HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Downtown SP
"
-
.
l:
e
e
/)"I/0-5S'
)(0'-120-30
AGENDA STATEMENT
SUBJECT:
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 21, 1987
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
Background Attachments:
RECOMMENDATION:
(J>>rf
\)
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
DESCRIPTION:
Public Hearing: Dublin Downtown Specific Plan
and Associated General Plan Amendment.
A.
B.
Draft Resolution re: Negative Declaration
Draft Resolution re: Dublin Downtown
Specific Plan and Associated General Plan
Amendment
1.
Revised Table D, Estimated Implementation
Costs
March 6, 1987, Draft Dublin Downtown
Specific Plan (Note: Draft was previously
distributed under separate cover.)
May 26, 1987, City Council Agenda
Statement with Replacement Pages to
March 6: 1987, Draft and May 15, 1987,
Letter from William Bopf, Bedford
Properties, attached
Planning Commission Resolution re:
Negative Declaration
Planning Commission Resolution re: Dublin
Downtown Specific Plan and Associated
General Plan Amendment,.
,. -.....,:
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Open public hearing. " "
Hear Staff and Con~ultant pr~sentation.
Take testimony from the public.
Question Staff, "Consultant, 'and the
public. " .
Close public hearing.
Prov~deconceptual approval on each
section and implementation strategy.
Adopt Resolution approving Negative
Declaration (Exhibit A).
Adopt Resolution adopting Dublin Downtown
Specific Plan and Associated General Plan
Amendment (Exhibit B).
Direct Staff to bring back time frames for
conceptually approved imlementation
strageties.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
See discussion below.
On May 11, and May 26, 1987, the City Council opened the public hearing
on the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan and associated General Plan Amendment,
heard the Staff and Consultant presentation, and continued the matter until
July 21, 1987.
In response to comments submitted by Mr. Bopf of Bedford Properties,
Staff and the Consultant recommended that, on page 29 of the Draft Specific
Plan, the first sentence of the second paragraph be changed to read:
"A mix of uses integrating commercial uses and transit- related
parking similar to Zone 4 will be encouraged in this location."
The Draft Specific Plan includes a revised Table D, Estimated Implementa-
tion Costs (Background Attachment 1), including amounts designated in the
City's current Capital Improvement Program. In addition, the Staff and
Consultant have prepared the following Chart, which provides additional
detailed cost information as well as the estimated amount of Staff required to
undertake each implementation strategy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES (Agenda Statement Only):
ITEM NO.
~. /
DISC (10)
Dublin Chamber of Commerce
Planning Commissioners (5)
Planning Department
Larry Cannon - WBE
Chris Kinzel - TJKM
.
e
Implementation Strategy
1. Traffic Monitoring Program
2. Central Block Improvement
a. Brochure
3. Project (Downtown) Entries
a. Design Concepts
4. Center Median (Continuity)
Theme
5. Project Entries Pylons
Program
a. Design Concepts
6. Street Furniture Program
a. Additional Cost Info.
7. Public Signing Program
8. Restaurant Row Program
9. Business License program[2}
10. Downtown Promotional Program
a. Finance Staff Time
11. Parking Lot Landscaping
Program
12. Signing and Graphics
Improvement
13. Downtown Beautification
Awards
Subtotal
Cost Estimated from Revised
Table D
Total Estimated Implementation
Cost
Less Amount Currently Allocated
in the City's 1987-88 Capital
Improvement Program
ESTIMATED FUNDS NEEDED
BEYOND 1987-88
e
Est. Dollar Cost[l]
1st Year 'Annual
Est. Staff Time (hours)
lst Year Annual
$ 5,000 $ 5,000
$ 2,000
$ 5,000
170
40
25
25
$ 8,000
$150,000
25
80
70
$ 20,000 $15,000
330[3}
100
50
300
80
120
- ,~...
-".:!d~
60
$190,000
':!..
~~ 540
935'_
$20,000
..~'..
..'\
$5,000,000
~.
":'
"
;.,,/~.
$5,190,000 ,',;>';
$ 360,000
$4,830,000
[1] Indicates new or different cost estimate than shown in Table D, Estimated
Implementation Costs. The cost of Staff time is not included in the estimated
dollar cost column, with the exception indicated in note [2} below.
[2} Finance Staff time is included in estimated dollar cost column.
[3] Includes Zoning Investigation Staff time.
The chart summarizes estimated dollar costs and estimated Staff time needed for
individual implementation strategies. Both the dollar cost estimates and Staff time
estimates are further indicated as either a) first year, or b) annual items.
The chart notes new or different cost estimates than indicated in revised Table D,
Estimated Implementation Costs. For example, under the Street Furniture Program,
additional cost information indicates an estimated one-time dollar cost of $150,000.
The chart also shows a need for approximately 1,475 in additional Staff hours in
the first year. This Staff time would be needed in Planning, Zoning Investigation and
Finance. Implementation of the business license program would require the addition of
a part-time position in Finance in addition to 1,475 hours of Staff time in the first
year, and the 540 hours in subsequent years. If the City Council decides to approve a
majority of the Implementation Strategies, either 1) additional Planning and Zoning
Investigation Staff will be needed, or 2) other planning projects and zoning
investigation work will have to be deferred.
-2-
e
-
"
,..
~
RESOLUTION NO. 87
.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONCERNING
THE DUBLIN DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AND ASSOCIATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as
amended together with the State's administrative guidelines for implementation
of the California Environmental regulations, requires that certain projects be
reviewed for potential environmental effects and that environmental documents
be prepared; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was conducted finding that the Specific
Plan and General Plan Amendment, as proposed, would not have a significant
effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the Dublin
Planning Department; and .~
." -tj ft:
v ,., ~"",:,
WHEREAS, public notice of the Negati"ye Declaration"~as given in all
respects as required by State Law; and . ..c'.. ~~'
, .. .
. ..;'\
WHEREAS. the Planning Commission 'on Aprrl 6, 1987, recommended that
the City Council approve the Negative Decl~r~~ion for the Dublin Downtown
Specific Plan and Associated General Plar;:~endment; and
WHEREAS. the City Council held a public hearing on said Negative
Declaration on May II, May 26, and July 21, 1987; and
WHEREAS. the City Council did hear and consider all said reports,
recommendations, and testimony as herein above set forth;
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council finds
that the Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in accordance
with State and local env~ronmental law and regulations, that the project will
not have a significant effect on the environment. and that the Negative
Declaration is complete and adequate.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council hereby approves
the Negative Declaration for the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan and Associated
General Plan Amendment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of July, 1987.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
EXfllBIT L
e
e
RESOLUTION NO, 87
t
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING THE DUBLIN DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
AND ASSOCIATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
WHEREAS. the City of Dublin prepared the Dublin Downtown Specific
Plan and Associated General Plan Amendment with the intention of setting forth
the City's policies for the development of the area involved; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on April 6, 1987, recommended that
the City Council adopt said Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS. the City Council held a public hearing on said Specific
Plan and General Plan Amendment on May 11, and July 21, 1987; and
WHEREAS. notice of said public hearing was provided in all respects
as required by law; and
WHEREAS. the City Council did hear and consider all said reports,
recommendations, and testimony as hereinabove set forth; . ,.<
"C'>......
