TO: Property Owners PA File Page 1 of 7 G:\PA#\2007\07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium DensitylCity CouncillCC 10.7.08\ccsr 10.7.08 Medium Density.DOC RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive Staff presentation; . 2) Open the Public Hearing; I 'T ~ d~ ~'~" 3) Receive public testimony; 4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; and S) Adopt the follo~i~.ing: a. Resolution amending the City of Dublin General Plan. and Eastern Dublin Specific I'laa~ to change the existing Medium Density land use designation an the Croak and Jordan properties • to Medium-I_,ow and Medium=Mid. Density designations; and b. Waive the reading and. introduce the Ordinance approving a PD- Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan for the Medium-I.,ow and Medium-.Mid • Density designations on the Croak and Gordan properties. l~-1NANCIAL STATEMENT: No financial impact al this time. Development at the midpoint of the proposed .ivledium-Lo~v and lVledium-~'~lid Density ranges would result in the sanze number of units anticipated for the existing .Medium Density designation and would maintain the existing fiscal balance. However, topography, development standards and product type could result. in development below or above the midpoint of the proposed densitti~ ranges. P.ROJEC I' 1}ESC12Il'T.ION: 13ackgrtiund ~ . The City Council held a Strategic Planning Session on January l2, 2007. During this Strategic Planning Session the City Council discussed the existing General Ilan and Specific Pian Residential Land Use Designations within the City of Dublin and the need for Iarger private yards. Concerns were raised during this discussion regarding the need for a variety of housing types {i.e. detached units, roiv homes, stacked flats, etc.) and homes with. larger .private yards on Lmdeveloped land within the. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area that has a 1~ledium .Density (6.1-14 du/acre) land use designation. Staff studied the densities, residential land use policies, existing land use patterns, the City of .Dublin Village Policy Statement; and the status of entitlements for the land designated :For residential development within tl~e EDSP. Staff Reports were prepared for the April 3, 2007 and October 16, 2007, City Council Meetings with different policy alternatives for City Council consideration. City Council Action -April 3, 2007 and October 16, 2007 The City Cowicil reviewed .both of these Staff Reports and expressed a desire to provide a housing .product type that is betvvecn a stacked product and a larger single-family detached unit with a private usable yard (Please refer to the August 3, 2007 and October 16, 2007 City Council Meeting Minutes .included in Attachment 3 pages 29-37 and ~8-53). The~City Council also expressed a concern regarding the existing policy to calculate densities based on gross rather illan net acreage. Tlie City Council identified two Medium Density properties (Croak and Jordan) (Map 1 t~ the right) ulthin the EDSP that do not have vested development rights and that do not have a ~~ e r . ~_ :...-_ ~i~.. n. ,., fir; , i :.. ~~ ~ Jordan ~, Croak r: , ltancli ~:i ~~; Property ~-~' t - S S'AL ~ i - xe iR,~ r- tar ,.~ !`'i?. -~ 6AY 973 AG ~ r 1 7 C~ 1 ~~ 1 [F r ~''L ~~ -. ;r, - r i t: ,, c _ Fallon Village "' :~ Center Boundary tilap .I -Vicinity Map Page 2 of 7 ' N L . current de~;,lopment appIicatiori in process with the City. The City Council directed Staff to prepare ~ ~ General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments (GPA/EDSPA) and a Planned Development (PD) Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment as described below with the goal of creating private usable yards: , 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 a GPA; EDSPA, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment for the Croak and Jordan properties as directed by the City Council on October 16, 2007. Planning Commission Action -November 27, 2007 On November 27, 2007 the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to review the proposed amendments to the General Plan, EDSP, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan (Please refer to the Planning Commission Staff Report and Meeting Minutes included in Attachment 3 pgs 54-65 and 66-81). The Planning Commission raised a number of concerns with the proposed amendments including the following: 1. The Medium Density product type already exists; 2. Private yards can be achieved at this time in the Medium Density; 3. Potential loss of units and fairness concerns using net density; 4. Market demand should not be limited and remain flexible; 5. Small area for application of policies; and 6. The need for a market study of housing needs to verify market demands. Based on the above concerns, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council not approve the proposed GPA, EDSPA and PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment. Please refer to Attachment 3 (pages 7-14) for a discussion of the Planning Commission concerns. Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session -August 19, 2008 The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint Study Session on August 19, 2008 to discuss the following: - ^ The proposed Medium-Low and. Medium-Mid Density land use designations; ^ Gross vs. net density requirements; and ^ Usable yard requirements. The Study Session Staff Report included three policy alternatives for consideration by the City Council (Please refer to the City Council/Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report and Meeting Minutes that are included as Attachment 3 (pgs 1-14) and Attachment 4 respectively). The City Council directed Staff to proceed with Alternative A and prepare a GPA, EDSPA, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment to create the following: . 1. Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations; 2. Minimum 15' rear yard setback requirements for units with private rear yards; and 3. Minimum 20' rear yard setback requirements for 1 in 5 units with private rear yards. Page 3 of 7 Planning Commission Meeting -September 9, 2008 Staff prepazed the GPA, EDSPA, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment based on the direction received from the City Council at the Study Session on August 19, 2008. On September 9, 2008 the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to review the proposed GPA, EDSPA, and PD Amendment •(Please refer to the September 9, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report and Draft Meeting Minutes included as Attachments 5 and 6). Three members of the public spoke about the proposed modifications including Kevin Fryer of Mission Valley Properties representing the Jordan Ranch property, Pat Croak representing the Croak property, and Jeff Lawrence from Braddock and Logan. Mr. Fryer presented an example of one product type that they are considering for the proposed Medium- Low Density portion of the Jordan property. The product type example consists of clusters of four single-family detached-units built around S00 s.f. private yards that have a dimension of approximately 20'x25'. Mr. Fryer expressed concern regarding the topography of the Jordan property and the lack of flexibility regarding rear yard setback requirements. Mr. Fryer indicated that the northern 3.4-acres of the proposed Medium,-Low Density is too steep to develop. He felt it would be difficult to achieve the midpoint density as well as provide usable yards using the cluster development example if the northern 3.4-acres have limited development potential: He stated that the lack of flexibility regarding the proposed rear yard setback requirements was of greater concern than the potential loss of units associated with the proposed product type. The product type provided by Mr. Fryer at the Planning Commission hearing does not appear to meet the proposed 15'-20' rear yard setback requirement. While the product type presented by Mr. Fryer is one example of a Medium-Low•Density product type there are additional product types. including traditional single-family detached units, duplexes and townhomes that could be .developed with traditional rear yards. Pat Croak expressed .similar concerns to those of Mr. Fryer regarding the topography of the Croak property and the unintended consequences that may occur as a result of the proposal to modify the land use designations and rear yard setback requirements. Jeff Lawrence stated that the development plan for Fallon Village currently provides for a variety of different housing types and densities. Mr. Lawrence also expressed concern regarding topography and the ability to achieve densities on the Croak and Jordan properties. He expressed concern that the proposed amendments could result in a loss of units on the Croak and Jordan properties due to topography. The Planning Commission discussed the proposed amendments. Commissioners Schaub and Tomlinson expressed concern regarding the potential loss of units, lack of flexibility in the proposed rear yard setback requirement, and the ability to provide a variety of product types. Commissioners Wehrenberg and Biddle felt that the proposed amendments were consistent