East Bay city denies massive housing, retail project

DUBLIN — The already booming city of Dublin has rejected even more housing, as the City Council rejected the massive “At Dublin” project that would have included senior homes, apartments, restaurants and a theater.

The “At Dublin” project, slated for 76 acres of currently open land north of Interstate 580 and east of Tassajara Road, has been met with criticism from residents for years, citing concerns about traffic, a lack of affordable housing and in general, too much housing in an already growing city.

Dublin was named the state’s fastest-growing city last year, growing 38% since 2010 or roughly 17,400 new residents. Residents have asked the council to put the brakes on approval of new homes or residential housing and the city received thousands of emails, comments and even petitions asking the council to deny the project.

But after years of the developer working with the city, holding community meetings for input, and modifying plans, the council rejected the proposal outright, stating the project just wasn’t right for Dublin.

In two council meetings, including one last week that lasted seven hours, council voted 4-1 to deny the project, with council member Jean Josey the only member in favor of passing the project.

All council members agreed however in discussions that the project was not perfect for the city.

“It’s not the ideal project for this space because I don’t think the ideal project exists,” Josey said.

She instead voiced concern that further “kicking the can down the road” would mean the developer would come back with a project with less retail, or more high-density housing that the community wouldn’t like as much.

At Dublin, developed by retail developer Shea Properties in partnership with apartment developer SCS Development, would have had 240,000 square feet of retail and commercial space, including a luxury theater, restaurants, a hotel, a gas station and office space. But some residents wanted less housing and more retail, a town square area and destination “downtown.” The city currently does not have an official downtown or central gathering area.

The project has gone through serious revisions in years past, reducing from 665 residential units including apartments, townhomes and detached houses to at least 400,000 square feet of commercial space and a public park. It was later amended to include around 200 single-family homes of senior housing, responding to feedback from the council.

The project would have required amending the city’s general plan, which currently only allows 261 residential units and 900,000 square feet of commercial/retail space at the site.

Another topic that was brought up by both council members and residents who spoke, was the potential second high school that is expected to be built near the site of the At Dublin project. Because the high school site had yet to be approved when the project’s environmental impact report was done, it does not include potential traffic impacts during school drop-offs or pickups.

Vice Mayor Arun Goel called the project not well planned out or meeting the needs of the community.

“The real question is, ‘Why rush now?’ ” he said. This current project has been in the works since at least 2017.

Councilman Shawn Kumagai seemed to be the most conflicted about his vote, saying he didn’t love the project, but was an advocate of smart growth in the city.

“There will be more housing in Dublin. It’s not a question of if, it’s a question of what,” Kumagai said.

He said it seemed the city, and the developer, Shea Properties, did not do the work to get enough of a consensus in the community about what residents want there.

“I see the glass as half full. I see the benefits of doing this (project), but I’m also not entirely convinced,” said Mayor David Haubert.

During its vote, the council discussed asking the developer to go back to the drawing board to come back with a project that is more suited to the community, including holding more community meetings or study sessions. However, the council ultimately decided to deny the project “with prejudice,” meaning if the developer were to come back, would need to start anew in the city’s process.