Vl'
WHEREAS. said Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment have been
reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act, and a Negative Declaration has peen approved for this project as
it will not have a significant effect on the",environment; and
WHEREAS. it is the City's intention to establish a policy framework
against which specific development schemes may be judged, leaving maximum
opportunity for design freedom; and
WHEREAS. the Specific Plan details the development goals for the
area and sets forth the criteria for judging development proposals;
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council adopts
the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan and Associated General Plan Amendment as
modified.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby direct
Staff to edit, format, and print the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan and
Associated General Plan Amendment with all City Council approved revisions and
without any other substantive changes.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of July, 1987.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
EXHIBIT 6
Revised 7/15/87
e DUBLIN DOWNTOWN4It
ESTIMATED IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
TABLE D
1. CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
A. Dublin Boulevard $1,700,000 (Note 1)
B. New Streets 1,600,000 (Note 2)
C. Traffic Signals 420,000 (Note 3)
D. San Ramon Road off-ramp
improvements 500,000
$4,220,000
2. URBAN DESIGN IMAGE IMPROVEMENTS
A. San Ramon Road Landscape $ 50,000 (Note 4)
B. Downtown Entries (Project
Entries Program) 110,000 (Note 14)
C. continuity Theme Elements
(Center Median Theme) . 90,000
D. Street Furniture 50,000 (Note 12)
E. Public Signing Program ,"SO,OOO
F. Project Entries Pylons Program (Not'e 5)
,,$ 350,0'00 (Note 11)
, .
-,
3. CENTRAL BLOCK IMPROVEMENTS + (Note 6)
, , ;.
'. "or
4. RESTAURANT ROW IMPROVEMENTS <''''f' (Note 7)
'. .
A. Curbs and Gutters $ 60,000
B. Landscaping 70,000
C. Crosswalks 50,000
D. Pedestrian Lighting 120,000
E. Entry Pylons 85,000
F. Street Furniture 15,000
$ 400,000
5. SPECIAL PROGRAMS
A. Business License Program $ 0 (Note 8)
B. Downtown Promotion Program 20,000 (Note 9)
C. Parking Lot Landscaping Program (Note 5)
D. signing and Graphics
Improvement Program 10,000 (Note 10)
E. Downtown Beautification
Awards Program (Note 5)
$ 30,000 (Note II)
ESTIMATED KNOWN COSTS $5,000,000
Less Amount Currently Allocated
in the City's 1987-88 Capital
Improvement Program $ 360,000
ESTIMATED FUNDS NEEDED
BEYOND 1987-88 $4,640,000
I R-2 75 ATTACHMENT 1-
I
.
e
e
ESTIMATED IMPLEMENTATION COSTS NOTES
1. Dublin Boulevard improvements are shown in the city's 1986-91
Five Year Capital Improvement Program, but are unfunded at
this time.
2. New street south of and parallel to Dublin Boulevard. Allor
part of the cost of construction and/or right-of-way may be
borne by adjacent property owners. This project is not
included in the City's Five Year Capital Improvement Program
due to lack of funding.
3. $420,000 (total cost) is currently in the City's 1986-91
Capital Improvement Program, but only $300,000 is funded as of
1987-88.
4. $50,000 of this amount is currently designated in the City's
1986-91 Capital Improvement Program, and is funae~ for
1987-88.
\~\ '
.
5. The cost of this program and the extent of public'and private
participation cannot yet be determined.'
_ " t'
6. The extent of costs for this program is unknown and can only
be estimated following meetings with property owners and the
development of schematic plans 'and costs estimates. An
initial assumption is that the City of Dublin's participation
will be limited to coordination activities and perhaps the
funding of an initial schematic plan to assist property owners
in reaching agreement. Should the possibility of a public
plaza or joint-use structure within the Central Block become a
reality, the city would consider participation in construction
and maintenance costs.
7. Restaurant Row Improvements are very preliminary in nature and
are based upon conceptual plans. Estimate includes
contingency factors as well as engineering and administration
costs.
8. The cost of the Business License Program is estimated at
$20,000 per year in the first year and $15,000 annually
thereafer. No cost has been shown, because it is assumed that
the business license fee would offset the administrative cost
of the program.
R-2 76
e
e
9. Downtown Promotion Program costs assume only costs for the
initial six month start-up and ordinance adoption phase. It
assumes the cost of one employee and direct costs of mailings
and printing. Office space, secretarial help and other
support services are assumed to be provided by elements of the
steering Committee.
Costs for the ongoing program would be self-supporting from
proceeds of the AB 1693 District revenues.
10. Cost assumes the services of a qualified graphics and signing
consultant for a six-month period. Amount of effort is
estimated to average one full day per week. Actual time
expenditures could be less depending upon business interest in
the program.
11. Total known cost excluding programs for which extent of public
and private costs are unknown. ~
.. ":} ,,:
12. Covers only estimate to upgrade quality of bus sh~iters from
transit authority standards. ~ ;... ~'\~
.
13. Other miscellaneous public sector., costs will need -to be
covered, bur would normally fa~l w,ithi~ normal City budget
categories. Examples include the',traffic monitoring program,
coordination with BART and the,'.6n:'goin~ ,dialogue with
CALTRANS.
14. $10,000 of this amount is currently allocated in the City's
1987-88 Capital Improvement Budget.
R-2 77
';',. .
'>'
.: '....~ r............. ~," r-.
','. (. ";,:;~r~'~~~j~'<<;.~ ,', ~~: Jir! .
'::' -::)~:' ;"'''':'.::/('' .-,,'"
,.f , , ~ ..
" ,1 .,' -' \.
"u
..., "'t~i
l'
,;i:;:_~/::::'\", ,>
"("" '., .t'f-?,:
"....: .!r,~" '
-; I" ?;/.~;.;.f1:'~'
<
,i~, ., , . - . #'
,!-:>
~;~.~"v. ",j i'I'
',:f" I _'.>..' /~ ",
" " ,F~, ~~:~ ;.
\ '~:~,.:..>I':llJ
.,: , .1
~ -', '
.,
; ',,:~~
, './
, 'I,..:,t-'
, J
AGENDA STATEMENT
,'?
t .... .
"
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: Hay 26,
..
"",
.' ~
'.: 't"
,'SUBJECT:
Public Hearin~: Dublin Downtown Specific Plan
and Associated General Plan Amendment
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
~ .. . .
1. 'March 11, 1987, Transmittal Letter from
Joe Devane, D.l.S~C.Chairperson,'to
'Planning Commission'" - ,', ,',
2. March 6" 1987, Draft Dublin DowntoWn';'
Specific Plan ~ith Replacement Pages '
(Under Separate Cover) -,
3. Replacement Pages to March 6, 1987, Draft
4. Draft Negative Declaration
5. March 16, 1987, Planning Commission
Minutes '
6. March 19, 1987, Planning Commission
Minutes
7.' May 15, 1987, Letter from William Bopf.
Bedford Properties
, ,',:
-t.~: .
RECOMMENDATION: ~
Jf
3.
Open public hearing. " "..
Hear Staff and Consultant, presentations
and D.I.S.C./pub1ic comments on an issue
by issue basis. . ..
