|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Construction of a new multi-tenant commercial building and associated site improvements is coming to the Dublin Place Shopping Center at the intersection of Amador Plaza Road and Amador Valley Boulevard, as approved by the City Council last week.
The new commercial space will enable tenants of the center to relocate, a necessary step to make room for downtown Dublin’s proposed new town square and street grid network in the immediate south.
If retailers’ needs were left unmet, they would remain in place in their current units through their leases, likely postponing the downtown plans for decades, according to the developer Hines Interests Limited Partnership.
On Aug. 20, the City Council approved a site development review permit that allows Hines to demolish two vacant commercial buildings in the site, construct a multi-tenant commercial building and reconfigure the site’s parking lot and access drives.
One of the vacant buildings on the site is a former bank location, totaling 13,500 square feet. The other is a former Grocery Outlet location, totaling 15,300 square feet.Â
The project site also includes part of a parking lot and the building that previously served as Lucille’s BBQ, though this third building is not slated for tear-down in this project.
The new construction will be a 33,125-square-foot, multi-tenant building. It is expected to serve as the relocation space for some of the center’s current tenants: PetSmart, Panera, Chipotle, BMO Bank and Yafa Hummus.
Hines staff described the building as contemporary and clean, made with materials such as stone, wood, metal, architectural concrete and stucco.
In terms of layout, storefronts will face pedestrians to avoid the view of back-of-house operations. The development will also feature foliage and a wide sidewalk at the building frontage to accommodate outdoor seating in some areas.
The council’s approval of the permit reverses the Dublin Planning Commission’s decision earlier this year.
In July, the commission denied Hines’ site development review permit application after determining that the proposed project was not consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.
More specifically, the commissioners were concerned about “the addition of two driveways along Amador Valley Boulevard, the overall layout of the project including the placement of the building setback from the public street, the location of the parking lot adjacent to the public street, the pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and the architecture,” according to council’s staff report.
Later that month, Hines appealed the decision, arguing that the proposal complied with the Dublin General Plan, downtown plan and Dublin Municipal Code.
However, in response to the commissioners’ comments, Hines revised the plan and architectural rendering by adding additional trees, landscaping and planters; removing some parking spaces to enlarge pedestrian area; shifting the building nine feet north to improve the dog-relief spot and seating; enhancing walkways with decorative concrete and eliminating the one-way drive from Amador Valley Boulevard.
One speaker during public comment last week expressed concern over the proposal not upholding the spirit Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.
To kick off the deliberations, Councilmember Kashef Qaadri suggested he and his colleagues return the proposal to the Planning Commission. He said the plans and renderings have changed since their decision, so it seems unfounded for the council to make a decision on the new renderings.
Councilmember Jean Josey disagreed with Qaadri’s analysis, saying that the changes are a direct response to the commission’s concerns.
Mayor Michael McCorriston backed Josey. “We’ve taken the Planning Commission’s comments into consideration,” McCorriston said. “Now it’s up to us to decide whether the changes are sufficient.”
Councilmember Janine Thalblum sided with the majority of the council, agreeing the proposal shouldn’t be sent back to the commission.
Moving onto a discussion of the plans themselves, Qaadri voiced displeasure with the commercial building’s proposed design.
“It’s very vanilla. It seems like a large box to me with a few minor facades improvements or additions,” Qaadri said of the eastern side of the building. “I don’t think it matches the theme and the aesthetic for the rest of the downtown area, which brought a little more excitement.”
The building designs were not cohesive with the downtown vision, according to Vice Mayor Sherry Hu.
Josey concurred that the building proposal is somewhat bland, but she liked the landscaping, dog area and outdoor dining space. She suggested the developer change the facades.Â
In response, a developer representative suggested reconvening with the team to adjust the design. He’d return to the council later in the evening to present the new plan.
After deliberation, the team brought forward modifications to the plan including a raised portion of the roof and flourish, added breaks in the canopy, front door variation for better tenant expression and more color variation once tenant locations were determined.
City staff explained that if passed, the council would defer project decisions to the community development director, meaning the council wouldn’t look at the project again.
Councilmembers voted 4-1 to approve the site development review permit, with Hu in dissent.
Station closed? BART could abandon Tri-Valley stops under doomsday budget cutsFebruary 9, 2026 8:36 am
Smash hit: Pleasanton's first rage room, splatter paint destination now openFebruary 8, 2026 1:17 pm