with the City Council direction and they felt that they could make the appropriate findings to support the proposed amendments. Following a discussion by the Planning Commission, a motion recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendments was put to a vote. The vote was 2-2-1 with Commissioners Biddle and Wehrenberg in support, Commissioners Schaub and Tomlinson against, and Commissioner King absent. In accordance with the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure and Section 2.12.040 of the Page 4 of 7 _. . ~,;. _ `~j s. Dublin Municipal Code (Chairman-.Rules-Records-Meetings), a tie vote ultimately defeats a motion unless a subsequent motion is passed. A subsequent motion was not presented; therefore, the Planning Commission does not .recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments. The following is a discussion of the proposed GPA, .EDSPA, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment for the Croak and Jordan properties. The proposed atllendmeuts are based on the feedback and direction from the City Council at the joint City Council and. Phtnning Commission Study Session on August 19, 2008 which was presented to the Planning Commission on September 9, 2008. No modifications have been made to the proposed amendments described below as a result of the Planning Commission hearing. ANALYSIS: Proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density Designations Land Ilse Designations Staff prepared the follo~~~ing definitions for proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density land use desibrrtations on the Croak and Jordan properties:. itesidential: Medium-Low llensity {b.l-]0 units per gross residenti~il 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. assumed household size is two persons per unit. Residential: Medium-Mica Density {10,1-14 units gross 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 (tot lot, picnic area, swimming pool areas, etc.) that accommodate recreational and leisurel}r activities. Unit types and densities may be similar or varied. Assumed household size is two persons per unit." Locution ufProposed Land U.cc~s The existing 1Vlediurn Density sites on the Croak and Jordan properties would be equally divided into Medium=Low and Medium-Mid Density as shown on Map 2 {to the right). The proposed land uses maintain the transition from the more intense )=ligh .Density Residential and Mined Use at the core of the Fallon Village Center to the less intense .Low Density Residential uses that surround the Village Center. .Development at the midpoint of the proposed density range would result in the same number of units (104 units on C'aoak attd 234 units on Jordan) anticipated far the existing Medium Density that was studied in the Fallon Village SEIR and would maintain the existing jobs/ltousing balance. {Please refer to the October 16, 2007:City Council Staff Report Tables 2, 3 and 4 included in Attachment 3 on pgs 40, 44 and 46). The units would simply be redistributed across the proposed .Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density designations and no additional en~dronmental review would be required. '~, Jordan -- °'~_ Croak r Ranch r ' ~ . Propert n ~ ~,' ~ „91.C; ~ ~ ;~ ~Y t .:. 97b ~C ~-':1 -~~~ ~W ~ ~.: ~ ~, ;~ I ~;;: Fallon Village ~' c',.. ~:. _.... Center Bflundary 1VIap 2 - .Proposer! Lanci Use Designations Page 5 of 7 i~~~ Conclusion-hand Use Designations The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations ensure that a variety of different housing types are constructed on the Croak and Jordan properties (i.e. detached and attached housing). The Medium-Low Density designation also ensures that the homes have private yards. However, the land use designations do. not guarantee the. size of these private yards. Therefore, the proposed PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment (discussed below) includes minimum rear yard setback requirements to ensure that the private yards are large enough to be usable. ~ ' Rear Yard Setback Requirements The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations permit a vaziety of attached and detached product types as discussed above. The Medium-Low Density designation requires each unit to include a private usable rear yard. The Medium-Mid Density designation allows either a private usable rear yard for each unit or shared common areas, dependent upon the product type proposed for development. The properties in the EDSP have Planned Development (PD) zoning with development standards that are tailored to each development. PD zoning with customized development standards is intended to provide greater flexibility and creativity than traditional zoning. The Croak and Jordan properties are subject to the Fallon Village PD Stage 1 Development Plan which includes development standards. The proposed PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment (Attachment 2) would modify the existing development standards to require the following rear yard setback requirements for the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations as directed by the City Council at the August 19, 2008 Study Session: Minimum 15' flat usable rear yard setback for attached and detached units with private yards; and Minimum 20' flat usable rear yard setback for 1 out of every 5 attached and detached units with private yazds. Examples of what could typically occur in a 15'-20' rear yard include children's play equipment, a patio with table and chairs, a garden, or a hot tub. The proposed PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment includes a revised Stage 1 Site Plan showing the location of the land uses; and the 15'-20' rear yard setback requirement as described above. Please refer to Attachment 2 for the proposed PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendments. In accordance with the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, a PD Stage 2 Development Plan is required before development can occur on the Croak and Jordan properties. The PD Stage 2 Development Plan will include additional development standards for the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations that aze tailored to the proposed development and that incorporate the 15'-20' rear yard setback as required by the Stage 1 Development Plan. Conclusion -Private Yard Requirements The proposed 15'-20' flat .usable reaz yard setback requirement for the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Densities would apply to attached and detached units that include private rear yards. The proposed setback requirements are provided to ensure .that the private yards in the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Densities are large enough to accommodate leisurely activities that typically occur in rear yards. The PD zoning with customized development standards will continue to allow flexibility and creativity while providing a minimum rear yard setback. . Page 6 of 7 ~` ? u ~,~ VzD2, 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-OS certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report - (SE]R) (SCH #2005062010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR, a program EIR, initially certified~by the City of Dublin in 1993 (SCH#91103064) 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. 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. NOTICING: In accordance with State law, a public notice regarding this hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject properties. A public notice was also sent to the City's interested parties list, published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. 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 and August 19, 2008, the' City Council directed Staff to prepare a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to replace the existing Medium Density (6.1-14 du/acre) portion of the Croak and Jordan properties with Medium-Low (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre) land use designations. The City Council further directed Staff to prepare a PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment to require a minimum 15'-20' rear yard setback. for units with private rear yards in the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations on the Croak and Jordan properties. The proposed amendments to the General Plan, EDSP, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan will implement the City Council direction and ensure a variety of housing types with private usable rear yards. Any substantive changes to the proposed GPA, EDSPA or PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment would require the Planning Commission to review the proposed modifications and make a recommendation to the City Council RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing; 3) Receive public testimony; 4) Close the •Public Hearing and deliberate; and S) Adopt the following: a) Resolution amending the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the existing Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties to Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations; and b) waive the reading and introduce the Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan for the.Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations on the Croak and Jordan properties. Page 7 of 7 ~~.~'~' PUBLIC HEARINGS Croak and Jordan Medium Density, PA 07-056: General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and Planned Development Rezone with Amended Stage 1 Development Plan to Change the Existing Medium Density Portion of the Croak and Jordan Properties to Medium-Lo~v Density and Medium-Mid Density Land Use Designations with Minimum Rear Yard Setback Requirements 7:21 p.m. 6.1 (410-55/420-30} Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. l~ ~~~. Senior Planner Jeff Baker presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would hold a Public Hearing to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, and Planned Development (PD) Stage. 1 Development Plan Amendment to change the existing Medium Density (6.1-14 du/acre) portion of the Croak and Jordan properties to a .combination of Medium-Low .(6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium- Mid Density 110.1-14 du/acre) in order to encourage a variety of housing types that included small lot detached homes and other product types with usable private yards, .and PD development standards that required a minimum 15' rear yard setback with one in five homes having a 20' rear yard setback. ~ . Mayor Lockhart asked if there was a simpler way of accomplishing a higher percentage of larger backyards. In regard to the topography of the land, could the City not have Larger backyards on a percentage of the• units: Should the City Council approve what was in front of them tonight and require a_ percentage of larger yards later in the process? What was a simpler way of accomplishing having X percentage of ,units having larger backyards? Cm. Hillenbrand asked if a percentage was used, would that allow for more flexibility in designing units to the land. t . DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 27 ,~ oe ~a REGULAR MEETING 19,~~~ ~~ . October 7, 200$ \`L~'. ~. 1 ATTACHMENT 8 ~R DR~4.Ffi Mr. Baker stated there were simpler solutions for the City Council to achieve its prefei~ed outcome, but having language in the General P1ari provided a clear policy direction. That would give greater assurance of achieving what the City Council wanted to achieve. The issue could also be Handled through zoning, in a slightly simpler fashion. Cm. Oravetz stated when this item had come before the City Council at a Study Session, he had voted to do nothing. If the City left it the same, the City could achieve the same through zoning. Mr. Baker stated to achieve what the Mayor had mentioned, the City would want to amend the PD to require a larger setback. Right now it required . a minimum of 8 feet. The proposal was in the 15-20 foot range. To. help ensure it would be bigger, you would want to increase the setback through the PD . Cm. Oravetz asked if they could include language in the PD that ~ would encourage the developers to provide bigger backyards. Mayor Lockhart stated the City could encourage it, but the developers would not do it. Cm. Oravetz stated correct, the developers would not have to do it, but then the City Council could choose not to accept the plans. He wanted to provide flexibility to the developers to allow them to sell homes. If the developers did not sell homes, the City did not receive sales tax. Mayor Lockhart stated if homes had bigger backyards, they might sell mare homes: Cm. Hildenbrand stated if ~ the City did not change the language for the setbacks and the developers presented a project with the required 8-foot setback, then they were within the required setback. Cm. Oravetz reiterated he would like to provide flexibility to the developers. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 27 ,~ D6~ REGUL.A.R MEETING r~r~~~~~~ October 7, 2008 `\ ~ if ~ ~s DRAFT' Cm. Hildenbrand stated what the City had consistently seen townhomes, condos and homes with patios. By doing this, with only two properties at this point, the City Council would be trying to preserve some of the single family lifestyle it was losing. Cm. Oravetz stated the developers =were nat at fault, it was the City Council's fault for approving the projects. Cm. Hildenbrand stated it had taken three years to get three Councilmembers to agree at the Strategic Planning sessions to talk about this issue. Vm. Sbranti stated the goal was to have usable backyards. One way to have bigger backyards was through this option. There were different ways to achieve that goal. Kevin Fryer, represen#ative of the owners of the Jordan Property, stated it was their intention to provide useable backyard space. They did not want to draw. a line. in the development to divide medium-mid density on one side and medium-low density on the other because it would not allow the planners to utilize the site to its fullest. They had come up with a cluster product along the entire edge of the property. It was four units with gaxages on the backside and front doors on the trail. ,Instead of hiding the trail behind fences and in back yards and making it an appendage of the plan, they wanted to make it a focal point and have front doors facing it so there was an invitation to use the trail. This product was intended for the area that was medium-low. It allowed open space to be used as private yards. It allowed minimum yard space, 22' x 24', 22' x 25', and 21' x 24, fairly usable, private yard spaces. But it did not fit a rigid definition of a rear yard setback that requires a minimum 15' from the rear property line. These were two story houses, 1,600 to 2,100 square feet houses. The lots are relatively large, 3,700 square foot lots. If you were in your backyard, you would have approximately 50 feet before you had any kind of house by you. While not as wide if you had a 15' setback for an entirety of the lot, it was still a very usable yard space within medium density. They wexe very excited about it, but unfortunately, for a couple of reasons, with the proposals that were before the City Council tonight, this product did not meet the 15' or 20' DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 27 a REGULAR MEETING i9r~;'=~~ti~ Oc#ober 7, 2408 `` rro~ 8 e DRAFT minimum rear yard setback. It did provide close to 500 square feed contiguous yards within the medium density area, but unfortunately, it still did not work. Within the medium-mid area they were proposing either providinga usable private yard'or access to a common open area. It was an alley loaded, two- and three-story, small lot detached product. It was all within medium density and the focus was 'on providing detached, less intense, overall fewer units and better private and common open spaces. Similar to what was already in Dublin, one example had an alley in the back, garages in the back with front paseos, and side areas. There were 10'-4" to 13'-6" spacing between the buildings. While they were not trying to meet the definition of the usable private yard the City Council would like within- the medium-low area, the open .areas were still rather substantial for that specific product. There was improvement on these spaces and each unit did include a significant livable quality front or side porch, rtJnder the current plan, current standards, there were 23.4 acres of medium .density, with a density range of 6.0 - 14 du/ac. The minimum total density under the current Specif c Plan and General Plan was 143 units, that was 6.1 times the acreage. within medium density. They would like to have amid-point density as .a goal, and that would be the 234 units that wexe presented by Staff. Under the proposed amendments before the City Council, the project would split the medium designation into medium-Iow. and medium-mid. The impact would be the total mid-point density remained the same, 234 units. But by creating a section that had a higher minimum density, the minimum units required within medium went from 143 units currently, to 189, under these proposals. So while the mid-point density remained the same, the minimum required units increased. For the landowners, the proposal was 160 units within medium density, so they fell right in the range under current standards. They were fine. Under the proposed amendments, they would not provide enough units. There was one significant reason for that, at the northeastern end of the site within medium density, there were 3.4 acres of unusable hillside. In theory, viewing the map, you split it in half and you had 11.7 acres of medium-low, the reality was 3.4 of those acres would be open space, hillside. They were having problems reaching the medium density requirements. They were proposing a concept of less intense, more .single-family detached, better private spaces, some quality common areas for these medium-mid units, with connectivity throughout. It did not fall within the City's proposed amendments. His proposal was not to DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 27 ,~ °U~ REGULAR MEETING 141~~~~~ October 7, 2008 G R ~~ v~~T split medium into medium-low and medium-mid, but instead require that 54°/a of all units developed within the medium density area provide usable private yards, and the remaining 54% either provide the same usable private yard or ~a