Provide conceptual guidance to Staff on
each issue. ; ,./i"...." ,
Continue until Staffing~rld<~ost
implications are res,olved"as part of the
1987-88 budget review. .. ~~
",;:; ~.
l.
2.
4.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
To be determined, through the budget process.
DESCRIPTION:
, ~'-, ,:"..
t '~ ;,. ":
.......
I. Introduction
II. Background
The Dublin General Plan established an overall goal of maintaining the
downtown as the commercial center of the Tri-Valley area. ~o implement this
goal, the City Council appointed the Downtown Improvement Study Committee
(D.I.S.C.). The D.I.S.C. is made up of local business persons. local
citizens, and a Dublin Chamber of Commerce representative. To help provide
planning. engineering and architectural expertise, the City Council. in the
Fall of 1985, approved the hiring of three (3) consultant firms:
1) Wurster. Bernardi & Emmons (Larry Cannon)
2) TJKM (Ch~is Kinzel)
3) Laventhol & Horwath (Elliot Stein)
Over the past 15 months. the D.I.S.C. Staff and Consultants regularly
met and conducted detailed land use, traffic, and market studies; attempts
were made to contact each major property owner; and a joint City
Council/Planning Commission meeting was held to discuss the major downtown
plan concepts.
.,.
On February 19, 1987, the D.I.S.C. reviewed the Draft Plan; made several
revisions, and recommended approval of the Draft Plan as revised.
.. - - - - - .. - - - .. - - - .. - - - - - - - .. .. - - - - .. .. - - - .. - - - - - .. - - .. - -. - .. .. - .. - .. - -..~ --'-":: .. - - - .. .. - .. .. .. .. .. - .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ':'
COPIES (Agenda Statement Only
ITEM NO.
(Y.L/
ATTACHMENT -3
i" .
. :1.,."
,. ~,."",:...:,:,.:" :""'\<"":"~:';":"'."":':"~.'-~;"";"""~". ~ '. > ,..) ."
,_ _~ ~~~ u ~.".. _ ~ -:~~~~(:~~t,'
'l "
,,,~ ~J,~ }.."
~. ,~ f\
t,
. . ... ~ v ..~~;;~.~~t;C;~~f!.b!::~f.l!~I~":":; .
On March 16 and 19, 1987, the Planning' Commission held "a public hearing'
on the Draft Plan and associated General Plan Amendment~:;:The Planning , <
Commission recommended several modifications, < including: /~'.it~t':i,::: ;'r:'\;;'/,,' " . '
. :':~~",)~<';:~~'f';:;);';'~~,:,~.~ ,"'! -; ,.' .
1)
maintaining the existing allowable < height limit "of 45 feet, ',:. ., ,
providing for up to 75 feet in certain areas with a Conditional'
Use Permit, and establishing a not toexceed,height)imit,of 75
feet;'"" """ '~~"<;C>~:,:},t:~:f:~~t'h;,/~~.;~!~:::,~: " ;,'
a Zoning Ordinance modification to establish' 'a' Downtown Overlay
Zoning District;
2)
.,'-.'
..
3) a diagram illustrating the pedestrian circulation; and',.'
4) a General Plan Amendment with three changes to the Dublin General
Plan. "
On April 6, 1987. the Planning Commission adopted resolutions
recommending adoption of the Negative Declaration and adoption of the Dublin
Downtown Specific Plan and associated General Plan Amendment as modified.
~. ~;~::>7
III. Issues
,. . ~
, ,
The Draft Dublin Downtown Specific Plan has five major ~ections:
1)
2)
3)
Specific Plan Policies < J'
Circulation/Parking
Development Plan. including
Improvements
Urban Design Improvements
Implementation
. ~.
. , .~ ~ ..'4 ~~!.:.
Land Use and Central' Bl,.ock .'
..... ~ .
. .\\.<)
.<~ .
4)
5)
.'
'~ ~ ....., -:..
The primary goal of the Draft Plan is'to'maintain and further develop
the downtown area as a vital and competitiv~~region~l retail center. Specific
focuses in the Draft Plan include: ,,'
- Central Block Improvements around the Mervyn's - Ward's (Toys R Us) -
Gemco (Target) Area
- Restaurant Row Concept along Amador Plaza Road
- Joint Promotional Program for Downtown Businesses
- Urban Design Improvements, including Entry Signage. Banners,
Landscaping and Street Furniture
- Public and Private Sector Implementation, including identification of
about $3 million in new projects/programs.
The Draft Plan includes several minor changes to the General Plan. The
General Plan Amendment is needed in order to have conformance between the
General Plan and Specific Plan. The changes in~lude:
I) Changing the area west of 1-680 from Retail/Office and Automotive to
Retail/Office.
2) Eliminating the designation on the General Plan Map of a new inter-
change on 1-680 at Amador Valley Boulevard. but maintaining the
flexibility to accommodate such a facility~
3) Changing the area at Village Parkway and Dublin Boulevard from
Business Park/Industrial to Retail/Office.
The Implementation Section of the Draft Plan includes a number of new
projects and programs which could have significant staffing and cost
implications. Prior to adopting the various implementation strategies, the
City Council should have a clear understanding of those staffing and cost
implications.
:
If the City Council can review and give conceptual guidance or approval
to the various implementation strategies, the Staff could better address the
cost' of each strategy and bring the information back to the City Council
through the budget process.
-2-
,
, '.
",
,: >
. -'
" '
.'f .,
t 1
.~..::.,
"
.'.
'" '
,-.".
(,
f
",,"~. d
The' city Council should also address ,the written comments submitted by
Mr. Bopf of Bedford Properties:
, 1 -
2 -
'(
.' ",.
'Whether the Bedford Properties area '(currently used byUnisource)
should remain in Zone 3 Regional Transit Mixed Use area and
"Interim Use Zone A. '" " '
...., :,'.
Whether, in Zone 3, the allow~ble floor area ratio shouldb~
increased to 0.35. , _ J , ,.
,'.: .? . -. , ~ '.. :.~. . ~ ,
3 -
, ~.' . .
Whether, in Zone 3, the allowable height should be increased to 75
feet, and up to ISO-feet with a Conditional Use Permit.
IV. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
1.
2.
Open the public hearing.
Hear presentations by Staff and
D.I.S.C. and the public on each
Draft Plan.
Provide conceptual guidance or approval on each section, issue or
strategy.
Continue the public hearing until staffing and cost implications
are resolved as part of the 1987-88 budget review.
Consultants,' and comments by
section, .issue or strategy of the
3.
4.
. _' ~'4.:.j,~
.... ~;.:{ ,
'~,~: ..
.-.
,_i...
....... -. ;"' - .. ,,",'-\, ~
r ."
,,'
i
- >:.'
""
...
--; :~ .
~ ~
~
-3-
-\ .' . ~ ~ .,. ". ".... .
r
"
.~
~
~
,
,
I:
,
"
'I
o
~
,
:~
!
,<
,
"
.j
"
'!
