HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 Neighborhood Design StrategyDATE:
TO:
F
SUBJECT:
STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL File #
June 21, 2011
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Joni Pattillo, City Manager
Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy update
Prepared By: Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
0
O
The City of Dublin has taken an active role in promoting environmental sustainability with
initiatives such as the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan, the
Green Building Ordinance, and the City's recent adoption of a Climate Action Plan. In recent
months, Staff has presented the City Council with various options for implementing a
"Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy," which would promote sustainable site design and
planning for the street, land use, and open space patterns for neighborhoods in Dublin. Staff
solicited input from the development community on the Draft Strategy, and is reporting back to
the City Council on the content of the discussions and the proposed path forward.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive the update regarding the Draft Sustainable
Neighborhood Design Strategy and Staff's report on the input received from the development
community; 2) Confirm Staff's recommendations on the next steps to prepare the proposed
General Plan Amendment for adoption; or 3) Provide other direction.
Submitted By:
Community Development Director
Revw By:
Assistant City Manager
Page 1 of 4 ITEM NO.
7•1
DESCRIPTION:
Background
Sustainability, green design, and improving public health are some of the key topics being
discussed by cities and developers today. A City's land use, street, and neighborhood design
patterns create a particular physical reality and compel behaviors that have a significant effect
on the environmental performance of any given place. When a neighborhood has a robust
network of internal streets and good connections to surrounding neighborhoods and
communities, pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers can move efficiently and safely. Vehicles are
driven less, air quality improves, human health improves, and the overall sustainability of a
community improves too.
On December 21, 2010 City Staff presented a report to the City Council on developing a
"Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy" (Attachment 1). Staff described the Sustainable
Neighborhood Design Strategy (SNDS) as a policy document that would outline the desired
components of a sustainable neighborhood, such as a connected street pattern and land use
plan, green infrastructure and buildings, and a linked open space network. The City Council
directed Staff to proceed with the development of a Draft Sustainable Neighborhood Design ..
Strategy (Attachment 2). ~ .
On March 1, 2011, City Staff presented a report to the City Council with recommendations on ~.~~: ~.~
the content of a Draft Strategy, the applicability of the Draft Strategy to various properties, and .
the implementation and adoption of the Strategy (Attachment 3). The City Council provided the ~
following direction to Staff at the meeting on March 1, 2011 (Attachment 4): ~ ~
1. Draft Sustainable Neiqhborhood Desiqn Strateqy. The City Council agreed that the Draft
Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy contain the goals, policies, and standards ~~~
that were outlined in the draft document. ~
2. Applicabilitv of a Sustainable Neiqhborhood Design Strateqy based on proiect type.
The City Council agreed that the Draft Strategy should apply to:
• New General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments, new Specific Plans;
• Annexations; ~
• New Stage 1 and/or Stage 2 Planned Development Rezones;
• Rezoning applications; and
• Any subdivision of property or other new development that creates new streets
without changing the applicable land use designation would need to comply with
all policies and standards contained in Policy Section One (Street Patterns and
Design) of the Strategy.
3. A~plicability of a Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strateqv to actual projects.
The City Council agreed that the Draft Strategy should apply to:
• Projects that have Pre-Applications on file with the City, but where there is no
current activity on the application (e.g. Righetti, Dublin Land Company); and
• Projects that have existing applications for General Plan Amendment studies that
do not have'land plans on file and are at the very beginning of the entitlement
process (e.g. Dublin Crossing, The Preserve).
Page 2 of 4
4. Implementation and Incentives. The City Council agreed that the Draft Strategy should
apply in its entirety, not partial compliance.
5. Adoptinq a Draft Strategv. The City Council agreed that the Draft Strategy should be
adopted as an amendment to the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the
General Plan.
After the March 1, 2011 City Council meeting, the Draft Sustainable Neighborhood Design
Strategy was sent to 40 developers, property owners, and builders that are actively doing
business in, or own developable property in the City of Dublin (Attachment 5). The Draft
Strategy was also provided to the Dublin Unified School District. In the cover letter that
accompanied the Draft Strategy, Staff noted the City Council review and discussion to date, and
asked for feedback on the content of the Draft Strategy. A summary of the feedback received
and Staff's recommendation on next steps in the process is summarized below.
ANALYSIS: .
.. Staff received written comments from. Argent Management (master develbper for the future
Dubtin Crossings at the Camp Parks project site) and MacKay and Somps Civil Engineers:
These two comment letters are included as'Attachments 6 and 7 to this Staff Report. Staff also ~'
_ had discussions~~with developers :Braddock. antl, Logan and Pacific- Union .Holdings;; properfy~
;„ owner Pat Croak, and„the Dublin-Unified School.-;D'istrict:~ ~ ,. .. .
, , Comments from the school district suggested clarification on a few , of the policies and.
standards. These comments have been incorporated into the version of the~ Draft Strategy that
,~~. is included .as Attachment 5, and are shown En und;er.line and strike-though~text: :.
The comments received from the deyelopers and property owners centered around ensuring
flexibility in the implementation of the Draft Strategy. The language contained in the Draft
Strategy will be transformed into General Plan policies as an amendment to the Cornmunity
Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan. General Plan policy language is
typically written with more flexibility and with terminology such as "encourage" and "support".
General Plan-level policies also typically allow for multiple methods to achieve compliance with
a certain policy or standard. The General Plan policy language will address the comments
received from the developers and property owners, and will be drafted to ensure the
overarching goals of the Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy can be ~met, which ~nclude:
• Creating neighborhoods with a robust network of internal streets and good connections
to surrounding neighborhoods where pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers can move
efficiently and safely. .
• Promoting walking and cycling by providing safe, appealing, and comfortable street
environments that support public health by.reducing pedestrian injuries and encouraging
daily physical activity.
• Improving physical and mental health and social capital by providing a variety of. open
spaces (public and private) close to work and home to facilitate neighborhood
. connectivity, social networking, civic engagement, physical activity, and time spent
outdoors.
Page 3 of 4
NEXT STEPS:
With the City Council's concurrence, Staff proposes to take the following steps:
1. Prepare the Draft General Plan Amendment to the Community Design and Sustainability
Element of the General Plan and amendments to other planning documents as
necessary to ensure consistency; ~
2. Conduct the appropriate level of environmental review;
3. Share the Draft General Plan Amendment language with those interested parties who
provided comments on the Draft Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy;
4. Present the Draft General Plan Arimendment to the Planning Commission for review and
recommendation to the City Council; and
5. Present the Draft General Plan Amendment to the City Council for adoption/approval.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
A public notice is not ~required to seek direction from the City Council on proposed policy direction.
~' However,: Staff provided notice of this ~a`genda item to ;all' parties.'who .provided comments on the A.
,.~',~,.:.. : . - . . . . . , . . . . .. _
'`~ ~ Draft~ Strafegy: 'F'utu~e~reports that request ~the Plannin;g Co'mmission and/or`City.Council to make ~'~~~~ .
~ a recommendation or take action on policy recommendations' will be noticed as .required by law .
and sent to all members of Dublin's development commuhity that originally received.a copy of the
"~Draft Strategy. ' . . ' ~
~
~ ATTACHMENTS: 1. ,•. -
City Council Staff Report ~dated Decem6er 21, 2010
~ 2. City Council meeting minutes ~from December 21; 2010
~~ . 3. City Council Staff' Repoit dated March 1, 2011
~ ~ 4. City Council meeting minutes from March 1, 2011
~ 5. Draft Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy dated June 3,
. 2011
6. Letter from MacKay and Somps dated April 29, 2011
7. Letter from Argent Management dated May 6, 2011
• ~-~' k ~ ~'~' G:CPA#~201~0\Sustainable Neigliborhood Design Strategy~CC 06:21'.2011\CCSR `06:21:2011.doc~ ~ ~' ~ ~' ~'' ~ ~ ' ' ' ^'r ``` "` : ` ' ~ `;
Page 4 of 4
G`~,~ Ot' DpQ`~2 , I ~ ,
~, ~
;9' .~~~ s2 STAFF~REPORT C i T Y C L E R K
\`~~~/l _ o
`c,,,~~~ ~~~ DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL Fi~e #^0~ oD ~^
DATE: December 21, 2010 s
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Counciimembers ~
FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager
SUBJEC . Sustainable Neighborhood Deve{opment Strategy
~ Prepared By: Kristi Bascom, Princrpal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City~ of Dublin lias taken an active role in promoting sustainability in the public realrii. On ~
~ the private `side, initiatives ~ such as the . Green Builtling Ordinance are resulting. :in _the
~ cohstruction of- more- sustainable buildings. _ However, Staff believes that the City: could.:be,nefit..,,
from. developing a;'`Sustainable.Neighborhood Development,Strategy;" which would enaale and
` promote sustainal~le 'site . design an:d planning:i for~ the ~ streets, homes, :workplaees, , and ~. : ~
businesses~we build in ~~ou~ neighbo~Fioods.~ This Staff Report contains an overvie.w of,~~.why;:.the ~1~~~~ ~~
City Council should consider developing a Sustainable Neighborhood Development Strategy: ~ '
FINANCIAL IMPACT:• ~
~ ~ " .. ~ . . ~ , ~ ~~. ` ~:~~ ~ , .
•: z ;>.
None at this time. ~~ ~~~ `
RECOMMENDATION:
~
~
~
~ ~
~j'~
~ ~
r
. .. .. .. .
_ .
~
. ~ .
Staff is requesting that the City Council' provide feedback an
Sustainable Neighborhood Development Strategy.
.. , 'w?~ t`^9~• , .,.' " . a+3.~5 ~ 7, . .: s . . . . . , ~,~'•< . ~ . . ~ , . ~ . - •
Submitted By: R
Community Development Director Assista
Page 1 of 5
..r . .« ... - ° ~ Y,Y.';~ a . . - ' S '.
'~ By:
Manager
ATTACHMENT 1
~,1 ~-ai-~ i
- ----~
DESCRIPTION:
- a ~
~b3
Background .
Sustainability, green design, and improving public health are some of the key topics being
discussed by cities and developers today. Our land use; street, and neighborhood design
patterns create a particular physical reality and compel behaviors that have a significant effect
on the environmental performance of any given place. When a neighborhood has .a robust
network of internal streets and good connections to surrounding neighborhoods and
communities, pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers can move e~ciently and safely. Vehicles are
driven less, air quality improves, human health improves, and the overall sustainability of a
community improves too.
Over the past several years; the City of Dublin has made several commitments to move the
community toward a more sustainable future. The City's Ten Year Strategic Plan consists of a
mission, vision, and various statements. and strategies to achieve implementation of the Plan..
The Ten Year Strategic Plan for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 lists the community's values in,a variety
of areas, and one of th~. three. ~Values in Guiding Development". is to "Support pedestrian-.
:. friendly development, transit=oriented ,development, green.~ building, and environmental ~
responsiveness." The City~of Dublin ~has taken a number of.concrete actions to support~this
,
" value; which is described below ' ' ' ~ ,~ ` " - : _, ~ ~
. ~ ,
, . .. . . _
:? In 2004, tlie City Co~uncil adopted::a Gree'n° Building Practices`~~Ordinance that requir.es public; ~-
~. buildings of a certain value ~ to follow;;a "whole-systems"~ approach to the. design, construction, ~.
ahd operation. This Ordinance requires that all new civic buildings that cost over $3 million be
built to achieve silver certification under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design ,
~ (LEED) standards. . The aim of ~enacting ,this Ordinance was•to demonstrate civic leadership in
applying green building practices to';th~e ~ construction~ of buildings and str.uctures that helps
, . mitigate the environmental; economic, and social impacts: of construction; demolition, and _
renovation. The Shannon Comrriunity Center, which was completed in February 2009, includes
numerous energy efficient and water conserving measures. The Shannon Community Center is
awaiting LEED certification.