common axea. It was basically the requirements of medium-low and medium-mid, but it allowed the developer flexibility as to where they placed them. If~you were at mid range density, 94 units would be required to provide a usable private yard. Under the developer's proposal, 95 of those cluster homes would have that yard. They were at the same number of units with usable yards as the City Council. They had diversity of product. The ones that would fail in the medium-mid category as a common area and some reasonable yard space, would hopefully fall into what the City's Council intent was regarding usable yards. They were requesting a flexibility of the definition of what was a usable private yard. The nature of . a rear yard setback was a fairly technical and stringent requirement. What he was suggesting as an alternative was to define a usable private yard as requiring a minimum of 440 square feet of contiguous open space, with a minimum dimension of 18 feet in any direction. This would assure that you were not getting a yard configuration that was not useable. Fifty percent of the units was a higher percentage than you would get under the proposed amendments. Their proposed plan achieved the goal of the total units the. City Council would like to see. Mr. Patrick Croak, landowner, stated he was on board with the City Council's goal of wanting to provide useable private yards. He was in favor of not having a plan that split the development into medium-mid and medium-low density categories. He would like to maintain a spirit of cooperation and flexibility with an end product that could be approved. Jimmy Huang, Dublin resident, stated he was worried about not having a hard definition of medium density. Different developers could interpret the definition differently. Was it possible to set up a community meeting to discuss the issue. People wanted lowex density. Mayor Lockhart stated the City Council was here to make a decision. There had been community workshops already and this was an issue that needed to be resolved. The City had to work within the legal limits of the medium density definition. The General Plan called for a cex•tain number of homes DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 27 oF~ o,~ REGULAR MEETING t~rr~~it/~~~ ®ctober 7, 2008 `` '~ L! R ~ DRA,~T and there many things that went into the development of that number. It had to do with the Gity's financial infrastructure. So the City had to stay within the ranges that were set in the General Plan to begin with. The City was trying to have homes with larger back yards, and still provide the Level of density that would work for the City. ' Mayor Lockhart closed the public heai7ng. Cm. Hillenbrand stated she had brought this issue to the table. It was important, regardless of whatever option was selected, to remember the community message of wanting usable backyards. Yes, the City Council did approve previous projects because they did fall within City-set guidelines, so it was now important to.have guidelines, or some language that stated usable backyards were required in the rest of the projects coming foi~rard. There would be creative housing opportunities coming forward. The City Council was on the right track. Vm. Sbranti stated the big picture was the most important thing. There had been two goals, lower density and usable backyards. There were two options before the City Council, with the two medium densities, and option two required 50% of a project to have usable backyards required, not a goal; dream or wish, but required. The other 50% would have a common living area or a useable back yard, if that could be accommodated. Both proposals were worth considering. What was presented by Mr: Fryer was an option that the Council should seriously consider. There needed to be language that stated the requirements. He supported both options and was intrigued by the second option presented tonight. Cm. Hiidenbrand asked if Vm. Sbranti agreed with the usable yard def nition of 400' square feet, with 18' in any direction. " Crn. Sbranti responded that he did support the definition of a usable, practical backyard. He did support the idea ~of requiring those yards within 50% of the development, which essentially achieved that medium-low goal that the City Council had to start with. Cm. Oravetz stated he could support Mr. Fryer's 50% plan. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 27 a REGULAR MEETING l9,~~~^~ ~a October 7, 2008 `GL~ lS~fv~j zoo ~~~~ Cm. Scholz stated she could support Mr. Fryer's outlined project. She stated she had heard the concern about density and lower. density was part of the picture and she totally supported useable backyards. Mayor Lockhart stated if there was a large piece that could be divided in two different zoning, it would be simpler. But there were topography challenges with the two pieces of land the City Council had designated. As long as it met the City's big picture goals in terms of homes with useable she was comfortable looking at that alternative. How would the City get there? Mr. Bakez• stated in regard to getting the 54% - 54% split, the City Council could direct Staff to do an amendment to the PD, which.would require going back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation and then coming back to the City Council for two readings of the ordinance. This could establish that 54% of the units within the medium density of the Croak and Jordan properties have a real yard and define that yard size, put that language in the PD and bring that to the City Council. Another option would be to not adopt the General Plan amendment and take the existing PD, that had a requirement for a traditional backyard, a 15'-24' rear. yard, and when a developer came in with a project, it could be evaluated against the intent of what was proposed. Each project would be evaluated on a case-by- case basis. If the City Council wanted to completely settle it tonight, then Staff should be directed to go back .to the Planning.Commission and come back to the City Council for two readings of the ordinance. Cm. Hildenbrand stated she felt it should be settled today. She wanted to settle it officially as a Council and send a clear message to those that would be building in Dublin, City Attorney Bakker asked for clarification on what Mr. Fryer was proposing. Was it to eliminate the General Plan amendment that Staff was proposing entirely, and incorporate or implement his proposal in the Stage i PD. It would be an ordinance amendment for medium density on Croak and Jordan, specifically. If the Crty Council wanted to implement his proposal, the City Council would not adopt the General Plan Amendment tonight, and DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL NIINUTES VOLUME 27 ^ REGULAR MEETING m ~ ~ °'ir D n~ October 7, 2008 ~ 19 . t~ ,~ ~~ ~ ~a~- DRAFT indicate .that they were in concurrence with his proposal and that it would have to go back fo the Planning Commission. Vm. Sbranti stated if you read the Planning Commission minutes, this was what they were suggesting. Mr. Bakker stated another option was to make a simple change to the General PIan regarding the medium density designation indicating the City Council wanted 50% of the residential parcels within the medium density designation to have private useable rear yards. As the City evaluated. projects, Staff could look at whether the projects met that generalized standard. It would not require rear yards, but it would require private, usable yards: Staff's proposed Language required private, flat, useable outdoor yard areas. It also split the designation in two separate designations. It was just stronger to have a General Plan Amendment where you were articulating your policy statement where you want private, flat, rear yards. If you only changed .the PD, then someone could by to change it. If you wanted to ensure you had a frm policy that was enforceable, you would want to consider putting it in the General Plan. Otherwise you might have a situation in the future where a developer did not want to incorporate 50% of units with private, rear yards; and you were left to discuss whether they were entitled to amend the PD or not, when _ their proposal might be. consistent with the General Plan, in all other respects. Mr. Baker stated he heard a two pronged approach, a General Plan amendment to require on the medium density. on the Croak and Jordan properties, a private, useable, ,flat rear yard, and then a PD amendment for Croak and Jordan to establish the private yard size. Crn. Oravetz stated if he made a motion to do nothing, and the. City Council approved, it would go: back to the Planning Commission, and it would then require two Public Hearings of the City Council. It would be December by then and there would be a new City Council. Mr. Bakker stated that there was a medium density designation that was applicable throughout eastern Dublin. Staff would have to ensure that in the DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 2'1 ~ REGULAR MEETING Igl~,i~~,t~ October 7, 2008 \`t '~ . ' ll t~ ~ 2a~ DRAFT draft of the General Plan designation that this 50% policy applied only to the areas east of Fallon Road. Cm. Hilderibrand asked what would be