,
~
\,
1
i
~
1)
2)
3)
4)
~'
.e
CITY OF DUBLIN
(~'
'.e
Replacement Pages to March 16. 1987
Draft Dublin Downtown Specific Plan '
Remove:
LIST OF DIAGRAMS
None
Page 28, Development Zones Map
(Diagram 9)
Page 30
5)
Page 31, Interim Use Zones and
Standards (Diagram 10)
10)
Page 36, Development Standards
(Table C)
11)
Page 37 Special Site Development
Requirements (Diagram 12)
Insert:
Revised LIST OF DIAGRAMS,
which includes Page 20A
New Page 20A which indicates
Proposed Street Sections
(Diagram SA)
Revised Page, 28, Development
Zones Map (Di:agram 9), which
indicates revised Zone 3
"\"'-.'\ '
Revised Page 30~which revises
Interim Use Zone A
, "
Revised Page 31, Interim Use
Zones and Standards (Diagram
10). which indicates Revised
Zone A
Retyped Page 32
LM7Revised Page 33 with BART
reference removed and with
Village Parkway/Dublin
Boulevard change referenced
Revised Page 34. General Plan
Changes (Diagram II), with
BART unchanged
Revised Page 35, with revised
Zoning Ordinance modifications
Revised Page 6, Development
Standards (Table C). with
revisions to Land Uses and
Building Heights
Revised Page 37, Special Site
Development Requirements
(Diagram 12), with revised
Transit Area
.
~
~
,
"
'^
.~
,
''''':
-;
.>
"
.
~~
.t:
.~
(!
:~
^,
..
~
'"
~
~
~
~i
~
~~
,;
'J
:j
'~
'.~
.'~
,',
~
~
~
{
t
..:~~
'.'~
,~~
~
~
}~
~~
i;i'
~
~.',.""
~
I
Replacement Pages to March 16, 1987
Draft Dublin Downtown Specific Plan
Page 2
12) Page 38
13) Page 39
14) Page 40
15) Page 43
16) Page 75. Estimated Implementation
Costs (Table D)
17)
Page 85, Recommended Funding
Mechanisms (Table F)
.
Retyped Page 38
Retyped Page 39
Retyped Page 40
Retyped Page 43
Page 75. Estimated
Implementati9n Costs
(Table D). wtth the reworded
Estimated KnoWfr Costs and
Estimated Funds N~eded
'"
Revised Page 85~ Recommended
Fgnding Mechanisms (Table F)
with revisions to Downtown
Promotion Program and Parking
Lot Landscaping Program
~: f',.
. ~
,
.
.,
,<
.,'.'
'"'
,.
, ~
, ,~
:~
"
:~
"
,j
'.';j
:O:~
"
'.
.
(p..
~;t.
LIST OF DIAGRAMS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
SA.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
PAGE
Location Map: Downtown Specific Plan Area
Specific Plan Area Boundaries
Study Intersections and Traffic/parking Zones
Circulation Improvements
Pedestrian Circulation Plan
Proposed Street-Sections '
Peak Off~Street Parking Utilization Summary
Existing Land Use Plan
Land Use Objectives
Development Zones Map
Interim Use Zones and Standards
General Plan Changes
Special Site Development Standards
Central Block Potential Improvements Summary
'Central Block Development Intensification
Opportunity Areas
Central Block Illustrative Plan
Conceptual" Section - New Central
Urban Design Public Improvements
Center Median Theme Treatment".
Other Center Median Theme Potentials.
Downtown Entries Elements v ,
:../'.
Project Entries;
Restaurant Row Conceptual Plan
Restaurant Row Conceptual Section
2
3
15
18
20
20A
22
25
26
28
31
34
37
41
42
44
45
47
48
50
51
53
56
57
;>:.J
,.~~,'f!
Block Structure t'.~'
Conc.ept .
.;\
.;.
LIST OF TABLES
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Existing Intersections Levels of Service
Downtown Parking Requirements
Downtown Dublin Development Standards
Estimated Implementation Costs
Capital Improvements Financing Alternatives
Recommended Funding Mechanisms
16
23
36
75
82
85
R-l
"r"~--~'" - ......::":':':::J\t...... ~.''',......__u...._.._. ".....-t! ......--::r~';~~;:..".....~~:::::~=:::::..OO:=-~-~~~,~.:.1:..Jf"-~__~~~~~~:'-',....l....."',:-'t.....~~~.:,:'-.~~:"':. ."". ..'
j
i
I
~
,~
?:i
~
~
..
:'I'
,,~
6
~
'.
.~
8
"
;1
~,i
~
~
~1
'4
~
~
..
-,
>:'.
.~
:~
;~
',1
".:j
'I
~;-;
I"!
.......
4
:~
":"..1
e
'"
::j
:;~
"
;~'i
~~
~
':1
~
"J
f~
31
~1
S
~~
",P.
:;.;
.~
I
:4
""it
:~,~
'!')
n
',j
~
..1
:~1
~l
'~
.
;~
)
'~
'1
~
WI'
i,
EXISTING
PARKWAY PARKING
2 TRA VEL LANES
EXISTING R.O.W. ea'
-
ENLARGED PARKWAY
ALTERATION TO GOLDEN GATE DRIVE
PARKWAY
8'
2 TRAFFIC LANES & TURN lANE oU'
PROPOSED R.O.W. 85'
-.
.' :f..t"'
.' ,.
~~'
.
.,
.;
/'
PARKWAY Hi'
STREET SOUTH OF DUBLIN BLVD.
'Proposed Street Sections
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
"
:~
~1
~ R-l
\
,1
.J.._.....:.-.w.__...:'\~.........~.,.........~I....~~~_'...'I"W~": ,':'I" :.~'.,.,.-,.
20A
...........;..~,~.~~..~. -'\......--.f__..Un,..-,_.,. ..._.... .
.
Diagram 5~
-
oeve\Opment zones Map
OllBUN OO\NN10\NN PLAN
OUBUN, CAUfORN\A
.; y,C)
Diagram '1
-
:in
n _,
\
, I
~
, 1
, J
- I
~
.~
R-l
~
1
~
~
~
~
t
~ 1-
Zone 8: Restaurant and Specialty Retail
Located between I-680 and the proposed "Dublin Restaurant
ROW" this zone will be encouraged over time to increase
its pedestrian orientation for restaurant, specialty
retail and entertainment uses.
Zone 9: Amador Valley Boulevard Commercial
Strategically situated in a good location relative to
traffic access' within the downtown.area, -this zone will
be encouraged to intensify its development in the future.
A mix of uses with some two or three story structures is
desired. Design cohesiveness among portions of the area
will be strongly encouraged. Proposals providing direct
access to San Ramon Road will be considered.
Zone 10: Villaqe Parkway Mixed Use
Currently occupied by a wide mix of commercial uses, this
zone will continue to serve a variety of' needs in the
future. Visual landscape and building design improve-
ments will be sought to complimen~ the;~ityls substantial
investment in public improvements along Village Parkway.
Zone 11:
Retail/Office
" ,
~,
Located on two streets,which serve the nearby residential
population, this area will continue as a mix of commer-
cial uses~ Small scale resident-serving offices such as
medical or dental offices will be encouraged along with
retail uses oriented to the nearby residential areas.
Proposals which incorporate residential uses will be
considered.
3)
INTERIM USE ZONES
Four areas of Downtown Dublin have been identified as
Interim Use Zones. These are areas which will likely
remain in their current use for the foreseeable future
but for which substantial later change is possible.