In 2009, the City Council adopted the Green Building Ordinance, which aims to improve public
health.and welfare by encouraging green building. measures in the design, construction, and
maintenance of both public and private buildings: Tfiis Ordinance requires residential projects
~~over 20 units -in~ size~ to-~reach 50~~points~~on .the GreenPoint rating system:; ~ln November 2010~, ~~•~ ~~~~ ~
the City adopted the California Green Building Code, which requires further enhancements in
the design and construction of buildings and sustainable construction practices.
In February 2010, the City Council appointed residents to the Green Initiatives Task Force. The
purpose of the Task Force was to provide recommendations on environmental initiatives that
the City Council could consider for future implementation. In June 2010, the City Council
adopted several recommendations of the City's Green Initiatives Task Force. The City Council
also authorized the creation of a Green Strategic Plan document. This document will provide
guidance to Staff about which environmental activities should be given priority over the next five
years. The Task Force provided recommendations on energy and water conservation, air
quality, solid waste and recycling, .green building, and transportation and land use.
{n addition to the above actions, the City has also developed several policy documents that
support sustainable development, including the Community Design and Sustainability Element
Page 2 of 5
~~
~
of the General Plan, which contains policies intended to enhance the livability of Dublin through
high-quality design. The City's Bikeways Master Plan aims to continue the development of
successful bicycle~and pedestrian corridors, provide improved access to parks and open space
areas, and provide and promote a convenient and safe bicycle infrastructure to reduce trips by
motor vehicles. Most recently, the City Council adopted Dublin's Climate Action Plan, which
sets forth the City's plan to reduce its Greenhouse Gas Emissions 20% below a business-as-
usual scenario by 2020.
Many of the ~City initiatives already underway are promoting sustainability in the public realm.
On the private side, initiatives such as the Green Building Ordinance are resulting: in the
construction of more sustainable buildings. However, planning for sustainability should aiso
include looking at the physical layout of the development sites to see what sustainability
measures can be included in the site design. Staff is requesting that the City Council provide
feedback and direction on developing a"Sustainable Neighborhood Development Strategy" to
enable and promote designs where the streets, homes, workplaces, and businesses built in our
neighborhoods contribute positively to residents' quality of life and the community as a whole.
`ANALYSIS:
Promoting sustainable neighborhood design ~ ;'. ~ ~ ~ .' : . . - ' .
' Recent research.by the.Kaiser Foundation shows tti~a't„people's:environments;:-,where they live .
. ;and'.work; how they:travel_ around,, what they eat and.where..and,when they>-are physically active:
~.- have a major impact.on tlieir health and well-being:. The~.design of neighborhoods can~vastly
.` irnpact public health, which is a chronic sustainability.issue. __ . „: :
.. The sustainable. benefits of a neighborhood increase when ;it offers ~proximityyto transit, ,schools,
> and ~parks, ;and when residents and workers can travel, safely: by foot or~bicycle to jobs, .services;
: and.- amenities., This can create a neighborhood with ~;a high quality of, life and.. •healfhy
, inhabitants. Additionally, green buildings can redu.ce energy and ; water~ = use, and . green
infrastructure such as landscaping and best practices designed to reduce stormwater runoff can
protect natural resources. All of these features combine to create a sustainable neighborhood.
Well-located and well-designed sustainable neighborhood development can play an integral
role in improving guality of life.
. In addition to the City policies noted above, state legislation such as Assembly Bill 32
; . :t ;;;,: (mandating..=.;greenhouse gas. r.eduction., .measures.) ;and ~:Senate ._: Bill ~~3.75~;- (requi_ring. :sthe~~...: . - .
examination of sustainable practices throughout a region) will require local consideration of
issues such as reducing vehicle miles travelled and improving air quality. Other state efforts
that.will impact local planning efforts are new air quality/greenhouse gas emissions thresholds
that will affect land use planning and site design. These state regulations, when combined with
the enforcement of the City's existing policies, could eventually lead to the creation of more
environmentally sustainable neighborhoods over time. ~
However, .the ~City could go further by creating specific standards to compel sustainable site
design to occur. By setting expectations, standards, and a means by which to assess
sustainable site design, the City can take a more active approach. Creating sustainability
standards will compel early cooperation and involvement between the City and the property
owner/developer in the site planning process. Identifying sustainable standards outlines the
City's expectations and also demonstrates a commitment to sustainabfe neighborhoods that
could open up opportunities for future grant funding to implement plans as well as the potential
for local, regional, or national recognition.
Page 3 of 5
l~
A Sustainable Neighborhood Development Strategy could be a policy document that outlines
the desired components of a sustainable neighbarhood such as connected street pattern and
land use plan, green infrastructure and buildings, and open space preservation and utilization.
A Sustainable Neighborhood Development Strategy could also include a set of performance
standards designed to measure the sustainability of a planned neighborhood, much like the City
currently uses the GreenPoint Rated Checklist for measuring the environmental efficiency of
new residential buildings. An example would be LEED-ND, as described below.
Developing Sustainable Neighborhood Design Standards: The LEEQ-ND approach
One of the predominant rating systems to measure the sustainability level of . new -.
neighborhoods is the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design for Neighborliood Development (LEED-ND): . :
In the late 1990s, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) developed a system for measuring
green building metrics, which led to the first LEED building rating system. The LEED systems
have evolved, and today there are LEED rating systems for new construction, existing buildings;: .~ ...
retail, schools, homes; and . healthcare facilities. Unlike the other LEED rating. systems that ;
focus primarily on 'green building practices, the LEED for~ Neighborhood Development. (.LEED-
~ ~~~ ND} rating ~:sy.sterri;_places emphasis on site design `and construction elements;;that .bring;_~~ ~~~:.,:; :
~buildings~~ and infrast~uctu're ~~together ~~-: Like the ':-other LEED~ ~rating systems, _:LEED-NDr~ :~:: '~~::
~ certifications are awardeci~according to-~how ~many~ points.~are earned. Projects can be; certified ~,~~+i
for. one of four levels ~ LEED certified,, silver, gold, : or platinum. A brief fact ~sheet describing _ ,
~L`EED-ND is included with this Staff Report as Attachment 1. . .
Projects. that qualify.:~for ;LEED=ND certification-.are compact, walkable, vibrant mixed-use~ .~
neighborhoods with ~good connections to::inearby ~communities and neighborhoods. - These are .,:~~.•<..: ~:.
- the types of neighborhoods that the City. Council has expressed interest in developing, so.. .. ,~.: ~
preparing a Sustainable~Neighborhood Development Strategy eould help better the City's ability ,_.
to achieve them. . . -
Options to consider ~
Staff is seeking feedback and direction from the City Council on whether policy alternatives ~
should be drafted for the City Council's consideration that further develops this concept of
sustainable neighborhoods. . ~ .
. c.. ~ , . . ,. . . . "~l~-.5.~~. ,_'it~. .t, ,t. . . s4~~.. ~~ , . . .. , :ar::~ - , . ... „ . , . . ,. '~r. o . .e.~. .. . .
Staff requests that the City Council provide direction on which of the following options to pursue: ~.
Direct Staff to return to the City Council with a report on Sustainab{e Neighborhood
Development Strategy policy alternatives, to consider. Staff. will propose several
alternatives to consider and will seek directiori at that time on which policy alternative(s)
should be developed into a policy recommendation. The report will outfine the following:
• How a Sustainable Neighborhood Development Strategy policy could work;
• How LEED-ND standards, or other sustainable neighborhood concepts, could be
integrated into a policy;
• How the policy could be implemented; ~
• Recommendations on which types of development could be subject to compliance
with a future policy; and
• Recommendations for public outreach to review the concepts being considered.
Page 4 of 5
~3
~~
2. Direct Staff to cantinue to utilize existing policy documents, processes, and state
mandates to compel green initiatives at the neighborhood level. No new policy direction
at this time.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTSIPUBLIC OUTREACH:
A public notice is not required to seek direction from the City Council on whether or not to prepare
sustainable neighborhood policy alternatives. Future reports would address public outreach on
policy alternatives being considered.
ATTACHMENTS: . 1. LEED for Neighborhood Devefopment Fact Sheet
.. • : ~ . ,.__ ., .,. .. ~;; • . ,.,.r:;,. :~ , . _, .. . . . ..,
Page 5 of 5
~~
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) an
2010 and Ado
8:37:43 PM 8.4 (310-30)
nnual Audit for the Fiscal
for Desi4nation of Reser
Administrative Services Director Paul Rank~ presented the Staff Report and advised that the
City of Dublin had compiled and publishe its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR),
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 201 . This report included financial statements prepared by
City Staff along with the audit prepar by Caporicci and Larson (C&L), a subsidiary of Marcum,
LLP, the independent auditors s ected by the City Council. The CAFR is a report which
encompassed information beyo d minimum financial reporting requirements. The Auditors
have provided a"clean opinio based on their review. The report had also been reviewed by
the City Council ad-hoc A it Subcommittee. The report also included a discussion of the
allocation of General Fun eserves.
The City Council comy(iented on the positive features of the report.
, _
~: On motion of V. Hart, seconded by Cm. S.walwell 'and by unanimous vote,,the .City C.ouncil
,; ~~ .~received~ the r orts and confirmed the establishment', of th'e:'fund ~balances as_:stated for., the
!t ~' year.`ending une 30,' 2010;. and directed Staff to. proceed, with" the~`development~of specific
~ ' ~policies rel ed to the designation of reserves in accordance with accounting standards:
i
._ ~.
' Sustainable Neiqhborhood Development Strateqy
8:45:26 PM 8.5 (530-10)
Principal Planner Kristi Bascom presented the Staff Report and advised that the City of Dublin
had taken an active role in promoting sustainability in the public realm. On the. private side,
initiatives such as the Green Building Ordinance were resulting in the construction of more
sustainable buildings. However, Staff believed that the City could benefit .from developing a
~" y'~~"Su'stainable 'Neighborhood~ Development Strategy;"~ which ~would' ~enable'„~ and° ~promote
sustainable site design and planning for the streets, homes, workplaces, and businesses we
build in our neighborhoods. This Staff Report contained an overview of why the City Council
could consider developing a Sustainable Neighborhood Development Strategy.
Cm. Swalwell asked if there was a way to balance requirements with incentives. Would these
requirements make costs so high that applicants could not~afford to build, or no one can afford
to purchase it?
Ms. Bascom stated there were many alternatives that could be brought forward for City Council
consideration. When looking at LEED, there were some prerequisites that were required to be
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MtNUTES 13
VOLUME 29 ; OF Op~
REGULAR MEETING ~ n, , ~~
December 21, 2010 '``~~~ /
A ~ achment 2
~
LEED certified but there were many variations. Some components were items the City was
already doing or encouraging, or developers were already implementing. '
Cm. Hildenbrand asked when the report came back, could it include other cities that had these
types of programs. This was cutting edge and made for some great neighborhoods. There was
a cost associated with these kinds of homes, but residents wanted these kinds of homes.
Vm. Hart stated he was willing to look at incentives and programs to find a balance relative to
associated costs. ~
Cm. Hildenbrand stated these were recommendations and sustainable homes options were
upgrades when purchasing a new home. . ~ .:~~ ~
Mayor Sbranti. stated the nexus now for the developers to provide some of the sustainable
elements were not:as costly as they were three.or four years ago. .
~. By consensus, the City Council directed Staff to .proceed with developing a Sustainable
. Neighborhood Development.Strategy. . ~ . . .
, ~
; : ; . _ _. , ~
~-,.1 ' . . ~. r ~~~ • . ~ ~ . '
~ t'
` .t . ,~ . .x ~ .. . ~.. . ., . - ~ ' ~ . . . .. ,~' . ... '" ~ .
. . ' , ~ .~... . ... ' . ..~., .. . ~ ' . . , . . . ~ . . . . ' ~ . .