the easiest way to resolve this and send a clear message while moving forward. Mr. Baker stated it would be to not adopt the General Plan amendment, adopt the PD amendment for the rear yard requirement and then evaluate this project and make further modifications down.the road, looking to see if it met the intent. Vm. Sbranti asked what were the next steps. Mr. Bakex stated that the City Council could approve the first reading tonight. Staff would return with the second reading, the ordinance would be approved requiring a minimum 15' rear yard, with every one in five homes having a minimum 20' rear yard. Then an applicant came in, Staff reviewed their proposal to see if it met the intent of the law. Staff could recommend crafting some changes to the PD and taking it to the City Council and saying, this does not meet the letter of the law but it does meet the intent, so Staff would recommend the changes. The City Council discussed that this needed to be done the right way, regardless of what was decided to ensure that everyone had the -same understanding down the road. The next City Council would have the benefit of the minutes of all the meetings. A clarification was made that they were all speaking about a useable; private. yard, not necessarily a rear yard, with 400' square feet of contiguous open space, 1 S' in any direction. On motion of Crn. Oravetz, seconded by Vm. -Sbranti and by unanirrious vote, the City Council voted not to adopt the resolution amending the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to Change the Existing Medium Density Land Use Designations on the Croak and 7ordan Properties to Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density Designations. On motion of Vm. Sbranti, seconded by Cm. Scholz and by unanimous vote, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a report far the Planning DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTIES VOLUME 2~ ,~ ~ b REGULAR MEETING ~ ,,, ~ n, . 14 ~'' October 7, X008 `\ L~'~' ~~ DRAFT Commission and City Council that included a General Plan Amendment that required within the Medium Density Designation on the Croak and Jordan Properties, that 50% of units have a usable private yard; and in the PD define a private usable yard as an , 18 x 18 foot contiguous. area; and for the 50% of units that did not have a private yard, that they have a common area. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 27 ~~ REGULAR MEETING «~~~~~~ October 72008 _ \\\ '~'U' ~Jl t~ Z~~ ~_ U1 ~ ~ , ~i~V ~ ~ AGENDA STATEMENT \~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 28, 2008 ~~~~ SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: (Legislative .Action) - PA 07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density: General PIan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to required 50% of the units within the Medium Density Land Use Designation on the Croak and Jor3an properties provide private yards, and a PD -Planned Developmen~: Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan to establish revised private yard standards within the . Medium Density Land Use Designation on the Croak and Jordan properties. Report prepared by Jeff Baker, Senior .planner ATTACHMEN'CS: 1) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to require that 5(i% of the units within the Medium Density land use' designation cn the Croak and Jordan properties provide private yards, with the draft City Council Resolution included as Exhibit A. 2) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan to establish revised development standards for private yards within the Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties, with the draft Ordinance included as Exhibit A. 3) Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report dated August 19, 2008 with attachments. 4) Joint City Council/Planning C~~mmission Study Session Meeting Minutes dated August 19, 2008_ 5) Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 9, 2008 without attachments. 6) Planning Commission Meeting )\~inutes dated September 9, 2008. 7) City Council Staff Report ~jated October 7, 2008 without attachments. 8) City Council draft Meeting Minutes dated October 7, 2008. RECOMMENDATION: 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 Resolutions COPY TO: Property Owners File Page 1 of 7 G:\PAt112007107-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Densih/\Planning Commissionil0.28.08\pcsr 10.28.08 East Dublin Density.DOC a. Res~~lution reconunending that the City Council aifopt~ ~ , ~ Resolution an-tending the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to require that 50"/~ of the units vc~thin the Medium. Density land use designation on file Croal. and .Tordatl properties provide private yards (:Attachment lj; and b. Resolution recommending ihat the: C}ty Council adopt an {ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with. amended Stage l Development Plan io establish revised development standards for private yards u°ithin the 'Medium Density land use designation on thz Croak and Jordan properties (t~tt:tchment 2). PR+t~JEC'I` DISCRIPTIO~N: I3ackgro~Ind The City Council held a Strategic Planning Session on Jatluat•~• 12, 2007. During this Strategic Platmitig . ~%SSi{?11 the: City Council discussed the existing Creneral. Tian and Specific Plan Residential Land Use T)esignatious within the Cit3J of Dut>lin and the need for larger private yards. Concerns wire raised during this disc«ssion regarding the need for a variety of~ Dousing t~•pes (i.e. detached units, roue homes, stacked flats, etc.) and homes with larger private yckrds on undeveloped land within the Ca.stern Dublin Specific .Plan (EDSI') area that has a IVtediuil~ Density (b.l-1 ~ ctu'acre) land use desi~*nation. Staff studied the densities, residential Iand use policies, existing lartld use patterns, ttie City of Dublin tiillage Policy Statement, and the status ol'enti#lements for the land designated for residential development within the 1rDSP. Staff Reports. ~xere prepared for the r'~pril 3, 2007 and October 1 E, 200'7, City Council :~~ILetings with difTeren# policy altem~ttives for City Council consiclc;ration. . City C;ouricil :~ctian - :'lpril 3, 2007 ,~iid Dctnber 16, 20()7 Tile City COtit1C11 roe<ietived both of these Staff .Reports and expressed a desire to provide a housing pt•oduci type that is betlveen a stacked product and a larger single-:Iatnily detached unit ~x•itla a private usable yard (.Please refer to the .'lugusi 3, 21)07 and October 1 C, 2007 City Council Meeting Ivlitlutes included in t~ttachment 3 pages 29-37 and his-53). The G.ityr Council also expressed a c;ancern renarding the existing policy to calculate densities based on s~*toss rather than.net acreage. The City Council identified tiro Meditmi Density ptoperties t ~ ~ ~ ". a v s ~- Center 13t~undary {Croak and ,Iordan} (l~iap 1 to the right)~~vitl~in the EDSP that ~ ~. ~,, -'--4- do not have vested ifeveloptt~etlt rights and that do n.ot have a ,,/ ~:. ~ ~ F~ ~9F ~}°~ r.~s~'I; current develc~pmet7t application. in process w7th the City. The Map t ~,%ic~ntty Ntat~ - C;ity° C'ounci.l directed Staff to prepare General Plan and Eastern Dublin SpeciLic Plan :amendments (GP:~.'l~DSI'!l) and a Planned Development (.l'D) Stage Development Plan t~mendment as described. belotiv with the goal of creating private usable yards: 1. Create Medium-Low Density (6.]-l t) duJacre) acid Medium-Mid Density (1.0.1-1'1 du/acre) land use designations to replace the eYistin~ Medium Density (G.l-l~ clu~acre) land ttse designation on the Croak and Jordan properties: V 2. Calculate densities for the tcvo new land use desi~mations based on net developable acre;; arid. 3. Require usable yards for development within the RTedium-.Low Density designation. Page ? of 7 Staff prepared a CiPA, EDSPA, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan P.mendment for the CroaK anfl .lo an ~ properties as directed by the City Council on October 16, 2007. Planning Commission Action -November 27, 2007 On November 27, 2007 the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to review the proposed amendments to the General Plan, EI)SP, and PD Stage 1 Developmf;nt Plan. The Planning Commission raised a number bf concerns with the proposed amendments (Please refer to the Planning Commission Staff Report and Meeting Minutes included in Attachment 3 pgs `4-65 and 66-81). Because of these concerns, the Pla~ming Commission voted unanimously to reeomme~td that the City Council not approve the proposed GPA, EDSPA and PD Stage 1 Development Plan Ame~idment. Please refer to Attachment 3 (pages 7-14) for a discussion of the Planning Commission concerns. ,Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session -August 19, 2008 The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint Study Sessi~~n on August 19, 2008 to discuss: 1) the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations; 2) gross vs. net density requirements; and 3) usable yard requirements. The Study Session Staff Report included three policy alternatives for consideration by the City Council (Please refer to the City CouncillPlanning Commission Study Session Staff Report and Meeting Minutes that are included as Attachment 3 (pgs 1-14) and Attachment 4 respectively). The City Council directed Staff to proceed with Alternative A and prepare a GPA, EDSPA, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment to create the following: 1. Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designatio~is; 2. Minimum 15' rear yard setback requirements for units~with f~rivate rear yards; and 3. Minimum 20' rear yard setback requirements for 1 in 5 units with private rear yards. Planning Commission Meeting -September 9, 2008 Staff prepared the GPA, EDSPA, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment based on the direction .received from the City Council at the Study Session on August 19. 2008. On September 9, 2008 the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to review the proposed GPA, EDSPA, and PD Amendment. (Please refer to the September 9, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report and Draft Meeting Minutes included as Attachments 5 and 6). Three members oi'the public spoke about the proposed modifications including Kevin Fryer from Mission Valley Properties representing the Jordan.Ranch properly, Pat Croak representing. the Croak property, and. Jeff Lawrence from Braddock and Logan. All three spoke against -he proposed amendments and sited concerns'regarding the topography oPthe properties, the potential loss of units,~and the lack of flexibility in the proposed amendments. Following a discussion of the proposed amendments by the Planning Commission, a motion recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendments was put to a vote. The vote was 2-2-1 with Commissioners Biddle and Wehrenberg in support, Commissioners Schaub and Tomlinson against, and Commissioner King absent. In accordance with the Planr: ing Commission Rules of Procedure and Section 2.12.040 of the Dublvi Municipal Code (Chairman-Rules-Records-Meetings), a tie vote ultimately defeats a motion unless a subsequent motion is passed. A subsequent motion was not presented; therefore, the Planning Commission did not recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments. Page 3 of 7 • c •t ~t :et;~ - o~t~~~t- 7 zoaR ~a~ ~.j; ~;~- Crty ounce ~ e g The City Council held a public .Bearing to consider the proposed•zC-Pa, LDSPA, and P.D Sta~e~ 1 Development Plan ;~mendmcnt on October 7, 200$. During the public hearing, Kevin f=ryer :from Mission V~tl.ley Properties and Pat CroaLc representing tBe Croak prol7et-t;f spoke against the proposed f'~mendments. Similar to the presentation at the September ~, 200 1'la7ming Convnission meetinW, lvlr. Pr}'er presorted an example of one product type that they are considering f°or~the proposed Medium=Lo~v .Density portion of the Jordan property. The product tcTG example consists of clusters of tintr single-family detacliecl units built around S00 s.l: private yards that have a.dimension of approximately 20'x2'. This product type did not appear to meet t11e proposed L S'-20' rear yard setback requirement proposal by the City Coeulcil. Nir. Dryer expressed concern regarding the lopagraphy of the Jordan property and the. lack of flexibility regarilirg rear yard setback requirements. 1~Jtr. Fryer indicated that the no.t~hern 3.~-acres oftBe proposed Nlecliurn-I1o~v Density is too steep to develop. t-le felt it would be diftieult to achieve the midpoint density ~s well as provide usable yards using the cluster dev~lopmcnt example it°the northern ~.~-acres has Limited development potential. He stated ~ that the lack of >-lcxibility regarding the proposed rear yard setback requirements «•as of ~reaier concern than the potential loss uf~ units associated with the proposed product type,. I'at Croak expressed similar concerns to those of• 1~1r. Frr•~er regarding the topu~naphy ol`the Croak property anti the unintended consegt,iences that may occur as a result of the proposr>.l to modify the land use designations and roar yard setbacl: requirements. I{ollo~vin~_ extensive discussion, ihi City Council directed Stafl'to prepare: a GPI, CDSP~'1, and t'1~ Stage 1 Dc:velt~pn~cnt Plan ;amendment to include the lolto~v~ing: GPA c~c DDSP:~ Require ~0°l0 0:#' the units tvitltin the existing Ntedium Density land use designation on tht Croak and ,lordan properties to iticlucle private yards: PD Staue 1 Developnl~nt Plan Amendment • Require 50° ~, of the units within the existing Nlt;dium Density land use ctesign:~tion on the Croak and Jo.rd~ut properties to provide a lninim.um X00 s.l: private, usable yard with a rni:nimutn dimension of 1$';+cl ~'; and C`.ommon aret'<.5 shall be protiided for additional units that do not provide private yards that meet the standards as noted above. The follo1~=ing is a cliscussicin .o~f the proposed CPA, E.DSI':~, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan ;'~mendmentf'or the Croak and Jordan propet~ies. The proposed amendments are based on the direction received From the CittJ Council an October 7, 20{)8. ~; .. ~~ ~_ ~,::~ r ,~ ' Jordan ,~ ~~ Croak '' ANALYSIS: Ranch "_~ ~" ; .,'. t'rOpei't' Yeneral Plnn/Eastern Dublin S ~ecific 1'l:tn Amenclcnent ~``"'~ M " ~ ~° , ,'~s previously stated, a portion of'the Croak and Jordan properties ~"•~~,:4~~ ~},; ; 1laV('. An eXlsting General P1a11 lal7d u5C dC'.St~rflatioll O:t Medltlnl '~u~--~~~~ „'.:F ~ ~ x;~ ~ R ~ ~~'• Density (t.7-14 dulacrej. Please refier io :~1~ip 2 (ta the right) for ~~'~~ t ~. ~; ~ ' ~ F' :.~ __ ' ~.. P ,f; the location of the existing 11~edium Densit;p designation and '`""~~`~~~' ~ ~,"'~IIr~~~r Tat~ic 1 (beLowl :for information regarding .the existing Medium ~~-~~!-' • ~'" 4` Fa11o-1 t~iltage Density land u.se designation an these two properties. °~^'~~ :~ -'~ ~ ,c,~ Center ,,.6~: iYiap 2 -Existing ~'Terlium Density Page ~ of 7 1 zap 'l'able.l -Existing l!Icclium Density Land Use llesignations ~ Frop~rty ~ Land Use bensify Mtdpoirafi ` j Acres D~elltng best naf~tict Ran e ~ Uenstt ; ~ units . ~ Croak '~ Medium Density ~ 6.1-14 du/ac 1 10 dulac j 10.4 ac 104 units Jordan ~ ! N9edium Density ~ 6.1-14 du/ac ~ 10 du/ac j 23.4 ac ~ 234 units i Total ~ 33.8 acres I 338 units The proposed Ciencral Plan Amendment would require that `?01~ of the units that are constructed within the e:xistiilg IVlediutn Density desibnation on the Ctoak and Jordan properties include private yatcls for each unit. The 17ropose:d GP:'1/LI7SPr1 ~vottld continuo to aIlt~~v devel~~~pn~ont to occur at the rnid(~oint of tltc density ratlge as anticipated in the Ueneral Plan., Eastern Dublin Specific Ilan ruxi tlae Ii~allan VIIIa`.;c SEIR and would tllainiain the existing johslJlousing balance. . C'urrLluti•inn - Gl',~'EDSP~1 TL1e Lil'f~~I.DSPf1 will ensure that 50°,'0 o:f the units that are constructed on the R~lediunl Densitlr pot•tion of the Croak znd Jordan properties have private yards. I-Io~vever. the land use designations do not guarantee the size of these private yards. 't'herefore, the prnposecl PD Stagg 1 Devoloptnent Plan Amendment (discussed below) includes niinimurn development standards for private yards on file Itiledli1111 Density portion of the Croalt and Jordan properties. . "I•he proposed Cit:n~eal flan Amcnciments Lire included as I~il~ibit A to l~tt.tcllnicnt l ol'this Sta#t iteport (Please refer to Pa~~7e 2 of Exhibit A for the Findings). 1'lannecl i}evelolln>Ient St~ige 1 Devclopn;ent flan :amendment The properties in the 1JI)SI' have Planned Dcveloptuent (PU) zoning 1~-ith development statldarcis that are taiIor~d to each development. Thy PD zoning with customized derc;lt>pment standards are intended to ptovi.de greater flexibility and creativit;~ than traditional zoning. The Croak and Jordan properties are subject to the Pailan ~t%illage~PD Stage l I)evelopme7lt I?lrzn which includes development standards. 'CI14 ~Sroposed I'.D Sta~~e I I7eveloprnent Plan Atllendinent (Attachment '2) would modify the existing dove]opment standards to retliiire the following for the ,'Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan pr~;~llerties: ^ St)"/<> at the units Provide rE miniinuin 400 s.t~private, flat, ieuced ~~ard with a ininin~um dimension of~i8'x18': and ^ Conunotl areas shall be provided for additional units that do .not provide private ya~•cls that meet tJ.lo standards as noted above. Isxamples of ~vliat could typically occur in a 4{){) s.t: yard with a mininlunl dilnensian ejf 18'x18' include children's play ecluipYllent; a patio with table arld chairs, a garden, or a licit tub. The Cit;~ Council did not define ~v'hat constitutes "coirltnon areas'' so that will he studied. under the Stage 2 Development Pian and Site Development Revic~~~. In accordance ~~~ith the Dublin toning Drdina~lce, a PD Sta~?e 2 Development Plan. and Site Deg-elopment Revietiv are required before development c•,~in occur on t11G Croak and :lordan properties. T'Iae PD Stake 2 Development Plan and S.DI2 will be brought forward to the Planning Commission for rcvie~~~ tiv11t;11 the Litt' receives a Planning Application for the Croak and Jordan properties. (;rlrrclrc.rior~ -1'D ~S'rrrge 1 Derelr~~~nze~~11'Irrii An~errr~menJ Tl1e: proposed private }yard development standards ~vi~uld apply tc> attached -and detached units within the existing (Medium Density designation on the Croak and Jordan properties. The proposed development standards would ensure: that ~0°,% of the units propsided private yards in the Itiledium I)ensit~r designation that are largo enough to accommodate tppical leisurely activities for a private residence. Tho PD zoning Pa:Ye S of 7 with customized :development. standards will continue to allow flexibility and creativity while~provid n~ minimum private yard standards. The proposed Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment is included in Exhibit A to Attachment 2 (please refer to Page 1 of Exhibit A for the Findings). 