Interim use standards will be developed for each zone to
allow current uses to continue. and to encourage property
changes where appropriate to mitigate negative visual
impacts on adjacent properties.
Interim use Zone locations and general standard are
shown on Diagram 10.
Interim Use Zone A:
This area currently contains three warehouse structures
containing non-retail uses and a large vacant property.
The area is the potential location for a B.A.R.T. Park-
and-Ride facility initially and a later parking
30
--
PR - --- ANy
OPERTy IMp ~.. SHAL PARKING L i -;I ,
R~~~~ CONs~RJ~~'i2;~TS SHALL L BE ADEQUA ~E~S: OPMENT
' A Y OF NEW '\ ANDSCAPED
STRUCTUR
,EXIST! ES SHALL
TO RE^'c?otUlLDINGS ~R L~/TED TO
Inter. Ai TRANSIT A~OSE RELATED
1m Use Z IVITlES .
DUBLIN DO ones and 5
DU8t1N, CAl1FO~\;}tJroWN PLAN tandards
R-l CJ
L 200 400 "
~~t
-- 31 "
D.
, lagram 1n
,;
!
~
,~~.,
"'"
. . ........ , . ,
[l."'''-'---'''..--,......~...,..........r.''"''''......,'''''''.''''."..''''.>;'''.,....,...:..vlw'.,..-....../Y_........"~.......'"',-,.,..,....",'_...'.,"'_...,."~_'''''''''''<''...,..."J..:.,<J:.:~_"J.""~~r..'1VJ'#"',~:..,u t
, ~ ,e
\1
1
oj
1
'I
:j
"
"
(.1
'I
~. :1
:'l
,;1
resource for a B.A.R.T. Station or other regional
transit facility. The need to accommodate these
potentials in the future combined with the property's
current relative isolation from Dublin Boulevard
requires a different set of development standards than
would be desirable for a future commercial mixed use
project related to a regional transit facility.
Interim standards should:
"j
a)
;. ~~
b)
Prohibit development which would preclude the
economical development of transit parking.
Require recognition that the property is highly
visible from Interstate 580 and does much to
establish the image of Downtown Dublin.
c) Allow for a new street connecting Regional Street
and Golden Gate Drive.
d)
.)
.1
"
~. .:
.,
"
"
.,j
....:
J
:1
j
j
'1 .
R-l
Recognize the limited retail poten~ial of the
property until roadway and transit improvements are
implemented. M'
....
e) Require an overall master plan emphasizing a mix of
commercial uses for long term change for the area
prior to the approv~l of 'any additional structures
or uses. F.
Interim Use Zone B:
Currently occupied largely by older industrial type
structures, this area is in marked contrast to other
development in the downtown area. While the area will
eventually change, current ownerships patterns and the
relatively sound condition of the structures suggest that
some time may pass before substantial change will occur.
Interim standards are needed to improve the appearance of
this area and should:
a)
Require substantial additional landscaping along
the Village Parkway frontage as a condition of any
future property i~provements.
b) Encourage improvements to the visual character of
existing structures.
c)
Encourage additional landscape improvements to all
parking areas.
Interim Use Zone C:
Auto dealership uses contained in this zone are felt to
be an asset to Downtown Dublin and will be encouraged to
remain. However, it is realized that in the longer term,
increased land values may eventually precipitate a change
32
,. ,~.... ....,,'.
:.~ .
,.;,'.'.,.!.r:'
, ~. -, .", ,. .,~':. ," " '. . ~ .,.,
",....
t
~
.... ,j
(.
~
.-
in land use. Development standards for this zone will be
formulated to enhance a pedestrian-oriented environment
with restaurants, specialty retail shops, small offices
and entertainment uses.
Interim use standards should focus upon fostering a
retention of current uses while controlling modifications
to insure their compatibility with the future changes
along Amador Plaza Road. Interim standards should:
a) Encourage additional landscaping along Amador Plaza
Road.
b) Provide for the screening of service and non-display
autos areas.
Interim Use Zone D:
As in Interim Use Zone C, the existing a~to dealership
use will be strongly encouraged to remairi~, Interim use
standards will support the existing use whil~ insuring
that any changes to the property do.not~~dve~sely affect
adjacent commercial projects or the overallvisual
quality of the downtown area.
4)
GENERAL PLAN CHANGES
Elements of this Specific Plan are in conformance with
the City's General Plan adopted in 1985 with the
following minor exceptions:
a)
b)
C) 1he, US-e do.ss\f\~~
1ov- ~ r~ w.)-\IJ\e.S~
o-:t V, ~\~ PM~ ()Nr}...
"}... L1' gWtlttlV'"J- ~
v\VY\\(/\ eJ. t
Pet\J\ ~5 I ( I-.av:: )iY1'z&
&.t~ ~ [ cw~<.. ru:
to ~~f~ttLM
~e. S~~f(;r\4M'
~,
(<-2,
Retail/Office and Automotive use categories west
of interstate 680 have been changed to a
retail/office classification in the Specific Plan.
Existing automo~ive us~s will be encouraged to
remain and accommodated through interim, use
standards.
Special provisions for adding an Interstate 680
interchange at or near k~ador Valley Boulevard have
not been made given the uncertainty of workable
solutions with respect to the likely complexity of
the I-680/1-580 interchange improvements. The
Specific Plan has been prepared to not depend on a
new interchange but to remain flexible in
accommodating new ramps which can be located to
enhance rather than harm downtown circulation and
its visual environment. (Note: Traffic modeling
studies indicated some benefits to 1-680 ramps but
did not suggest that additional development within
the downtown would be possible with them.)
In' recognition of the goals of this Specific Plan
the General Plan and Spe~ific Plan will be
reconciled as shown on Diagram 11:
33
.
-:
"
!
C.
'-~
"
~l
1
.'
"
.'
,u..
'~
~\
.,
"
\
.,,<
~
'.
~ .'
~ Reta\\/Olhce..
~ . 0 o. A to,'e
~ RetatllOlhce 0< utOrnO ,-
".--- '
, ~ Areas 01 Change
G'e'nera\ p\an ChangeS
OUBUN ooN~,r'iO\NN pLAN
OUBUN, CAUfORN\A
~.,:o...~~r~)
:,
~<~
:t
".\
"
.'
.~~,
p\agr~m 11
34
'Q_l
'~,.,::...;;~ ' 1';":":;~'-"''''''''''.4....-J'''~_'-'''''''' ;,.,.....~,.......__~.._,):W.:..~,..;~~--.. ~h'I*'~ ;',",,;;::;"j.':1ri..~";.;:,,;..;'t~~~';:;:':;~~~;;;:/~:>':~~i":)"""~':";;;:"':,;:~~~:;';'1;;"";""'';7 L _;~.~~'~...:._ -i;'~:.,~.......,..""....:~'
..
,.
"
'.
~
,-.
j>;
~;
,
.,
"
.-
,
,',
"
"
'~
;.
:~
,
-i
'.1
'i
"
:1
,)
"
"
,-J
,
;\
.,
:J
.;~
;I R-l
~
'1;
~
~
.