' , ,,s~ . ', ~ : ', .. ' . . '. ~~?~ ". .
, ~ OTHER BUSINESS Brief /NFORMATIO ~ ONLY reports from Council and/or:~; Staff;
.~ including Committee Reports and Re orts by Council related to meetings attended at.
~ City expense (AB 1234) ~ ~ .. . . ' `
9:00:00 PM . :
Cm. Swalwell stated he
Cm. Hildenbrand stated
Dinner meeting on St. P~
the Deputy Monego Tree Lighting ceremony..
City of Dublin would be hosting the East Bay Division. League
s Day. . ,
Cm. Biddle stated he Iso attended the Deputy Monego Tree Lighting ceremony. He attended
~-'~~~~~ ~=t~^~~ tFi'e°~City'sK~Breakfast~ ith Santa event, the N30 •Open House, a~ Stopwaste~~-P~IanningN~cneeting~, }~«~~~~ ~-
and a Community evelopment Block Grant and Community Development Support meeting.
Vm. Hart had ngl comments on meetings attended.
Mayor Sbra i stated he attended a Dublin Chamber Mixer, a N30 Board meeting, and an
Alameda C unty Transit Authority retreat. ~
- ~~- -
~ DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 14
VOLUME 29 0 ~
REGULAR MEETING ,,, ~~ ~~~
December 21, 2010 ``~~~'~`~/~
Gc~
G~~~ O~' DpBlf2 ~
I// ~ \\1 ~ ~
1;~~~~~~ STAFF REPORT C 1 T Y C L E R K
`c~ ~ ~~~ DUBLIN CITY COI~NCIL File # ^~~~-~ ([~
~LIFOR~ „
DATE: March 1, 2011
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager
,
SUBJ : Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy
Prepared By.~ Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner,~h
~v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City of Dublin has, taken an active role in promoting environmental sustainability with
initiatives such as_the: G.reen -Building Ordinance and the City's recent adoptioc- of ,a Climate .;
Action Plan. In this' report, Staff ~s pre`senting the. City ~ Council with various options for ~: ;
implementing a"Sustainable Neighborhood:Design Strategy,° which would enable and promote ~'` ±
~ sustainable ~site design~ and planning~ for~ fhe sfreet; land~ use; and~ open space p.attems for~ -~
neighborhoods in Du61in. ~ ~ ' ' ' ~
FINANCIAL IMPACT: ~ . ~ ~ , . ~ s
None at this time: ~- ' - .
RECOMMENDATION: ,
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Confirm Staff's recommendations. on the elements
of the Draft Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy, the applicability of the Sustainable
,Neighborhood .Design Strategy;,,th.e methods of implementing,,. ,and adopting the Sustainable .
Neighborhood Design Strategy; or 2) Provide ~ofher~di~ection: ~ ~
, S bmitted By:
Community Development Director
Revi By:
Assistant City Manager
Page 1 of 10 ~ _;
ATTACHMENT 3
DESCRIPTION: /~
Background
Sustainability, green design, and improving public health are some of the key topics being
discussed by cities and developers today. A City's land use, street, and neighborhood design
patterns create a particular physical reality and compel behaviors that have a significant effect
on the environmental perFormance of any given place. When a neighborhood has~a robust
network of internai streets and good connections to surrounding neighborhoods and
communities, pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers can move efficiently and safely. Vehicles are
driven less, air quality improves, human health improves, and the overall sustainability of a
community improves too.
On December 21, 2010 City Staff presented a report to the City Council on developing a
"Sustainabie Neighborhood Design Strategy" (Attachment 1). Staff described .the Sustainable
Neighborhood Design Strategy (SNDS) as a policy document that would outline the desired
components of a sustainable neighborhood, such as a connected street pattern and .land use
plan, green infrastructu~e and buildings, and a linked open space network. A SNDS could also
include a set of perFormance standards. designed to measure the sustainability of .a. proposed
~ neighborhood, much IiKe the City currently .uses the GreenPoint Rated Checklist for measuring
' fhe envi'ronmental .efficiency of new residential.~buildings. Staff.also presented the' City Gouncil
~~ ~ with-inforrriation ori one of fhe predommant,ra:fing systems'to measure the sustainability,level of
new~ neighborhoods: ~the U.S. ,Green B`uilding~, Council's ~ Leadersfiip in Energy and
Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND): ~.
The City Council directed Staff.to further develop a Sustainable ~Neighborhood Design Strategy
and to return to a future meeting with a report on. policy, altern~atives to conside~ (Attachment 2)..
The City Counci{ directed Staff to return with:a report that includes the following information:
' 1. Recommendation on how a Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy could work and
how LEED-ND standards, or other sustainable neighborhood programs, could be
integrated into the policy;
2. Recommendation on how a policy could be implemented;
3. Recommendations on which types of development could be subject to compliance with a
policy;
4. Recommendations for public outreach to review the concepts being considered; ~
5:~ Provide examples of Sustainable~ Neighbo~hood/LEED~ND projects in other communities~~ ~~ R~
and showcase best practices; and
6. Provide options for incentivizing compliance with a policy. ~
ANALYSIS:
"Sustainable Neighborhood" Programs
Several certification programs have emerged to rate the sustainability of mixed-use,
neighborhood and community-scale developments-addressing a wider range of issues than
previous rating systems for individual buildings. These broader-scale certification programs
include LEED-ND, One Planet Communities, and the Living Building Challenge. Both One
Planet Communities and the Living Building Challenge are international programs that focus
heavily on reducing the ecologicaf footprint of new development and minimizing carbon output.
LEED-ND is specific to developme~t in the U.S. and is the most relevant standardized rating
system for our purposes because it covers the five topic areas noted befow.
Page 2 of 10
D
. ~ ~
. ~b~
LEED for Neighborhood Development .
The LEED-ND framework identifies those components of a sustainable neighborhood that are
most critical and awards points to those project components that meet the standards. The
LEED-ND rating system awards points in five main categories: ~
1. Smart Location and Linkage encourages communities to consider location,
transportation alternatives, and preservation of sensitive lands.
2. Neighborhood Pattern and Design emphasizes vibrant, equitable communities that are
healthy, walkable, and contain a mixture of land uses. ~
3. Green Infrastructure and Buildings promotes the design and construction of buildings
and infrastructure that reduce energy and water use, while promoting more sustainable
. use of materials, reuse of existing and historic structures, and other sustainable best
practices. ' . .
4. Innovation and Design Process recognizes exemplary and innovative performance
reaching beyond the existing credits in the rating system, as well as the. val.ue of .
including an,accredited professional on the design team. .. .
~ 5. Regional Priority encourages projects to:focus.on earning credits of significance to the
~ ` project's local. environment. . , ~
~ ' , . •• . . . . . . ' '. ~. .. ~ . ~ . ~ .. .5, .~ . . ' . ~ ~ " . . .. . ..
. . . .. . : . . .
:;
~--~The. LEED~.for-. Neighborhood Development rating .;s"ysfem was~:introduced "asr a pilo~_ pro~e~ct: in :~ ~
~. ~~ 2009. ~ There are ~ several projects in `~the _Bay. ~Area': that are in ~~one of the three; stages. of ::. .
~ ` certification. for LEED-ND. A sampling of these pr:ojects include the 1,4 acre >higti=density
".Emeryville Marketplace" mixed-use community with 674 multi-family residential units, 180,000
.~ sq. ft. . of. retail,~ 120;004 sq.. ft. of office, parking garages, and open space .in Emeryville; ::.
- ~` Califomia and the .42-acre °Hercules Bayfront'', which will :transform a former dynamite
. manufacturing site. into a transit=oriented, : riiixed-use ~ wate .rfront community ° with 1;400 .
residentia{ units, 115,000 square feet ,of ~retail and restaurant space, 224~,000 square feet of
office/commercial flex space. Another example of a LEED-ND certified neighborhood is the
~~ 200-acre Sonoma Mountain Village, which is a mixed-use residential and commercial, solar-
powered, zero-waste community under development in Rohnert Park.
Applicability to Dublin ~ ~
The LEED-ND framework encompasses a wide range of subject areas. Several. of the
sustainable neighborhood concepts outlined in the LEED-ND rating system are already.in place
, ,., ..;.~... ,.~~..:...~ ~
- m' fhe City `of Dublin: 'Concepts su'ch as p~io~itizing higher' density "development neaF transit
(LEED-ND's Smart Location and Linkage category) and promoting the design of buildings and
infrastructure that reduce energy and water use (LEED-ND's Green Infrastructure and Buildings
category) are already priorities in Dublin. The one LEED-ND category where the City does not
currently have specific standards is Neighborhood Pattern and Design, which focuses on the
physical layout of development sites. ~
There are other cities and counties throughout the country that have developed their own
sustainable rating systems and policies through which they can assess new development in lieu
of using a standardized system such as LEED-ND. These programs were developed to be
specific to the geographic region as well as the community's specific concerns and interests. A
sample of these programs include:
• The City and County of San Francisco instituted a set of sustainability standards and a
"Healthy Development Measurement Too1" to gauge new development;
Page 3 of 10
l
~~
~
• The City of Greer~sburg, Kansas has developed a fuf~ set of Sustainable Development
Code Standards that implement the policies contained in their Sustainable
Comprehensive Plan; and
~ The City of Richmond, California adopted a set of 15 Community Principles related to
~ development in their community that focus on how to plan neighborhoods that will more
successfully serve the needs of.those who live and work within them.
lnstead of adoptin.g the full LEED-ND rating system and standards in Dublin, Staff recommends
that the City focus on developing a Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy that is specific
to this City. Dublin's Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy would contain. only. those
policy categories where we do not already have existing guidance. Staff is proposing a
Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy specifically to guide the development of
neighborhood street patterns, land use patterns, and use of open spaces to create opportunities
for residents and workers to walk, cycle, and use alternative modes of transportation in the
community.
~ Page 4 of 10
!
~
2
is also
In the above examples, good street patterns, land use patterns, and use of open spaces in
these neighborhoods were achieved. Staff proposes establishing standards to ensure that
future development meets this baseline standard for successful neighborhood pattern and
design. Staff's recommended Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy is described in the
following section.
Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy (SNDS)_
Instead of relying on an existing rating system with broad standards that cover many categories
(such as LEED-ND), Staff proposes to create a program of standards for new development that
is tailored to address only those categories where Dublin does not already have guiding
policies. Staff recommends developing a Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy specific to
the needs of the Dublin community that is divided into three categories: Street Patterns and
Design, Land Use Patterns and Design, and Access to Schools.
The goals of the proposed Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy are to:
• Create neighborhoods with a robust network of internal streets and good connections to
surrounding neighborhoods where pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers can move
efficiently and safely.
• Promote walking and cycling by providing safe, appealing, and comfortable street
environments tMat support public health by reducing pedestrian injuries and encouraging
daily physical activity.
• Improve physical and mental health and social capital by providing a variety of open
spaces (public and private) close to work and home to facilitate neighborhood
Page 5 of 10
i~
~~
connectivity, social networking, civic engagement, physical activity, and time spent
outdoors.
Staff has prepared a Draft Strategy, which is included as Attachment 3 to this Staff Report. The
Draft Strategy includes a menu of goals, policies, and standards to address sustainabi{ity in
neighborhood pattern and design. The Draft SNDS includes policies that provide a baseline
standard for future neighborhood development in Dublin. By setting expectations, standards,
and a means by which to achieve these goals and assess sustainable site design, the City will
encourage early cooperation and involvement between the City and the property
owner/developer in the site planning process. Identifying sustainable standards outlines the
City's expectations and also demonstrates a cornmitment to sustainable neighborhoods that
could open.up opportunities for future grant funding to implement plans as well as the potential
for local, regional, or national recognition of the proposed project. -.
Staff is seeking feedback from the City Council on the goals, policies, and standards included in
the Draft Strategy (Attachment 3). ~
- .. :Applicability of a Sustainable,Neighborhood. Desi„gn;Strategy ° - ..