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-OS 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#91103064) and the Eastern Dublin Property Owners SEIR (S~~H # 2001052114) certified in 2002 by Resolution 40-02 for the Fallon Village project. The prior E:Rs 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. ' NOTICING: In accordance with State law, a public notice regarding this hearing vv as mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject properties. A public notice •,vas also sent to the City's interested parties list, published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. . CONCLUSION: The. City Council has the authority to modify General Plan and Spe~;ific Plan Land Use Designations at any time. On October 7, 2008, the City Council directed Staff to prc;pare a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment requiring 50% of the units in the Medi~irn Density land use designation to provide private usable yards, and common areas for units that do not leave private yards. The City Council further directed Staff to prepare a PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment to. establish minimum development standards for private y~crds in the Medium Density desi;;nation. The proposed amendments to the General Plan, EDSP, and PD ,3tage 1 Development Plan will implement the City Council direction and ensure a variety of housing types with private, flat yards. . RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 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 resolutions: a) Resolution recommending that the City Council adop-: a Resolution amending the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to require that 50% of the units within the Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties provide private yards (Attachment ~1); and b) Waive the first reading and introduce the Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with amended St<1ge 1 Development Plan to establish revised development standards for private yards within the Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties (Attachment 2). Page 6 of 7 - 1 d R 3 ,.-,. _ GENERAL INFORMATION: ~ '~ _ ~ -~ APPLICANT: ~ City of Dublin ' PROPERTY OWNERS: Francis Croak 1262 Gabriel Court San Leandro, CA 94`77 Jordan Ranch LLC 5000 Hopyard Road, Ste. 170 Pleasanton, CA 94588 LOCATION: ~ ~ APN 985-0027-007, ~~OS-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002 EXISTING ZONING: PD -Planned Development EXISTING GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS: Medium Density Res idential (6.1-14 du/acre) 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. 2~:2-OS certifying a Supplemental Environmental Irr..pact Report (SEIR) (SCH #2005062010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR, a program EIR, .initially certified by the City of Dublin in 1993 (SCH#91103064) alid 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. 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 d~;nsity beyond .what was previously studied for the sul:ject properties, and therefore no additional environme;rtal review is required. Page 7 of 7 DRAFT DRAFT ~ @ ~ !'sr ~ ~.G-?- ~~~~~as • '~t -''" ~ Plannin Commission Minutes ~~` , . g ,~,,t~, ~~ ~ Tuesday, October 28, 2008. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 28, 2008, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:OOp.m. Present: Chair Schaub; Vice Chair Tomlinson; Commissioners Wehrenberg and Biddle; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Jeff Baker, Senior Planner; John Lucero, Housing Specialist; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary.. Absent: Commissioner King ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -NONE " MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg, seconded by Cm. Tomlinson the minutes of the October 14,.2008 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -NONE CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE ~ . WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PA 07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density: General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to require 50% of the units within the Medium Density Land Use Designation on the Croak and Jordan properties provide private yards, and a PD =Planned .Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan to establish revised private yard standards within the Medium Density Land Use Designation on the Croak and Jordan properties. Jeff Baker, Senior Planner presented the project as stated in the. Staff Report. Cm. Tomlinson asked if the size of the common area is defined in the resolution. Mr, Baker answered the Council did not define the common area, but it would be studied with the Stage 2 PD and SDR as part of the development application process as is our current practice. . Cm. Wehrenberg asked how the SDR process would be handled if the developers cannot meet the requirements and would it be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Baker answered that was correct; they would be required to, meet these standards and if they could not they would have to request an exception; a General Plan Amendment if they could not meet the 50% requirement or a PD amendment if they could not meet the development standards for private yards which would require further action from the Planning Commission. 2'1an~zinQ (,'°mmrssiorr t3ctaFier28, 2008 ~Q{luCa; ~est7r~g ~ 127 . ~ 2oz DRAFT ; '„'.AFT Cm. Wehrenberg commented the Planning Commission will have another opportunity to review this during the SDR process and it would be determined at that point what type of product will be submitted. Mr. Baker answered in order for these sites to be developed they would be required to obtain approval bf a Stage'2 PD and SDR which would be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Cm. Biddle commented the Stage 2 PD and SDR are still forthcoming and there could still be the option of a study session if needed. ' Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there are findings that must be made on the resolutions being reviewed at this meeting. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager answered yes; the Planning Commission could recommend the findings in the GPA Resolution and the PD Ordinance; they could make the recommendation in the positive to allow the City Council to follow the Commission s action to approve or not: Cm. Biddle stated the description does not restrict the yard to a rear yard, but there are restrictions on what can be done in the front yards such as no privacy fence, etc. Mr. Baker stated that through the PD process it allows the flexibility for where to locate the yards, but the City has typically not allowed privacy fences in front yards. Chair Schaub mentioned that it is sometimes difficult to determine where the front of the house is because they are not traditional square houses. Mr. Baker stated the Planning Commission would have the opportunity to review the SDR to ensure that it meets the requirements of the resolution. Cm. Tomlinson mentioned that the Council's intent was to have private. yards and felt it would most likely be either rear yards or side yards. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and hearing no comments, closed the .public hearing. Chair Schaub stated.that he feels this resolution is a perfect example of the City Council and the Plaruiing Commission trying perfect a policy. He felt this resolution solves the problem by not splitting the density and creating fewer restrictions on the very small lots. He continued with 50 % of yards, which is half of what is there, then half of the homes will be above midpoint with plenty.of land for the yards. He felt it was a tribute to the City Council that they rethought the issue and came to this resolution. Cm. Biddle stated that at some .point the City Council and the Planning Commission members all had concern with some aspect of the issue and felt the Council and Commission worked through it together. Cm. Tomlinson felt the beauty of the resolution is its simplicity. He stated the Council had the goal of private, usable rear yards and felt that this resolution allows for a variety of product ~1'lanning CommrssEvn ~ Otto6er2~, 2f?U~4 ~B1L~Ct?' ~Ef.2`f.2~ 12 ~ ~J~ DR~A.F~ DRAFT Hypes with different ways of creating them and also offset what cannot be bui' with the _ common area requirement. He stated he was in support of the resolutions. On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg and seconded by Cm. Biddle,. on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. King absent, the Planning Commission approved the following: RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 33 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN TO REQUIRE THAT 50% OF THE UNITS WITHIN THE MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES PROVIDE PRIVATE YARDS (APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905=0002-002) PA 07-056 RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 34 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMIVIISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PD- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH AMENDED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ESTABLISH REVISED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE YARDS WITHIN THE MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES (APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002) PA 07-056 8.2 PA 08-041 Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.68) of the Dublin Municipal e modifications to establish-set sale prices for owner-occupied Inclusionary units, elimin the requirement for owner-occupied very-low income units, amend the for- sale Inclus ary unit income ratios and allow for more frequent updates to the Lay Person s Guide the Inclusionary Zoning'Ordinance~(Legislative). john Lucero, Housing Specialist p ented th project as stated in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub felt that the expense hat v~' 1 be incurred by the applicant have not been taken into consideration when calculating the pri of the home; which includes the mortgage payment, HOA fees,,. ~~"HAD fees .and Private 1Vfn~tgage Insurance (PMI). He stated the maintenance costs for a detached unit are higher thana~, attached unit where there would be higher HOA due~in order to cover maintenance costs. H~fe~t the model that was used by the Housing Div~on was not realistic as to the actual costs of owning a home. He stated the City ~lrr~nfn~ Comrrrissivn ~ ©cto6erZR, 24118 ~;~:~.~,. ~feetixtg 129 ~~, h RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 33 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN TO REQUIRE THAT 50% OF THE UNITS WITHIN THE MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES PROVIDE PRIVATE YARDS (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 evaluate the methods to require a variety of product types with private yards within the existing Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties, which are generally located north of the future Central Parkway extension, east of Croak Road and within the 1,134-acre Fallon Village project area; 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 Plan Amendment and Specific Plan on January 7, 1994, and 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; and WHEREAS, in connection with the adoption of the Eastern .Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168, the City certified a Program Environmental Impact Report ("Program EIR") (SCH No. 91103064) which 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 is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, in connection with the annexation and prezoning of the East Dublin Property Owners (EDPO) Area, which includes the Croak and Jordan properties, into the City of Dublin, the City Council certified a Supplemental EiR (SCH No. 2001052114) by Resolution No. 40-02 which adopted supplemental mitigation measures, mitigation findings, a statement of ovemding consideration, and a mitigation monitoring program, all of which continue to apply to the project area; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005, the City Council adopted a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for the Fallon Village project area, which includes the Croak and Jordan properties by Resolution No. 223-05, which is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005, the City Council also adopted Resolution No. 222-OS certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH #2005062010) to the Eastern ` ~. Dublin EIR and the Supplemental EIR for the Eastern Dublin Property Owners. (EDPO) which is incorporated herein by reference; and . WHEREAS, the General Plan identifies land use designations, densities, policies related to density calculations, and includes a General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 1-la) and General Plan Land Use Summary (Table 2.1) which shows the location of land uses and describes the intensity of uses within the City of Dublin and the Sphere of Influence; and WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan includes the Land Use Map (Figure 4.1) and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary (Table 4.1) which indicates the location of land uses and describes the intensity of uses within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the California CEQA Guidelines require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, 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 the proposed project is within the scope of the Fallon Village SEIR and no additional environmental review is necessary; and WHEREAS, the City Council held public hearings on said project and provided Staff with direction on Apri13, 2007, October 16, 2007, November 27, 2007, August 19, 2008, September 9, 2008, and October 7, 2008; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public hearing on said project on October 28, 2008; 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 E]Rs, and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, based on the findings in the attached dra$ City Council Resolution, recommends' that the City Council adopt the Resolution, attached hereto as Exhibit A, which amends the portions of the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to require that 50% of the units in the Medium Density land use designation vn the Croak and Jordan properties provide private yards. 2 ~.~~ - ~~` PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of October 2008 by the following vote: AYES: Schaub, Tomlinson, Biddle and Wehrenberg NOES: ABSENT: King ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Planning Manager Planning Commission Chair G:\PA#\2007\07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density\Planning Commission\10.28.08\PC Reso MD GPA SPA.DOC 3 4. ~~~~~~~ ,~ RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 34 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMIVIIS5ION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH AMENDED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ESTABLISH REVISED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE YARDS WITHIN THE MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE~CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES (APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-00.02-002) 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 evaluate the methods to require a variety of product types with private yards within the existing Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties, which are generally located north 'of the future Central Parkway extension, east of Croak Road and within the 1,134-acre Fallon Village project area; and WHEREAS, on December 20, 2005, the City Council approved a PD rezoning and related Stage 1 Development Plan for the Fallon Village project area, which includes the Croak and Jordan properties (PA 04-040) (Ordinance 32-OS) and-which is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, PD Zoning districts are required to be consistent with all elements of the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; 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, on December 6, 2005, the'City Council adopted Resolution No. 222-OS 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#91103064) and the Eastern Dublin Property Owners SEIR (SCH # 2001052114) certified in 2002 by Resolution 40-02 for the Fallon Village project; and WHEREAS, 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 Council held public hearings on said project and provided Staff with direction on Apri13, 2007, October 16, 2007, November 27, 2007, August 19, 2008, September 9, 2008, and October 7, 2008; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public hearing on said project on October 28, 2008; and „~ WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, based on the findings in the attached draft Ordinance, recommends that the City Council approve the Ordinance attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, which Ordinance approves a PD rezoning including the following related amendments to the Stage 1 Development Plan for the Croak and Jordan properties designated Medium Density as described in the attached Ordinance: 1) Provide minimum Development Standards for private yards for attached and detached units within the Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties. 2) Require shared. common areas that accommodate leisurely activities for Medium Density units that do not have private yards.that meet the minimum Development Standards. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of October 2008 .by the following vote: AYES: Schaub, Tomlinson, Biddle and Wehrenberg NOES: ABSENT: King ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Community Development Director G:\PA#\2007\07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density\Planning Comrrrission\10.28.08\PC Reso MD Stage 1 PD Amd.DOC 2