-
.5) ZONING ORDINANCE MODIFICATIONS
The Zoning Ordinance will be amended to allow properties
within Downtown Dublin to be designated as part of a
Downtown Overlay zoning District to supplement the
current zoning designations. Land uses, development
standards and interim uses will be as outlined in the
Development Standards for each Downtown Development Zone
and the supporting diagrams outlining special
requirements. The Zoning Ordinance and Map will be
changed to implement the purposes of the Downtown
Specific Plan.
To the extent that such changes are adopted as part of
the Specific Plan, they will be reviewed and approved as
part of the regular procedures for amendment of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Permits for new construction and other property
improvements will be subject to confor~pce with the
Specific Plan, and to the requirements6f;,both the
underlying district and the overlay zone,~\q~, the more
restrictive of the two. ..c.
.
~,
Where a subject is not addressed by the overlay zone, the
existing provisions of tne Zoning Ordinance will remain
in effect. . "
6) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
In order to tailor land uses and development
characteristics more closely to the goals and needs of
Downtown Dublin, special Development Standards will
govern future change within the downtown area. Table C
contains land use, development intensity, and building
height standards.
For the purposes of these standards, "Service Commercial"
uses which are to be located on the ground floor of
structures are to be interpreted as businesses which are
compatible with and st;ongly supportive of the primary
downtown retail character. Uses which would be
substantially disruptive to retail continuity or which
are inappropriate to the goals and policies of this
Specific Plan will not be allowed.
The following standards shall apply to all areas of the
d own't own:
a) Parking lots shall be screened by low walls and/or
landscaping from adjacent streets.
b) Parking lots shall contain a minimum of 20% of
their surface area in landscaping.
35
DEVELOPMENT ZONES ~ - ~ ".~..~'
I
LAND USES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
RETAIL STORES . . . . . . . . . . .,
OFFICES . Ce . . . () , (") e . .
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS . . . . . . . . . .
RESTAURANTS (NON FAST FOOD) . . . . . . . -. . . .
HOTEL/MOTEL (e . (eY- ee) -(e\ -----
· SERVICE COMMERCIAL . . . . . . . ----- . . .
~UMMERClAL RECREATION/ eel Ce ee) (it @ (e) Ce) (e) (e) (e') (e)
NTER T AINMtN
RESIDENTIAL Ce (e (el (e e) (e) (e) .)
AUTOMOBILE SALES/SERVICE A A
. DRIVE-IN BUSINESS (e') e (.") .1 .)
AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION e (e) ee) .
.CN DISTRICT SHOPS& SERVICE . .
, AUTOMOBILE REPAIR FACILITIES A .. A A
· M-l DISTRICT USES .A
REGIONAL TRANSIT FACILITIES Ce) (e
. OTHER C-l DISTRICT USES ---- ~ ------ ---- ---- ,---- --- ---- --- --.::..--- ----
· OTHER C-2 DISTRICT USES ~ ~. I
" ~,
OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ..
AllOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO 0.45 0.30 0.30 0,30 0.30 ';:0.30 0.35 0.30 0;50 0.30 0.30
ALLOWABLE BLDG. HEIGHT (FEET) '45 45* 45* . 45
45 45 45 45 35 35 3S
+~";':';;'~.;L't:'i'i..., 4-';"".'~J... '., ";.":'..,;."'.',,I.r; .._. ..:. :~._;~.,
,;',., ;:/,..;1 .',1
:>d
I
I-'
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
DOWNTOWN DUBLIN
W
0\
. PERMITTED
A PERMITTED ON AN INTERIM BASIS
o LIMITED TO SECOND FLOOR OR ABOVE SPACE ONLY
. PERMITTED LAND USES WilL BE DEFINED AS THE ZONING
ORDINACE IS AMENDED
. INCLUDING FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS
..' "
Table C
@ CONDITIONAL USE
r-:::::"1 SUBJECT TO PLANNINC COMMISSION REVIEW AND
lL-JAPPROVAL AS SUPPORTAIVE OF DOWNTOWN GOALS
* 45' MAX. WITH UP TO 75' WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPROVAL OF ANY PROPOSAL IN EXCESS OF THIS LIMIT SHALL REQUIRE
AN AMENDMENT TO TillS PLAN.
.
.
..~";.~;J.i.^"l'~':''''''-'':'''
1& '.:_~--..~i,f~~~;:.~,;a,;""'~..;t;';"-"'_"'';liA,;$;ii~~'~;'~'~l)';.i-.;J,.~'';;'~~"';'::.,;~"..,. - ,. "~f'-;;:.;...~....'~-":.._-"--'" ''''';,;;;.~)/~';.:;:'';'''-j';-''- ;~':;";;';'.~~_.~-:V~;;-~';.~";",,,~,",~~~~.;_~......--...~'
t
.
.',.
'I'.
-"
6{DC. ENTRIES
~ORIENTED TO
" AMADOR PLAZA RD.
''..,
15' MIN. LANDSCAPED
ETBACK REQ'D.
NEW ROADWAY AND LANDSCAPED
PEDESTRIAN WAY REQUIRED
IMPROVEMENTS TO INTERNAL CIRCULATION
AND PARKING lOT LANDSCAPING ENCOURAGED
. INTEGRATED PROJECT WITH PUBLIC FOCAL POINT
. I
COMMERCIAL USES AND REGIONAL TRA N'S IT PA R KI N G
D.ESIRED
Special Site Development Requirements
DUBLIN POWNTOWN PLAN 0 200 ~ feet m
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA ' U
R-l
37
Diagram 12
ce
(e
c) Roof top equipment which can be seen from the
downtown area, adjacent freeways, off-ramps and
overpasses shall be screened from view.
In addition , the Specific Site Development Requirements
described on Diagram 12 will be applied to each affected
properties. .
Development standards not identified in this Specific
Plan will generally be as required for C-l Districts
in the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. However, each~--
new development 'or property change will be subject to
Site Development Review as prescribed by Sections 8-
95.0 through 8-95.8 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
unless exempted from such review by the Planning
Director on the basis of being of minor impact.
Special review shall be given to those properties
adjoining residentially-zoned property and more
stringent site development and architectural design
requirements may be imposed to mitigate;,,impacts upon
those residential properties. Where potential
mitigation measures to eliminate undesirab~e impacts
on adjacent residential properties are Ielt by the
City to be insufficient, additi9nal landscaped
setbacks and lower heigh~ rest;ictions may be imposed.
B. CENTRAL BLOCK IMPROVEMENT PLAN"
1) EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bounded by Dublin Boulevard, Amador Plaza Road, Amador
Valley Boulevard and Regional Street the Central Block
is the hub of downtown. Located within this
superblock are a number of separate properties and
large anchor stores which have established the retail
image of Dublin. The major buildings on the site are
grouped into two shopping centers facing opposite
directions. This arrangement has left a service
corridor running north and south through the center of
the block. The other uses within the block have been
pushed to the perimete~ and separated from the retail
center by parking. These uses include the City's
Public Library, a service station, several
restaurants, and a movie theater complex.
The following existing conditions are noteworthy:
a)
A poor circulation route links the stores and
parking in the Central Block
b)
A surplus of parking resources exists
Little or no concern has been shown for ped~strian
circulation and amenities
c)
R-l
38 .
R-l
.
e
d} A multitude of individual poorly signed automobile
entries serve the Central Block
To overcome the negative aspects of the existing
conditions and to enhance the Central Block as the
major focus of Downtown Dublin's retail activity, a
Conceptual Plan 'for the Central Block has been
prepared. Major elements of that plan are described
below.