. Staff recommends that a Draft Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy be applied to the. ~
following types of projeets: ~ : ~ ~ : : _ . ' ~. . ~ `~.
. ,
~ . ,.
_ ; .. .. , . .
. ,., .- , .,.
•_ ,
# ~,!: • a.
?: . .
-. . . .. ., :. . ~t, ~F ~, ~ . .i.
. ,. ;. , ...;. , . . . ~ . .
'~ 1::~: Gene~al Plan and Specific PIan.Amendments,.:new Sp~ecific Plans, ,: . ;°.: ~. . °
2:: Annexations; . ; ; a - ~ . ;
_ 3::New Stage 1: and/or Stage 2 Planned Development Rezones. Minor amendmenfs to an ..
, ,existing:Stage 2 Development. Flan would be exempt from~ compliance with~ the ~D.taft .~.
. ~ ~:Strategy; . ~ . ~.~ - ~ . , , ~
4: ` Rezoning applications; and :; . , : , ; ,
, ..
_ . ~ 5. ~Any subdivision of property or other new development that creates new streets without
. changing the applicable land use designation would need to comply with all policies and ~
~ standards contained in Policy Section One (Street Pafterns and Design) of the Strategy.
Developers typically spend large sums of money to :obtain entitlements to develop their
properfy. For example, a Stage 1. Development Plan outlines the: basic development
, ;.: r,.: parameters , including ..maximum ;<densities:..and., per,mitted,-;uses,=~but;.:does T~not ..aontain ::detailed
, land use plans. A Sfage 2 Development Rlan requires design work, detailed land plans with
. street networks, and drawings that illustrate the proposed development, A developer invests a
considerable amount of time and money to obtain this Ievel of entitlements. Therefore, projects
with this level of entitlements and pro}ects which are~close to achieving this level of entitlement
are not recommended to be subject to compliance with the Draft Strategy.
Projects that would be subject to compliance with the Draft Strategy incfude those project types
listed above for properties that do not have a current Planning Application on file. These future
projects include Area B in Dublin Ranch, several properties in Fallon Village (Croak, Chen, and
Anderson - commercial portion) and properties near Dublin's northern border along Tassajara
Road (Tipper, Fredrich, and Vargas). In addition, as noted above, the approved projects that
request a General Plan Amendment or rezone, would be subject to compliance with the SNDS.
Page 6 of 10
J I ~
~ ~~
There are several other properties in Dublin that are in different stages of project review,
organized into three categories be{ow:
First, there are two projects that have Pre-Applications on file with the City, but where there is
no current activity on the application, as described below:
Pro~ecf Name Current Entitlements A lication Status
Righetti Approved Planned Pre-Application on file since 2006 for a Tentative
Development Zoning Parcel Map and Planned Development Rezoning with
with a Stage 1 a Stage 2 Development Plan. Tentative Parcel Map
Development Plan. appcoved in .2007. No plans have been submitted for
the Sta e 2 Develo, ment Plan. . "'
Dublin Land Appr~ved Planned General Plan Amendment Study initiated in 2004.
Company Development Zoning Various Pre-Applications have been submitted and
. with a Stage 1 withdrawn over the years for different project
Develo ment Plan. conce ts. No current lans on file.
Staff recommends that bofh of the; above: projects 'be su6ject to eompliance with the Draft
Strate " - ~
9Y~ . .
.. :
~. ~; Seeond; there._ are two p~ojects thaf have. exisfing ,applications for General Flan Amendment~
::.. ,. . . , -
~;<'studies that"~are:at the very beginning of the entitlement;pro,eess. B~oth.The:Preserve (Doolan'~~. .
Can.yon) ~and Dublin Grossings (Camp Parks). have':in~itia#ed ~.General Plan Amendment studies, .~
~,- but the environmental analysis for the projects have not .yet begun, detailed land, plans have not
`~' ~ been submitted, and therefore the detailed analysis -of; potential land plans,: street networks, and .
= open space `networks are not yet underway: Neither>of~,th~ese projects has vested entitlements
"~ ~ LL•~and is in the very early stages of the City proces's, as `tlescribed °below: ~" - ~
~.: ,:,p
Pro'ect.Name . Current Entitlements A lication Status , ~
Dublin Crossing None General Flan Amendment Study initiated in 2003. A
(Camp Parks) . Planning Applicafion lias been received, but no
detailed plans for evaluation. F~uture applications will
.. include .a;General Plan land use ,plan, New Specific
Plan, ~ Proposed Rezoning plans, Tentative
.
:
~
~
~
~ ~ Subdivisio~n Map(s)ry Developmen, t A reement(s}, and
9
.
.. Fw,. . .:.
, ~ .,....,.,
..: . . .. . . ~ ..
; . : ,,
~
. . ,., ~. ,.. . ~ ~ 8
~' . „
. . .,_;
~~applicat~ons fo'r annexafion to ~local'utility/service
roviders.
The Preserve None General Plan Amendment Study initiated in 2010.
(Doolan Canyon) The current application includes a General Plan
Amendment for a Sphere of Influence adjustment.
Future applications could include an annexation, a
Specific Plan Amendment or New Specific Plan,
Zoning, Tentative Subdivision Map(s), and
Develo ment A reement s.
Staff recommends that both of the above projects be subject to compliance with the Draft
Strategy.
Third, there are two other projects that have existing applications for General Plan Amendment
studies and/or Planned Development Rezones, and are much further along in the entitlement
, Page 7 of 10
~~~~
~
process. Jordan Ranch (Phase 2) and Positano have current development applications
underway for General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments and Stage 1 and Stage 2 Pianned
Development Rezonings. Both of the current applications include modifications to a previously-
approved project, as described below:
~~~
V, i 4
: ,:. A., . . . . . . ~ . , , ,
. Compliance with.;the Draft Strategy for these two projects, and any others at. a similar stage of .
s :.: ~..:plannin9 aPRroval,;is nof proposed.: . . . ~ . . . _ ~ - , .
r' .~ , ~ ,.~ ~ , : • . ~ , ~;
. Options for lmplementation and Incentives ~ . T.: ~:` .. . , , .
' ;` For those projects to which the Strategy is applicable, the City could requice=complian.ce.with-:the ~
. ~:, ~Sustainable Neighborhootl Design Strategy in its entirety or in part. The. City Council could
.~~ ~consider using a"scorecard" method that would require compliance with a;rriinimum percentage
; of the Strategy, which would allow a greater degree ~of developer discretion; -and~ could offer
. incentives for fult compliance. If the City Council directs Staff to pursue a~"scorecard".method of
implementation, Staff will examine if there are feasible incentives that can be offered to.achieve
. _:full compliance with the Strategy. ~ ~
s .., , r , .. r ,., . <.. . :r,
`" '~ `~H'oweve`r, 'becaus"e'`fhe~'Sustainable~ Neighborhood ~Design`'Sfrategy, °as proposed; co.ntains~`the ~' "~y ~"
basic requirements to create a sustainable neighborhood; it is Staff's recommendation to
require compliance with the Strategy in its entirety for those projects to which the Strategy is
applicable.
Options for Adopting the Strategy
The following are three possibie methods in which a Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy
could be adopted, by the City Council. Each of these options would require. follow-up General
Plan Amendments to the Circulation and Scenic Highways Element (for changes to the adopted
standards for roadway configurations). _
1. Adopt as a stand-alone policy document (similar to the Public/Semi-Public Policy
adopted in 2004};
2. Adopt as a new Qrdinance/Municipal Code chapter (similar to the Green Building
Ordinance}; or .
Pro'ect Name Current Entitlements A lication Status
Jordan Ranch Approved Planned General Plan Amendment.Study initiated in 2011
(Phase 2) Development Zoning to change the land use designations for a portion
with a Stage 2 of the project site. Future appro~als include a
. Development Plan, General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan
Tentative Subdivision Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning,
Map, and Development Site Development~ Review, and possible Tentative
Agreement that vests Subdivision Map amendments.
the existin entitlements. ~ ~
Positano Approved Planned General Plan Amendment Study initiated in 2011
Development Zoning to change the land use designations for a 2.5- .
~ with a Stage 2 acre portion of the project site. Future approvals
,_ _ , Development Plan, include a.General.; Plan ~Amendment, Specific Plan
Tentative Subdivision Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning, -
~~ Map, and Development Site Deve4opment Review, and possible Tentative
; , ~
y~ . . . -~Agreement that~.~ests -:- . .;
. . Subdivision Map:, amendments . ~ ~• ~
. . . ..
~
`
} , the existin entitlements.. :
~~ t,,r. . ;~;
.
Page 8 of 10
~ i~
~~
3. Amend the.Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan to include
the additional goals and policies.
A stand-alone policy document is easier: to adopt and modify if the City Council so desires.
However, a stand-alone policy does not have the same strength as an ordinance or a General
P{an-level policy. This policy-level~approach provides the City Council with the most flexibility in
implementing the policy as well as making exceptions to the policy as desired.
An ordinance would become part of the Municipal Code, and any deviation from compliance
with the ordinance would require official action by the City to grant exceptions from the
ordinance on a case-by-case basis. If ehanges . were proposed to the Strategy, a Zonir+g
Ordinance Amendment would be required: ~
The Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan includes policy-level
guidance for new development in Dublin, and all projects are subject to consistency with the
General Plan: The Community Design and Sustainability. Element of the General Plan already . .
contains Section 10.7; Design of the Built F.orm, and the specific standards of the Draft Strategy .-
. ~; naturally fit as;an extension to this section: If changes~were~proposed to ~the. Strategy;:.a~.General
~ ,_ Plan Amendment would be required: ~ ~ : . ~ ~ ~
~ . . . . ~ .; , . _ , ~ . . . . :;
~::.Staff::r.ecornmends that.:the ;Sustainabler,~a,N.eighborhood.; Design ~ Strategy~ be.~ adopted:..as. an~~,.::. .'~ :
~. 'amendment:to the Comm~unity,Design;and. Sustainability Element of the General Rlan :'~, .. ,..
;~ `, .
: .. ~;,. Public Outreach ~. ~ , . , ~ ~ .
; .Once.the City Council provides direction on the goals, ~policies; and`standards,~.proposed .in the
.~~ Strategy, Staff proposes to meet with the development community.to:present :the Draft SNDS
_. `.:and; receive their feedback. Feedback from the~ developrnent community will ,be pres.ented to ...
,-:, the ~City Council along.with Staff's recommendation. on: the:final Strategy ianguage :at ,a future.
,. .City Counci! meeting. , . ,
RECOMMENDATION:
. Staff is making the following recommendations on~ the Sustainable Neighborhood -Design
Strategy, as discussed in this Staff Report.
~`' `' ~ `~ 1 ~ `Draft-~Su"stainable` Ne'iqtiborhood'"Design `Sfir"ateqy:' 1tiStaff ~recorrimends~""that ftie ~~D`raft :~ ~ y°
Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy contain the goals, pblicies, and standards as
outlined in Attachment 3.
2. Applicability of a Sustainable Neiqhborhood Desicln Strategy based on proiect tvpe.
Staff recommends that the Draft Strategy apply to:
• New Genera! Plan and Specific Plan Amendments, new Specific Plans;
~ Annexations;
• New Stage 1 and/or Stage 2 Planned Development Rezones;
• Rezoning applications; and
• Any subdivision of property or other new development that creates new streets
without changing the applicable land use designation would need to comply with
all policies and standards contained in Policy Section One (Street Patterns and
Design) of the Strategy
Page 9 of 10
~ ~~
~~~
3. Applicability of a Sustainable Neiqhborhood Desiqn Strateqx to actual pro~ects.
Staff recommends that the Draft Strategy apply to:
• Projects that have Pre-Applications on file with the City, but where there is no
current activity on the application (e.g. Righetti, Dublin Land Company); and
• Projects that have existing applications for General Plan Amendment studies that
do not have land plans on file and are at the very beginning of the entitlement
process (e.g. Dublin Crossing, The Preserve):
4. Implementation and Incentives. Staff recommends that the Draft Strategy, apply., in its
entirety, not partial compliance. ~ ' .