2} CIRCULATION PLAN
The uncoordinated development that occurred under the
County's jurisdiction has resulted in poor circulation
networks both for pedestrians and automobiles within
the Central Block. This plan aims to improve the
existing conditions through the following projects:
o Enhanced East West Access: The current parking
arrangement provides for only limited east-west
automobile circulation across the site~ This plan
proposes connections at each end of the,;shopping
centers in order to simplify access fort~e users.
~.~
o Simolified Circulation and Access: The 'existing
circulation route around the ~enter is awkward and
confusing. This plan smoothes out some of the
difficult intersections 'and articulates a clear route
through roadway modifications and increased
landscaping.
o Imoroved Pedestrian Circulation: A strong axis for
pedestrian movement has been created through the site
connecting both major shopping complexes and linking
them to the cinema and restaurants on Amador Plaza
Road. Special attention should be given to
landscaping and creating a high level of pedestrian
amenities along this route.
3} PARKING PLAN
The Central Block contains 3415 parking spaces. As
shown by the parking survey summarized earlier in this
plan, the parking supply is more than adequate. In
fact on the eastern half of the site only 65% of the
spaces were being utilized at the peak shopping season
of the year. This abundance allows for the potential
to incorporate circulation improvements, increased
landscaping amenities, and some new development without
requiring additional parking resources.
39
.'
~
~
'~
jj
"
r
~
5
,~
'1
",
~1
:)
j
'~
't'
zi
-:,1
~i
.i
~~
"
".f
j
,..
~
'1
3
"
~j
.~~
~
-)
:~
{J
.'~
;:J
J
.:~
~~
~
'~
"
.,
'.-:,
.~
'"
~
r~~
"
"
'"
,,'
'0;' .
i
,
1
:;
.'
.~
;{
l~ ,
f1.
~ .
J
-i
~-
"
0(,
~ '
~
4)
R-l
t
.
.
IMPROVED PROJECT ENTRIES
Currently twenty-two separate driveways give access to
the Central Block. In order to create a more uniform
project image, the identification of eight major
entries is proposed. These are existing entry points
which could be articulated more strongly using the
following techniques.
o Master shopping center signs of uniform design to
signal the key project entries.
o New improved circulation corridors linking the
entries so that a clear circulation network will be
formed.
o Special landscape improvements to enhance the Central
Block's image.
The above components are summarized on Diagram 13.
J .,.
5)
DEVELOPMENT INTENSIFICATION
~\,~. '
Although there is no vacant land within"the Central
Block, the excess of parking may 'permit some new
development.
..
Additional development co~id most easily be
accommodated on the eastern portion of the Central
Block within Development Zone 7 where the greatest
oversupply of parking exists and where the presence of
cinemas and restaurants offer a high potential for the
joint use of parking resources. Examples of specific
opportunity areas are shown on Diagram 14.
Areas I and 2 perhaps offer the greatest benefits
relative the goals and policies of thfs Specific Plan.
Area 1 could be used to construct an additional
restaurant which would enhance the potential of Amador
Plaza Road becoming a strong "Dublin Restaurant Row".
Area 2 offers the potential for a building and/or
plaza space linking the_main retail areas to the
cinema complex and the future "Dublin Restaurant Row".
Uses accommodated in this area could draw effectively
upon customers from both the east and the west and
enhance the overall image not only of the Central
Block but also of Downtown Dublin as a whole;
Area 2 also offers the potential of pUbliciprivate
agreements to jointly construct and utilize the
improvements. Exterior plazas could be used for
special retail events as well as downtown promotional
events and publicly-sponsored programs. Building
facilities, if constructed, could add additional retail
space as well as promotional and public events space.
40
i~':4
";'1'
..
'~:~
>=i
.t4"
~.ll
l~"!j .
~.;~, .
r;J
:"'~
":."j
'''!
';;';
:: ~,
;~ ~
; .
"j
".l
.,:i
~' '.~
" :
..
, ,
, i
"
-'
..j
..\'
,
,
.'~
,
.
;\
"
,
~
::
j
1
1,__, .__.,..~....
e
-
Diagram 15 is an Illustrative Plan showing one
potential 'result of implementing ,a program of Central
Block Improvements. Diagram 16 illustrates one of many
potential concepts for infill improvements described
above for Opportunity Area 2.
6)
IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW
The Central Block Improvement Plan is unique among the
'proposals in this Specific Plan since all of the
improvements are on private property. Only through the
interest of the property owners will it be possible to
bring any of these concepts to reality. Hopefully
through joint cooperation, these owners and the City
of Dublin will be able to work out a partnership which
will be attractive to both. An implementation strategy
is outlined more fully in the Implementation Plan
section.
. ~,'
, .,
R-l . 43
"-~. -............. ...._..~, .............-'. ,..-.,..~ _.".~-_....,-,-... ,_.........
~'
,~~
0' ~.,';
,""; :
'"
,""
"", . ,\...:\.'
.'--1llo
.
-\
'.' ,<.., cO..'" '~'. -."
......... u ~
., "';:..,." ..t. ~~. -,
..._.;.,. ~.~H~ .111I........
-
.
~
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN
ESTIMATED IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
TABLE D
1. CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
A. Dublin Boulevard $1,400,000 (Note 1)
B. New Streets 1,400,000 (Note 2)
C. Traffic Signals. 470,000 (Note 3)
D. San Ramon Road off-ramp
improvements 500,000
$3,770,000
2. URBAN DESIGN IMAGE IMPROVEMENTS
A. San Ramon Road Landscape $ 100,000 (Note 4)
B. Downtown Entries 110,000
C. Continuity Theme Elements 90,000
D. Street Furniture 50;,,000 (Note 12)
E. Public Signing Program 50,000
F. Project Entries Pylons Program (NoteS) "
$ 400,000 (Note 11)
.
-,
3. CENTRAL BLOCK IMPROVEMENTS (Note 6)
" ,
4. RESTAURANT ROW IMPROVEMENTS ", (Note 7)
..'
A. Curbs and Gutters $ 60,000
B. Landscaping 70,000
C. Crosswalks 50,000
D. Pedestrian Lighting 120,000
E. Entry Pylons 85,000
F. Street Furniture 15,000
$ 400,000
5. SPECIAL PROGRAMS
A. Business License Program $ 0 (Note 8)
B. Downtown Promotion Program 20,000 (Note 9)
C. Parking Lot Landscaping Program (Note 5)
D. Signing and Graphics
Improvement Program 10,000 (Note 10)
E. Downtown Beautification
Awards Program (Note 5)
$ 30,000 (Note 11)
g
~
IJ
~
l
~
l
,.ii(
~~
j
(~
"-;
~~
~1
. ~~~
~'~
;~
'--)
,,~
~;1
'~)
~
~~~
.:~
\;..;
~~~
t::
!.~
~:j
({
....,
..~
{~
j
"
..~.~
:;j
~'j
g
1:.
,',
~~:
3~
'.
";'''S
~1
,-
...
~.~
"
f:1
".~
5,;1
;~~
f~
:-::;
;;/
:3
"
~
~.:1
'i4
~
~
;1"
.~.~'
,
~
!~
~
~.,l.'