5. Adopting a Draft Strateqy. Staff recommends that the Draft Strategy is adopted as an
amendment to the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Flan. .
NEXT STEPS:
Once dire`ction is provided by~tlie City Council on the recommendations above, Staff will': ' ".~.
. . , . , ~ ,_. .... . , _,... ,
1. Refine the ~Draft Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy to incorporate directiora,from ~
{ ~. G
~ ~ the City Council; ~ ' ` '
x ~: 3 ,, ', ~
~ ti-i. ~ .'%e ; .-~" ~,.~t: .k ~ .4 .., _ : -,:.~, ~ ~,.~,' , . `•` ~ :.:s;~ ~ zy~._,.':': ,,"'. ' .: ~ . ~,~{ .., . .:: ., .~ .
2 Meet with the development community,to present Draft Sustainable Neighborhaod~° 1;~ ,.
~ ` ~ Design,Strategy and receive their feedback; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~> '~ t `~ ~~
3: Prepare amendments to existing Planning Documents as necessary; and
4. Condu,ct the:,appropriate I~evel of environmental review; ~ .. ,~ ;
- 5: Present`:fhe Draft Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy to the Planning >~ ~t -.`_:; `°~
. ~. - Commission for recommendation to the City Council and then to~ the,City-Council ~~~ :~ ~ -` .'
adoption/approval. • ` ~ .~ : .
NOTICING REQUIREMENTSLPUBLIC OUTREACH:
A public notice is not required to seek direction from the City Council on proposed policy direction.
Future reports that request the City Council to take action on policy recommendations will be ~
.,. notice.d as ~re:quired :by,law, and:,sent~~to.mernbers, of.Dublin's develop.ment community. .;;;;.: 4:a. >; ,~< ~~;, ;,
ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Council Staff Report dated December 21, 2010
2. City Council meeting minutes dated December 21, 2010
3. Draft,Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy
G:\PA#\20101Sustainable Neighborhoods StrategylCC 3.1.2011\CCSR 03.01.2011.doc
Page 10 of 10
~~ ~ ~
~
City Manager Pattillo stated it would take three month lust to get the participants lined up and
then they could come back in three months to repo what progress had been made. Usually,
when the City implemented educational program , they let them settle for a year. This had
been done with the City's environmental prog ms. Would the City Council agree to three
months for program development, and thr e months to see what results, if any, were
accompfished. The group would be comp ed of the Fire Department, a member of the City
Manager's O~ce, and the Chamber of Co merce.
Mayor Sbranti stated he could agre fo three months for formation. and then another three
months to see how education was w rking.
City Manager Pattillo stated the f~ity would also have fo work with the Alameda County Health
Department. /
May.or Sbranti asked if som~ne donated an AED unit, was it a. charitable donation. °~
, City Attorney~ Bakker sta d it could be a business tax~ right off: . .
. . . i~, i . ~. •. z , . , . . , . . : .. . _ , . . . . . ` . . . ' . ~ ,. . . r .
• ~ .~... . ~ ;,Mayor Sbr.anti state it.:was more expensive'to .,buy a :unit, ~individually..~th,an ~buy :in~ bulk :and
. ~ maybe businesses ould share in fhe costs. Perhaps this could be an, item on the agenda.for ~
the next faith-bas round table meeting. . •.~ r
,-- .. City Manager. . attillo reiterated. that City Council direction~ was to convene a.group of Alameda
Gounty~.~EMS Dublin Ghamber of Commerce, and City Staff.and- Fire, in :developing a goal
statement,, s identified,. and review associated outreach strategies, and return in three :months
~ to report... :hen the group would implement strategies for three months and return,with a status
report. T e report would come back to the City Council in August or September: ~.
The C~y Council concurred with the City Manager's stated plan. ~
~
Sustainable Neiqhborhood Desiqn Strateqy
~ . . . . . .. .. . ... .~. ,. c.3w .~. w. .. ... . . .. . ~. ~ ' . • ... L•. . __ . . . _ . . . ~ .. ~ S(~~~~ ,.
8:04:08 PM 7.2 (530-10)
Principal P{anner Kristi Bascom presented .the Staff Report and advised that the City of Dublin
had taken an active role in promoting environmental sustainability with initiatives such as the
Green Building Ordinance and the City's recent adoption of a Climate Action Plan. In this
report, Staff was presenting the City Council with various . options for implementing a
"Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy," which would enable and promote sustainable site
design and planning for the street, land use, and open space patterns for neighborhoods in
Dublin. .
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 7
~ VOLUME 30 G~,~.~o~o~e~
~
REGULAR MEETING ~,, ,r~
MARCH 1, 201'i '`~~v`~
MENT 4
c.
~
Vm. Hart asked if part of the policy would include width of streets.
Ms. Bascom stated she had been working with Public Works and the policy would cover width
of the ultimate right of way, which would incorporate sidewalks, parkway strips, bicycle lane, as
well as travel lanes, medians and the light.
Vm. Hart asked if there were certain areas of the City that had wider streets, or setbacks of
residences, than others. He asked if the proposed policy would recommend guidelines relative
to that aspect. ~ ~
Ms. Bascom stated it would focus more on the amenities on the street, such as ensuring correct
bicycle lane widths and ample sidewalks for pedestrians as well as detached sidewalks, in
particular, with a parkway sidewalk between the sidewalk and the street: There were many
classifications of roadways. ~
. Cm. Swalwell. asked if this was state-of-the-art. , : ~ , ~ . _ . . .
.:,, .. Ms. Bascom stated this was nothing .cities were.;doing.,:on a-,regular basis:~ ~: Other. cities, .were :
~ taking a variety of approaches; Looking,at this on a:broader level,:it was unusual to be: able to
, ,~~propose something on a planning leyel. There was no on.e-in~the area that the..C~ity;.coul,d~use.as :~,
-, , .-.an-example.. ,;: . . ;: ~ ~ , , .
, City Manager Pattillo stated this compiled a lot of what the City was already doing: .It was a
. collection of the-City's current practices. ~ . ~.' ,. .
" :1~ ~~ , ~ ~ . . . .:, ;::~ .'
,. , Mayor Sb.r.anfi:~~sta,fed this was including parts of current Cify Kdocuments such~;as.:.the~ City's
_ :- Streetscape Master :Plan,;and the Bikeways Master Plan._ .- _,
Ms. Bascom stated this was what the City was doing. The City could say from this point forward,
this is what the City wanted to see in its neighborhoods. .
Cm. Hildenbrand stated the Summerglen community in Dublin was a wonderfully planned,
walkable community. Residents were utilizing what was around them. The City should be
striving for,,more;green infrastructure;~ she would like to see ;more must-haves in .green,;building .,,. ..,
~ infrastructures. '
Cm. Biddle stated this kept the City ahead of what was being presented in the County
The City Council discussed and, by consensus, approved the following five Staff
recommendations of the Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy:
Item 1 Content of the Draft SNDS
ltem 2 Applicability of the SNDS based on proiect tvpe
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 8
VOLUME 30 `~y OF ~U~
REGULAR IVIEETING ru ~ir,. a~
MARCH 1, 2011 19~~~~
\~ C~ ~l
~'IG! RN~~
~~
~
Item 3 Applicabilitv of the SNDS to actual proiects
Item.4 Implementation and Incentives and Item 5 Adoptinq Draft SNDS
By consensus, the City Council confirmed Sfaff's recommendations on the elements of the Draft
Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy, the applicability of the Sustainable Neighborhood
Design Strategy; the methods of impfementing, and methods for adopting the Sustainable
Neighborhood Design Strategy. ~
G
NEW BUSINESS .
P
d
~ , 8:34:24 PM 8.1 (430=60)
to the Fi
z ,Community.'Development Director Jeri R
` , ~was requesting the Gty~Councif authorize
~-'Loan' Frogram to address changes ~in ~t ~
~ past several years. Additionally, the e
. to streamline processes. Staff.was Iso
should ~be explored that.would offer borrc
~ principal and ~interest payments.
. . - a..
~ presented tlie Staff Report and adv~sed~°tliat Staff ~.
he Second Amendment ~to'the Firsf Tirne Homebuyer ~~ .
residential mortgage~ industry that had" occu~red in the, ;~ .: ~~
ndment included minor clean ups that were necessary
requesting direction from the City Council if a change, -
wers the ability to repay their loans monthly wiifi fixed.
_ ,t , ;
~'~ ~ Vm: Hart asked for an ~explana on, of a third party vendor.
.. . . . . i .. .
Ms.` Ram stated some near- cities used a loan servicing company to manage~.its portfolio for
tlie loans for the payments The person who paid the loan did so through a servicing company
that then worked with the ity.
Vm. Hart asked how
~ `~Ms.` Ram st'atetl"~thi~
or six years. The t
about $35,000.
Cm. Swalwell
ny loans had been approved.
loans had~ been approved and ttie program had been'in `exisfence~for`~five ~~~~'~~"
tal value of the loans was $982,000 and the average loan amount was ~
if it was correct that there had only been one default on these loans.
Ms. Ram stat~d that was correct.
Suzette Cl~k Wa{ker, Bay East Realtors, stated the mortgage industry had changed and it
made sens #o make these changes.. She asked the City Council to approve the changes.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 9
VOLUME 30 G~.~o~'DUa~y
REGULAR MEETING n~
MARCH 1, 2011 ~~~~~~`~l
~~~R~`°
~~ ~
~
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568
Website: http://www.dublin.ca.gov
DRAFT Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy
Proposed Goals, Policies, and Standards
The overarching goals of the~ proposed ~Sustainable Neighborhood. Design Strategy are to:
• Create neighborhoods with a robust network of internal streets and good connections to
surrounding neighborhoods where pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers can move~
efficiently and safely.
• Promote walking and cycling by providing safe, appealing, and comfortable street
environments that support public health by reducing pedestrian injuries and
encouraging daily physical activity.
• Improve physical and mental health and social capital by providing a variety of open
spaces (public and private) close to work and home to facilitate neighborhood
connectivity, social nefinrorking, civic engagement, physical activity, and time spent
outdoors. ~
Updated (with strikethrough and underline text) June 3, 2011
Draft Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy Page 1 of 6
ATTACHMENT 5
a
Policy Section One: Street Patterns and Design
Intended Results:
• A dedicated pedestrian and bike network
• Streets with ample room for sidewalks, parkway strips, dedicated bike lanes
• Multiple intersections providing increased opportunities for circulation
• Safe and easy travel between key destinations: residential, civic/public, and commercial
spaces
Goa/s:
• Promote transportation efficiency; including reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
• Enable easier non-vehicular circulation
• Promote walking and cycling
Policies and Standards:
Policy 1: Provide safe and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle connections -
between destinations within a project:area by providing wide multi-use
,.; paths, generous. sidewalks, and dedicated bicycle, lanes on all collector
and arterial streets. .
New streets shall conform to the following street standards:
Standard 1a: No closed cul-de-sacs. New'residential cul-de=sacs sha)1 have cut-throughs
at the end that are accessib/e to pedestrians and cyclists. The cul-de-sac can
open to another cul-de-sac, another street, or a park, trail, or open space
area. All cuf-throughs shall ensure compliance with CPTED principles and
accessibility for public safety vehicles.
Standard 1 b: New residential collector streets shall have a minimum 6' wide sidewalk or
multi-use path, 5' parkway strip with street trees at intervals not to exceed 40
~ feet, and a dedicated bike lane that is separate from~ on-street parking and
travel lanes.
Standard 1 c: New non-residential collector streets shall have a minimum 8' wide sidewalk
or multi-use path, 5' parkway strip with street trees at intervals not to exceed
40 feet, a dedicated bike lane that is separate from on-street parking and
travel lanes, and a raised median.
Standard 1 d: New arterial streets shall have a minimum 10' wide sidewalk or multi-use
path, 5' parkway strip with street trees at intervals not fo exceed 40 feet, a
dedicated bike lane that is separate from on-street parking and travel /anes,
and a raised median.
Standard 1 e: ~ All streets at the perimeter of a school site shall have a minimum 10' wide
sidewalk or multi-use path, 5' parkway strip with street trees at intervals not to
Draft Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy Page 2 of 6
~~
~
exceed 40 feet, a dedicated bike lane that is separate from on-street parking
and travel lanes, regardless of the street type.
Policy 2: Provide connectivity and options for access within a neighborhood.
Standard 2a: Design new intersections every 600' on average and at 800' maximum. This
standard applies to non-vehicular intersections (e.g. separated pedestrian/
bicycle paths or trails) as well.
Policy 3: Provide a continuous network of pedestrian and bBcycle routes within a
project area and logical connections to the exterior of the project area.
Standard 3a: Provide a pedestrian and bicycle accessibilify plan for each neighborhood that
illustrates the continuous connections throughout the project site, highlighting
the connections to school sites, public spaces, and semi-public uses in
particular.
Standard 3b: Allow for bus turnout lanes at new school sites to encourage fhe use of public
: ~_ ~ .. transit. . . - . .
~ Policy 4:
All projecfs within'/2 mile of a regional transit station (e.g. BART) shall
provide increased connectivity to the station for pedestrians and
cyclists.
~~;.
, , . .. _.., ,.. _. .. , . ... • _.
Draft Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy Page 3 of 6
a
~
Policy Section Two: Land Use Patterns and Design
Intended Results:
• Generous open spaces (both public and private) located close to the places people live
and work
• A minimum standard of residential densities in close proximity to BART
Goa/s
• Provide a variety of open spaces close to residences and businesses
• Improve access to transit
Policies and Sfandards:
Policy 5: Locate open spaces in close proximity. to residents and bus.inesses. ~
Standard 5a: Design neighborhoods so that a park, civic; semi-public, or publicly-
accessible passive-use space, at least % acre in size lies within a% mile walk
distance of 75% of planned and existing residences and commercial
businesses. The space can be either a public park (in compliance with the
~ ~ Parks and Recreation Master plan) or privately-owned, as long as it is
~ accessible to the general public. '
Standard 5b: ~ Design neighborhoods so that a park, civic, semi public, or publicly-
accessible recreational facility at least one acre in size with either indoor or
outdoor recreational amenities, lies within a%-mile walk distance of 75% of
planned and existing residences and commercial businesses. Recreational
facilities must include some physical improvements and may include `~ot lots,"
swimming pools, sports fields, community buildings or recreation centers, or
can be any public park. The recreational facility can be either a public park (if
_: . ., if.is in compliance with the Parks and Recreation Master.plan) or privately- ;..
owned, as long as it is accessible to the general public. It can be a facility
that charges a fee for use.
~
Policy 6: Residential development in the vicinity of a regional transit station (e.g.
BART) shall have minimum development density requirements.
Standard 6a: For all residential uses within % mile of a regional transit station, 25 units per
net acre is the minimum density requirement, and for all residential land within
% mile of a regional transit station, 10 units per net acre is the minimum
density requirement. Higher densities within % mile of a regional transit
station are encouraged.
Draft Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy Page 4 of 6
~~
Policy 7: Support facifities for a regional transit station (e.g. BART) shall be ~
provided in large residential neighborhoods to facilitate pedestrian and
cyclist access to transit.
Standard 7a: lnclude a"Transit Hub" in any new project that has 500+ residential units and
is located more than one mile from a regional fransit station. A Transit Hub
would be a central location in the project where pedestrian trails, bike lanes,.
and streets converge at a central transit sfop. If bus service is to be provided
to the project area, the Transit Hub would be the location to put the bus stop,
bicycle parking, and bus shelter. There is no minimum size for a Transif Hub
and it shall be located adjacent to an open space, park, or publiclcivic facility
Draft Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy
Page 5 of 6
~~
Policy Section 1'hree: Access to Schools
Infended Results:
• Well-located and easily-accessible school sites
• Minimize the distance from school sites for the maximum number of likely students (e.g.
adjacent to attached and detached single family homes)
Goal:
• Integrate schools into the neighborhood street and land use pattern
Policies and Standards:
Policy 8: School sites in neighborhoods shall be chosen for maximum safety and
~ accessibility for students. , - . . . .
Standard.8a: School sites shall be locate.d and designed for accessibility to the mazimum' `: ~~
,~ number of likely students. Although frontage on two sfreets is needed,
~school sites are ideally not located at the intersection of two hiqher-volume
, collector streets, and the site must be designed and located so that
pedestrians and cyclists can easily reach the site via safe bike /anes, multi- - ~
use paths, and sidewalks.
Standard 8b: Design a neighborhood such that at least 50% of any attach'ed and detached ,
single-family residential units a"re within a% mile walking distance of any new. ~~
elementary or middle schoo/ site on the project site.
Standard 8c: For projects that do not involve the creation of a new school site, locate
attached and detached single-family residential units in areas within the
project that facilitates the most direct walking route to existing school site(s).
, , ,; Streets within and/or bordering the project area that lead from.new dwelling. .,
units to an existing school site (or dedicated future school site) shall be
designed fo have a complefe network of multi-use paths or sidewalks on at
least two sides and either bicycle lanes or traffic control and/or calming
measures.
Draft Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy Page 6 of 6
~.
~
IIIA~ICAY~~O~i~~
8000.00
ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYOAS
Apri129, 2011
Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, California 94568
5~!a.m~`~~.s'r"~~ „~ ~~~~~~~.
APR ~ 9 ~t~~~
~~~~~.I~ ~~~~~~~~
Dear Kristi,
On.behalf of some of our clients, we have reviewed the City's Draft Sustainable
Neighborhood Design Strategy and have provided the following comments and thoughts,
as well as incorporating comments directly from our clients. We applaud the City for
moving forward with sustainable goals and policies, however, we do have concerns about
some of the policies and standards and how they will be implemented. We understand
that many of these policies and standards are linked to the U. S. Green Building
Council's LEED- Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) program. However, most
criteria under LEED-ND can be mixed and matched for a project to meet the goals of the
program, and many design parameters are not inherently required, especially where
physical and political constraints are present. Many of the standards of this Strategy fail
to recognize that barriers outside the control of the developer exist for meeting these
standards and exceptions should be allowed in these instances.
s
The first concerns are related to which projects would be subject to this Strategy as
outlined in your cover letter.
• The last bullet item identifies "Any subdivision of property or other new
development that creates new streets without changing the applicable land use
designation." We do not understand what this means and request the City to
clarify this. We.wonder if this would include tentative and parcel maps that are
based on previously approved PD or other rezones. If so, this would cause a
~ previously approved site plan and street sections to now be inconsistent with this
Strategy and the developer would be liable to expend additional time and funds to
redesign and entitle the project, potentially requiring a PD amendment or other
new entitlement.
• We do not understand how this Strategy will be implemented and become
consistent with the City's other design and policy documents such as the General
Plan, various Specific Plans, and reimbursement mechanisms such as TIF fees.
- SINCE 1953 -
5142 FRANKLIN DRIVE, SUITE B, PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588-3368 PHONE (925) 225-0690
OFFICES: PLEASANTON ROSEVILLE
P:\8000\officeU~lisc\8000-Dublin Sustainable Neigh - rev2.~W'msce.com
FAX (925) 225-0698
• Attachment 6
~ ~
These standards do not take into consideration the impacts upon projects that are
smaller, infill, at the outskirts of the City, in steeper terrain, and other similar
projects. Providing one acre of park or open space or limiting block lengths could
be detrimental to or make the project financially infeasible to build.
The proposed standards should allow for creative design alternatives, such as
dedicated walking and/or biking trails in lieu of on-street bike lanes or wider
sidewalks, as these examples might offer a superior way to achieve the program's
goals.
Policy Section One: Street Patterns and Design, Policy 1, Standards 1 a, 1 b, 1 c, 1 d, and
1 e. The following apply to all standards unless noted otherwise:
• Proposed sidewalk widths are greater than current City standards. Will the right
of way be widened or remainder landscape areas, if present, be decreased to allow
this to happen? If the right of way is widened, will the additional land area be
included into TIF, acquisition reimbursements, etc.? How will these dimensional
changes tie into adjacent existing projects where the "old" city standards are
used?
The cunent City street standards for a local residential street do not include a
parkway strip. Do Policy Standards 1 a- 1 e apply to these streets as well? If so,
will the City standard street section with monolithic walk not be allowed now?
Will the right of way of a local residential street be widened to confortn to the
Strategy? How will these dimensional changes tie into adjacent existing projects
where the "old" city standards are. used?
The provision of on-street bike lanes on all collectors and arterials is different
from current City standards. Based on the Policy description, we assume the right
of way will be widened-- how will these dimensional changes tie into adjacent
existing projects where the "old" city standards are used? How will the additional
land area be included into TIF, acquisition reimbursements, etc.? Short segments
of bike lanes on these streets can cause unsafe conditions.
• LEED ND is similar in specifying tree planting intervals, however, it qualifies this
by adding "...to provide street trees on both sides of at least 60% of new and
existing streets within the project...at intervals averaging no more than 40'
(excluding driveways and utility vaults). [italics addedJ These qualifiers should
be added to the Strategy, in addition to including "utility pipes" after "utility
vaults", to permit spacing flexibility during construction to address in-field
conditions.
• The City may want to reconsider the use of raised medians on all collector and
arterial streets. The use of rriedians increases the width of a street and hence it's
crossing distance, and unless the median is of a certain size, it can be perceived as
an unsafe location to be at if one is not able to fully cross the street. Also, if no
median is present on an existing street and the Strategy requires one to be, how is
this reconciled with traffic flow, right of way widths, TIF reimbursements, etc?
• In addition to the cost of building the additional required facilities (wider
sidewalks, bike lanes, etc.), there will also be a cost for additional impervious
surface area, along with the increased storm water runoff associated with that
added surface area. Have these impacts been taken into consideration?
P:\8000\officeUvlisc\8000-Dublin Sustainable Neigh - rev2.doc
~ ~
~
Furthermore, the concept of increasing the paved width of arterials and collectors
is really at odds with the water quality and LID concepts of LEED-ND. How is
creating more paved, impervious area being handled in light of other mandates to
reduce impervious area?
Standard 1 a:
• LEED ND credit achievement permits up to 10% closed cul de sacs. This
flexibility should be incorporated into the Strategy to allow for possible
constraints on site such as terrain, small in-fill projects that are "land-locked",
infeasibility to provide ramps or accessibility for public safety vehicles, parcel
configuration/inefficiency, etc.
• Although this concept makes sense on relatively flat areas, projects in steeper
terrain will likely have transitional slopes at the end of cul de sacs that either limit
pedestrian access or make it cost-prohibitive due to ramps, stairs, etc. The
standard should allow for flexibility under those conditions.
Standard lc
• Requiring the increase of sidewalk or multi-use path width from 6' to 8' for
industrial uses, as currently is required by the City, is unusual. Widening
sidewalks is typically done to allow larger populations of pedestrians the freedom
to walk unencumbered. Industrial uses are large parcel, truck heavy users where
the general population will not be walking in large numbers for exercise or to
access these uses.
Standard 1 d
Increasing the sidewalk or multi-use path width from 8' or 6' to 10' and along the
entire length of the street, as currently is required by the City, is not always
beneficial. As noted above, widening sidewalks is meant to allow larger
populations of pedestrians the freedom to walk unencumbered along pleasant
environments to destination points. It is not anticipated that that many more
pedestrians will be walking along the City's arterials to warrant upsizing the walk
or path the two additional feet. LEED ND requires new sidewalks to be 8' or 10'
wide minimum on retail or mixed-use blocks and at least 4' or 5' wide on all other
blocks (dimensions vary due to which LEED ND credit one is trying to achieve).
Policy Section One: Street Patterns and Design, Policy 2, Standard 2a:
• The block dimensions proposed do not follow. LEED ND credit requirements.
How were these dimensions determined? These standards seem especially
problematic for sites in hillsides that wish to limit grading perpendicular to slopes
and limit grading in narrow situations. Will deceleration lanes be required along
all entries from arterial and collector streets, which will require additional right of
way? This standard will also increase intersection widths and decrease the
urbanity of the adjacent project which these goals and policies are striving to
create.
P:\80001office~Misc\8000-Dublin Sustainable Neigh - rev2.doc
~
~~
Intersection spacings meeting the LEED ND criteria at least 90% of the time
fulfill the LEED ND requirement. A similar exception should be allowed here to
permit flexibility for sites with physical and other barriers.
Rather than specifying that "This standard applies to non-vehicular intersections
as well", it should state that "Non vehicular intersections may count towards
fulfilling these average and maximum requirements". Requiring additional
vehicular intersections is not as effective in promoting the goals of walking and
cycling.
Policy Section Two: Land Use Patterns and Design, Policy 5, Standards Sa and Sb:
• These standards seem burdensome, especially for small, hillside, or infill projects.
Costs of building and maintaining these spaces, as well as losing land in smaller
projects, can quickly make the project financially infeasible for the developer
and/or too costly in HOA fees for the project's homeowners.
• Providing these spaces to address shortfalls in existing residential and commercial
projects puts a further burden on the new project as to locating and providing
acreage with no reimbursement from the existing uses.
• The proposed standards should allow that density/dwelling units or
`intensity/commercial square feet lost to providing these open space uses are to be
maintained and the project can become denser to accommodate the units or square
feet that would have been lost,
• A development that provides either public facilities or private facilities open to
the public should received credits against neighborhood park fees for the land and
improvements provided, regardless of park size.
• The allowable uses under both standards should be expanded to include trails,
paseos, open space, and related uses.
• LEED ND requires a"civic or passive use space such as square, park, paseo or
place, at least 1/6 acre in area" for projects smaller than 7 acres be placed within a
project to meet a credit requirement. The reduction in land area should be
considered here.
Policy Section Two: Land Use Patterns and Design, Policy 6, Standard 6a:
• The City's General Plan has already designated land uses and density/intensity
within the City, and much of these lands have already been developed. Without
amending the General Plan and analyzing the resulting plan changes through
CEQA, land uses can not be changed and densified.
• Please clarify if this policy and standard applies to all existing and new residential
uses and densities or only to new residential uses and .densities that would fall
under this Strategy.
Please clarify "regional transit station". Would this include facilities such as
LAVTA's Rapid Bus (BRT) and other bus routes and stops? If so, requiring
densities of a minimum of 25 to the acre within a 1/4 mile of the stop could be a
concern based on site and market constraints.
P:\8000\officeUVlisc\8000-Dublin Sustainable Neigh - rev2.doc
~i ~~
Policy Section Two: Land Use Patterns and Design, Policy 7, Standard 7:
• Please clarify "regional transit station".
• The standard should note that the Transit Hub should be located through
coordination with LAVTA so as to locate the Hub where LAVTA service would
take place. Because of this, rather than specifying the Hub shall be located at the
center of a project and adjacent to open space, park or public/civic facility, it
should state that these locations are preferred. This will allow flexibility to work
with LAVTA.
• If no transit stop will occur within or adjacent to the project, no Hub should be
required.
• This standard should be applied to commercial areas of a certain size also.
Policy Section Three: Access to Schools, Policy 8, Standards 8a, 8b and 8c:
• These standards impact the design of neighborhoods as school sites and the
surrounding land uses have already been zoned and designated in the General
Plan and specific plans. Developers do not have the ability to determine the need
and placement of schools as that falls under the jurisdiction of the Dublin Unified
School District. This standard should be clarified to note that it applies to schools
that do not currently occur in the General Plan, however, this policy could still be
a problem.
• Exceptions should be allowed for age restricted types of residential uses which
have no need or usage of schools.
• The City may want to implement a Safe Routes to School program citywide.
Please refer to http://safety.fllwa.dot.~,ov/saferoutes/
We appreciate the City asking for comments on the_ Strategy. We hope that the City
considers these comments and updates the document accordingly. We believe that a
revised draft should be redistributed to the development community and a public meeting
to discuss the Strategy should be held prior to finalizing and forwarding this document
onto the Planning Commission and City Council. Please feel free to contact us if you
have any questions.
Be t ~egards,
~~ ~
~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~
Connie Goldade
MacKay & Somps, Inc
Cc: Mark McClellan
P:\8000\o~ce~Ivlisc\8000-Dublin Sustainable Neigh - rev2.doc
~ ;,.:~ F.. ; ; '` I ~~.-~- ~`llc~~~~1~'~t ~~ ~
~;~lu~icns ~GS cam~~ex rec-.i ~stc~Te c~~~Eienges
6 May 2011
Kristi Bascom
City of Dublin
Delivered via email
Dear Kristi,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City's Sustainable Neighborhood Design
Strategy and we appreciate the City's ongoing leadership on sustainability. We very much
appreciate your time meeting this week to further clarify and discuss the draft proposal so that
we could finalize our comments. After receiving your clarifications, we can say that we are very
supportive of the direction you are proposing and are thankful that the City is taking the
leadership to identify these goals while still allowing flexibility to design communities which meet
the overall goals of the City. As a leader in sustainable master planned communities, we look
forward to working with the City of Dublin to create a plan for the Dublin Crossings property that
meets and exceeds the goals and policies of the final Sustainable Neighborhood Design
Strategy.
As I mentioned in the meeting this week, we were disappointed to find out (by accident) that
staff has already been in front of the City Council with this item (12/2010 and 3/1/2011) and in
fact our project is specifically called out in the March staff report identifying Dublin Crossings as
a project where this new strategy would apply. We would hope in the future that we would be
informed when an agenda item was coming to Council with such potential impacts to our
project. Our understanding is that next steps will include a meeting between the school dist~ict
and the City, along with future City Council and Planning Commission meetings. When this
schedule is better solidified, please let us know so that if there are meetings that we should be
present at, we can make ourselves available. Please keep us updated on all progress with this
Strategy. We look forward to seeing the next version of this draft Strategy as soon as it
becomes publicly available.
While it may be technically true that our project does not meet a traditional definition of a
pipeline project, as we have shared with the City on several occasions, the Dublin Crossings
project and its potential success is tied entirely to our ability to deliver to the US Army the
projects they want built in exchange for the Dublin Crossings site. We have indicated to the City
that we underwrote our project based upon current City standards and months of input from City
staff. Any significant change to any City standards could jeopardize our ability to make the
project work economically. After three years of investment in securing an exchange agreement
from the Army it would be terribly disappointing to have it all be for naught if the City (or other
jurisdictional entity i.e. DSRSD) was to decide to change a regulation or project cost
dramatica~ly. While some changes can be absorbed into the land planning and some could be
offset with a corresponding land plan change (smaller Central Park, less commercial acreage, a
larger CFD, etc.), other changes could quite possibly lead to us giving the project back to the
Army. They may or may not start all over again trying to find someone to actualty build Dublin
Crossings. Our guess is that best case this would delay the project another five years beyond
our current timeline.
ATTACHMENT 7
~,r~ ~
~ ..' ~ ~~ ;~
. .
I V tC~C~C~~~I~~~ l,
~~K
~c-~lufiens fcr ~:c~m~l~:< r~cl ~stc~te ct~~I€~nc~es.
~
With all of that said we believe that your draft strategy is very good and has laudable goals
which we share. We know that there has been a suggestion to add these guidelines to your
General Plan. We appreciate your willingness to build in some flexibility to the strategy so that
the Mayor and Council would have the discretion to approve master planned communities which
meet the intent of the strategy even if in some instances individual policies may need to be
varied.
Since we are doing a"Master Plan," "Planned Development," or "Specific Plan", we'd normally
be in a position to adjust the City's street sections and the City (Planning Staff/Planning
Commission/City Council) would compare their code to our proposal and see if it works for the
specific site. Your indication that this type of flexibility will remain is very encouraging.
Below are specific comments on the Strategy. Thank you again for your time to meet this week.
As always you can contact me at (408) 307-7806 or jguerra@argentmanagementllc.com.
Sincerely, .
.~~__ :
~f~ R" r
^~ ,
~ ~ ~ ~F
~~~~ ~ j~~^"x'"~'~•-°"r_..-~ ,
~° ""~~
' Joe Guerra
Argent Management, LLC
Dublin Crossings
Cc: Mayor and Council
~ Joni Pattillo
Chris Foss
~ Jeri Ram
,; ~: ~
~ &
~ .E ,, ,' ~ ~ ~~~s~ ~I~1~~~
~N 3 J ~
.we~
S~lu~i~ns fe~r cam~;e:~ r~~.~ ~st~;~ ch~(~~nz~es
Sustainable Neiqhborhood Desiqn Strateqy comments:
First some broad points/requests:
• Can you provide street sections that explain how the new ROW's vary from existing
guidelines so we can understand actual footage and configuration changes?
• We appreciated the clarification that the PSE (utiliry joint trench) can be under sidewalk
and/or park strip areas and is not required to be back of sidewalk outside of the Right of
Way (ROW).
As you know, for constrained, in-fill sites, adding ROW eats into the amount of property
that is developable and can have adverse consequences if the balance between density
and ROW is arbitrarily applied. Have you considered making this an incentive-based
program or explored other options to ensure that goals and policies work together to
create a community that achieves the Sustainability vision that the City of Dublin is
looking to advance?
• The City's proposed standards appear to add additional width to the street sections and
more impervious area on those streets which will require more water treatment
measureS and pavement. Beyond the obvious erivironmental impact, this would be an
additional cost to our project.
• We had concerns about what CEQA process you would propose following if these are
added to your General Plan or other policy documents. We appreciate your clarification
on the next CEQA step being a determination of would CEQA review be required or not.
We again express that if the Strategy is a mandate then more thorough CEQA review
would legally be required.
• We had concerns about potential pipeline exemption for Dublin Crossings. Given your
clarification as to desired flexibility in the Strategy, we are less concerned with an
exemption and look forward toward working with you on creating a superior sustainable
community at Dublin Crossings.
• We continue to be concerned that new standards applied uniformly to all new
developmerit (even infill) could create odd interconnections.between new streets and
existing streets that do not have some of these ROW provisions. Additionally, there may
be situations where a commercial street is only a few blocks long and a really wide ROW
may not make sense. We woufd suggest specific language in the Strategy which would
recognize proactively that infill sites may need to have more flexibility to connect
appropriately with adjacent neighborhoods and streets.
Specific Policy comments:
Policy Section One: Street Patterns and Design
Policy 1: Provide safe and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle connections between
destinations within a project area by providing wide multi-use paths, generous
sidewalks, and dedicated bicycle lanes on all collector and arterial streets.
~
~ x :~~ ~ ~ I'~an~~~rn~~t ~ I
~aluti~ns f~r cc.~m~~~;: r~oi ~si~~~ ch~(€.~nc~~s
New streets shall conform to the following street standards:
Standard 1a: No closed cul-de-sacs. New residential cu/-de-sacs shall have cut-throughs
at the end that are accessible fo pedestrians and cyclists. The cul-de-sac can open to
another cul-de-sac, another street, or a park, frail, or open space area. All cut-fhroughs
shaii ensure compliance with CPTED principles and accessibility for public safety
vehicles.
We believe this is a laudable goal and strongly support walkable communities. We appreciate
your clarifying the definition of what the City determines to be a cul-de-sac as that traditional
definition where a public street terminates into a few homes and that housing layouts sometimes
referred to as "6-packs" and similar types of design would not fall under the cul-de-sac category.
We also appreciated your clarification that cut throughs would not be achievable where cul-de-
sacs back up to Camp Parks and therefore this standard would not apply. ~
Standard 1b: New residential collector streets shall have a minimum 6' wide sidewalk or
multi-use pafh, 5' parkway sfrip with sfreef trees at intervals not to exceed 40 feet, and a
dedicafed bike lane thet is separate from on-street parking. and travel /anes.
As we begin #o master plan Dublin Crossings, we hope to work with you to further understand
the applicability of "residential collector" so that we can understand if any of our streets would
meet this definition. Again, sample street sections for before and after proposed changes would
be helpful review
Standard 1c: New non-residential co-lector streets shall have a minimum 8' wide
sidewalk or mulfi-use path, 5' parkway strip wifh street trees at intervals not to exceed.40
feef, a dedicafed bike lane that is separate from on-street parking and fravel /anes, and a
. raised median.
As we begin to master plan Dublin Crossings, we hope to work with you to further understand
the applicability of "non residential collector" so that we can understand if it would apply to our
project. This Standard could have significant impacts to our assumptions at Dublin Crossings
as it relates to the increased ROW that it could require for Collector 2 streets. We also point out
that commercial streets are not all alike. It would be.helpful if the guidelines allowed for
variances between a"non residential street" adjacent to a corporate headquarters being
different in character than a"non residential street" that is adjacent to street retail. Again, we
suggest having street sections for before and after proposed changes as further review
continues.
Sfandard 1d: New arterial streets shall have a minimum 10' wide sidewalk or multi-use
path, 5' parkway strip with street frees af intervals nof fo exceed 40 feet, a dedicated bike
lane that is separate from on-streef parking and travel lanes, and a raised median.
We appreciated your clarification that this Standard would not impact Dublin Crossings.
Standard 9e: All streefs at the perimefer of a school sife shall have a minimum 10' wide
sidewalk or multi-use path, 5' parkway strip with street frees af intervals not to exceed 40
~ ~ ~" ~
~ ~~ ~G ~ 1~a~~gcr~~~t
Sc~lubicns fc~r ~.~m~1~.x rec~l ~st,~~c cf~~!(~ng~s
feet, a dedicafed bike lane that is separate from on-street parking and tr.avel lanes,
regardless of the street #ype.
As you know, schools are state agencies and exempt from City Design Guidelines. There is
always the potential that we would simply provide a site for the School-District and they would
handle design issues. We also have some concerns about a blanket provision that all streets
adjacent to a school need a bike path. School traffic circulation is very complex and it may
make sense to focus bike traffic into certain entrances to the school campus. Again a design
guideline that is this rigid (shall v. encourage) could lead to unintended consequences. We
appreciate your clarification this week to suggest that this Standard could be revised to include
language that would suggest that all circulation (vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle) would be
planned with the goal of providing safe routes to school for children.
It was also difficu4t to interpret this proposed right of way. Again, we suggest that having street
sections for before and after proposed changes. We would suggest also that to reduce street
width and promote safety; consider eliminating on-street parkin~-and drop-off at school
frontages, as well as provide for school drop-off and queuing as part of the school circulation
plan.
Policy 2: Provide connectivity and options for access within a neighborhood.
Standard:2a: Design new intersections every 600' on average and at 800' maximum. This
standard applies to non-vehicular intersecfions (e.g, separated pedesfrian/ bicycle paths
or trails) as well.
You provide a maximum and an average but no minimum. We are not sure how this affects us
as:we are a traditional neighborhood layout with a system of interconnected grid streets with
intersections that are on average less than this. We appreciate your clarification that vehicular
intersections and/or non-vehicufar intersections closer than 600 feet apart would be acceptable
and achieve this proposed policy.
While this may be a popular "new urbanist" approach, it could present unnecessary constraints
if not made flexible; especially for infill sites such as the Dublin Crossings site. We would
suggest that you provide exceptions and flexibility for unusual constraints such as: irregular land .
use patterns; offset intersections; intervening infrastructure such as storm drainage channels,
major utilities/easements, parks, open space, etc.
Policy 3: Provide a continuous network of pedestrian and bicycle routes within a project
area and logical connections to the exterior of the project area.
Standard 3a: Provide a pedestrian and bicycle accessibility plan for each neighborhood
fhat illustrafes the confinuous connections throughout fhe project sife, highlighting the
connections to school sites, public spaces, and semi-public uses in particular.
We believe we can show links from neighborhood onto the Collector Streets, bike lanes, bike
trails in Central park, etc. We do not have separate on-street bike lanes in our neighborhood
residential streets and we are assuming that you are not suggesting that we ~eed a separate
on-street bike lane everywhere you have a motorized vehicular lane. As we discussed this
week, we understand being part of the bicycle network, but do not believe that every street that
intersects with a bike network street should be required to have a bike lane. If we have four
~~:~~~~~~ ..
` ~ ~~~-,~~~m~~t
~
~olufiat~s fcr Lompl~x re~l est~te cn~tl~ng~s
~1
streets which intersect with Dublin Bivd, they should not all be r.equired to have a bike lane, just
because there are bike lanes on Dublin Blvd.
Policy 4: All projects within'/2 mile.of a regional transit station (e.g. BART) shall provide
increased connectivity to the station for pedestrians and cyclists.
As we discussed, the Dublin Crossings site already has ingress/egress on Demarcus, Arnold
and the Iron Horse Trail to connect to BART. We appreciate the clarification that this Standard
would not be interpreted to mean that more connectivity would be required.
Policy Section Two: Land Use Patterns and Design
Policy 5: Locate open spaces in close proximity to residents and businesses.
Standard 5a: Design neighborhoods so fhat a park, civic, semi-public, or publicly- ~
accessible passive-use space, at /east % acre in size lies within a% mile walk distance of
75% of planned and existing residences and c~mmercial businesses. The space can be
either a public park (in compliance with the Parks and Recreation Masfer plan) or :
privately-owned, as long as it is accessible to the general public.
; Please provide the specific sections of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan so that we can •'-
understand the implications of this proposed policy. •~
Standard 5b: Design neighborhoods so that a park, civic, semi-public, or publicly-
accessib/e recreationa! facility at least one acre in size wifh eifher indoor or outdoor
recreational amenities, lies within a%rmile walk distance of 75% of planned and existing
residences and commercial businesses. Recreationa/ facilifies must include some ~' =-
physical improvements and may include "fot /ots," swimming poo/s, sports fields;
community buildings or recreation centers, or can be any public park. The recreatior~al
facility can be either a public park (if it is in compliance with fhe Parks and Recreafion
Masfer plan) or privafely-owned, as long as it is accessible to the general public. It can be
a facilify fhat charges a fee for use.
Same comment as 5a
Policy 6: Residential development in the vicinity of a regional transit station (e.g. BART)
shall have minimum development density requirements: ~
Standard 6a: For all residential uses within % mile of a regional transit station, 25 unifs
per net acre is the minimum densify requirement, and for all residential land within %
mile of a regional fransit station, 10 units per net acre is the minimum density
requirement Higher densities within % mile of a regional transit station are encouraged.
We appreciate your confirming that your measurements will be from the actual station and not
arbitrarily measured from the edge of an oddly configured parking facility since these radius
issues seem to relate to walking to the station platform itself to encourage transit usage. We
discussed using the sidewalk where someone begins to go up to the BART train platform and
we think that is a reasonable standard.
We appreciate your clarifying how the City will calculate your 10 unit/net acre standard so we
can understand if the product we currently have programmed would achieve the proposed %2
¢~~ . I'v~l~r~~~em~nt
~.
S~lufi~ne fcr c~mp3~::~ rec:l ~stafie cF~adt~ng~s
~3
mile requirement meets your proposal. We now understand and agree that a"net acre" would
be defined as any residential land that falls within the %2 mile radius and that we would back out
all public ROW (including streets, medians, sidewalks, parkway strip.
We also agree with the comment at the meeting that the language that suggest you "encourage"
higher densities could be misinterpreted by some as a requirement to go above 10/acre.
There still seems to be some forthcoming discussion about how this Standard will apply when a
planning area is bifurcated by the %z mile radii. We look forward to a better understanding of
how you will address this item.
As a side note, in the past we were told by the City that they did not want too much high density
on our side of Dublin Blvd. because you were concerned about the "canyon affecY' that could be
created along Dublin Blvd. Though we have now confirmed that that our site is outside of the'/<
: mile radius, this is the rype of competing priority that should be considered when deterrnining
~ the rigidity of the guidelines. ~
Policy 7: Support facilities for a regional transit station (e.g: BART) shall be provided in
large residential neighborhoods to facilitate pedestrian and cyclist access to transit..
' Standard 7a: Include a"Transit Hub" in any new project that has 500+ residential unifs :
and is located more than one mile from a regional transitstation. A Transit Hub.would be
a central location in fhe project where pedestrian trails, bike lanes, and streets converge
af a central transit stop. If bus service is to be provided to the project area, the Transit
Hub would be the location to put the bus stop, bicycle parking, and bus she/fer. There is
~~ na minimum size for a Transit Hub and it shall be /ocated adjacent to an open space; .
park; or public%ivic facilify. ~ `'`
No~ comment at #his time.
Policy Section Three: Access to Schools
Policy 8: School sites in neighborhoods shall be chosen for maximum safety and
accessibility for students.
Standard 8a: School sites shall be located and designed for accessibility fo fhe maximum
number of likely studenfs. Schoo/ sites are ideally. not /ocated at the intersecfion of
collector streets, and the site must be designed and located so that pedestrians~ and _~
cyclists can easily reach the site via safe bike /anes, mulfi-use pafhs, and sidewalks.
We recommend softening the language to allow for schools at collector intersections as long as
adequate safe routes to and from the school are provided. Again, having a collector street go
through our project may be a City priority and at the same time locating a school central to the
site may be a priority. Having some flexibility when competing priorities occur would be
advisable.
; t .,. .
.,, ,
Our understanding is that you will be receiving comments from the school district and we look
forward to seeing if their comments have an effect on the next revision of this Strategy.
. :: I~I~n~g~rner~t
~:
S~luti~n:s #Gr es~mpl~:~ real ~st,~ic ci~~~lien~rs
~~~
Standard Sb: Design a neighborhood such that at leasf 50% of any attached and
defached single-family residential units are within a% mile walking distance of any new
elementary or middle school site.
No comment at this time.
Standard 8c: For projects fhaf do not involve the creation of a new schoo/ site, /ocate
attached and defached single-family residential units in areas within the project that
facilitates the most direct walking route to exisfing schoo! site(s). Streets within and/or
bordering the project area that lead from new dwelling units to an existing school sife (or
dedicated future schoo/ site) shall be designed to have a complete network of multi-use
paths or sidewalks on at least finro sides and either bicycle lanes or traffic control and/or
calming measures.
Again. to the issue of competing priorities; this is a perfect example. If the school district
determines that a school located internal to-our site is not desirable, we would be serviced by
schools to our East. This guideline could be interpreted to suggest that we locate residential
- ~. uses to the: eastern side of our site. At the same time, our eastern border is adjacent to non- '
-.. ,- residentiaW:uses and we have been told to locate our non-residential uses on the eastern side .: >
~~ especialfy:as it~ r.elates to Dublin Blvd frontage. Flexibility to:address these tradeoffs needs to be °-.:
~ ~ built into the new strategy. We appreciate your clarification thafi this Standard calls. for ~
residential: at locations with the most direct walking route to existing schools which does not
mean the residential on our site would be pushed toward the East.