~
.~
ESTIMATED KNOWN COSTS
$4,600,000
Less Amount Currently Allocated
in the City's Capital
Improvement Program
$1,470,000
ESTIMATED FUNDS NEEDED
$3,130,000
(Note 13)
R-l
75
I
I-
, ,
I
I .'
j
'i
;:t
::l
!~
~
~~:
,1
.'-j
;;j
~
~j
~1
;'!1
~.
!!
""
:.1
.
""
...,
~l
;;!
:i
:1
4
,
~ ..
,
,:1
,
~.~
~';
'"
.
(J
j
~1
,.
':~ 6
:.i
~~
tl
;:1
:~
~
~..
~]
~'"
.'1
..1
7i
)
t._:
:-.J
"
"
'"
.:,
:~
'"
H
~
~
,~
~~
;~
8
~~i
,',
}J
~
"
I
"
il
M .'''''"'''1.1 '~"''''",,'~:..:&.:.i..C:.. -^-"."~- -' .-, -....,
,-" , .. i".-
-v~
RECOMMENDED .~DING MECHANISMS
'e,
..
"
MAJOR FUNDING SOURCES FOR CONSIDERA lION
. III
...
... ~ ~ .
...
... e
III :z: :z:
... III ... 2
:z: :z: ~
. ... <
-'~ 0 a. ...... -'
0 .., <
IMPLEMENTATION COSTS ESTIMA TED <VI ~ ... 0- 3~~ tit:
COSTS ~ - III U .... \Q ... REMARKS
u... < > ... :z:
... III
U a.'" x .... a:l ~~ ...
III < ... e < u
-
1. DUBLIN BLVD. 1,400,000 e -- e AOOlT'ONAl C.I.P. fUNOS ONLY
UICELY AnEl ,",
2. NEW STREETS. 1,400,000 e e INClUOES IAlT PAlTlC'PATlON
i. TRAFFIC SIGNALS 470,000 e fUNOS ALUAOY ALlOCATEO
4. SAN RAMON ROAD 500,000 e e AO!>ITlONAl C.I.P. fUNDS ONLY
OFF-RAMP IMPROVEMENTS UICtL,Y Anu "91
, " ,
" "
5. SAN RAMON ROAD e . ,~\. \ .
100,000 " JUNOS ALUADY ALlOCA no
LANDSCAPING . ,
A
"
6. DOWNTOWN ENTRIES 110,000 e e - .~ . e,:
....f'.
-
7. CONTINUlT'r THEME e e ",~
ELEMENTS 90,000
8. STREET FURNITURE 50,000 e .
9. PUBLIC SIGNING PROGRAM 50,000 e
10. PROJECT ENTRIES P'rlONS UNKNOWN e e
11. CENTRAL BLOCK UNKNOWN e e e e A11693 'UNDS DNL Y CONSIDUED
IMPROVEMENTS '01 USE TO IMPlOVE POTENTIAL
PUllIC USE AlEA
12. RESTAURANT ROW e e e e
IMPROVEMENTS 400,000
13. DOWNTOWN '* e e e AI16!J 'UNDS ONLY CONSIDUED
PROMOTION PROGRAM 20,000 : '01 USE TO IMPlOVE POTENTIAL
PUBLIC USE AUA
C1NUAl 'UNO AND PllVATE
14. PARKING LOT UNKNOWN e e CONTRIBUTIONS ONLY ANtiCIPATED
LANDSCAPING PROGRAM FOil 'HITlAL EDUCATION AND
PlOCJAM ADopnON PEIlIOD
15. SIGNING AND GRAPHICS ,10,000 . e e .
IMPROVEMENT PROGRA~
16. DO~NTOWN e e e
BEAUTIFICATION AWARDS UNKNOWN
~ROGRAM .
TABLE F
*fNITIAL'SIX MONTH COORDINATION PERIOD .ONl Y
"
R-I 85
"
~DFORD PRoPE~IEs
.
.". 1: G~ t: 1 V E 1)
(M\'( 1 ~ E21
__ " ,-"\:\ ~';~ ~1'\~Cj
D~;;;.!..::1 ~'::..hh,,""". ,
t:)
RECEI~EIJ.
M.\'( 1 8 1SJ7
C:T: ~.;: ;~~~. ~:~~J
May IS, 1987 Hand Delivered
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Dublin City Council
Post Office Box 2340
Dublin. California 94568
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
'...J .r'
""
I was in attendance at your council meeting of May II. 1987;. whic~,was was
adjourned to May 26, as a result of the power failure. ,I haa intended to
make some comments relative to the draft Dublin DowntoWn Specific'Plan, and
now I find I may be out of town on the evening of May 26th. Please accept
this written communication in lieu of myattendancEi.
.''''.
First of all, let me state that Bedford Pr6perties, Inc., is supportive of
your downtown specific plan and generally supports the objectives contained
therein. I have just a few comments that relate to a small portion of the
property owned by Bedford Properties. I have provided these comments as
follows:
1. Reference is made to Bedford owned property that is located in the
area you have designated as Zone 3 on Diagram 9. Portions of this
property is further depicted on Diagram II. . On Diagram II there is a
nomenclature "regional transit mixed use." A portion of that property
designated in regional transit area mixed use area has recently been
sold by Bedford Properties to BART. This transaction involved 7.29
acres, and the escrow closed on April 10, 1987. As a point of
clarification, the outline on Diagram II may not follow exact property
lines; hence, the remainder of Bedford property should not be included
in the regional transit mixed use. This point is made even more
important by virtue of the statements that are made under interim use,
Zone A, Pages 30 and 32. Paragraph A. with (I), "prohibit development
that would preclude the economic development of transit parking."
The implementation of that policy might inhibit the right of Bedford
Properties to develop the remainder of their property in interim Zone
A. It is suggested that the depiction entitled Regional Transit Mix
Use, Diagram II, be redrawn to exclude the remaining portion of the
Bedford Properties, Inc.
A Diversified Real Estate
Development and
Management Company
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 1267
Lafayette, California
94549
t
-
_'1
.)
4
tlJ
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Page 2
May 19, 1987
Bedford Properties' property. At least. the record should show that
Bedford Properties does not agree with any policy that would prohibit
development of its property so that it might be reserved for transit
parking.
2. With reference to the same Bedford property, noted in Zone 3. Diagram
9, and again in your Development Standards, Table C: It~is suggested
that two revisions be considered; they are as follows: ,. ",;,'
(a) The allowable floor area ratio in Zone 3 be revised~to ~35.
This is a floor area ration consistent with many other, .
communities in light of the parking ratio indicated in your draft
plan. the amount of landscaping that wilL: be required (20% of the
parking lot will be landscaped), ,arid the infrastructure cost
(possible construction of a maj9r portion of a new street).
(b) With respect to allowable building height, we respectfully
request that this standard be revised to an allowable 75 foot
height with a conditional use permit required for any height in
excess of 75 feet up to 150 feet. The original draft provided
for 150 foot height maximum. Support for this request is as
follows:
(1) It is anticipated that the freeway interchange will have a
height of between 60 and 70 feet. A building of 45 to 75
feet will appear to be somewhat out of character in light of
the neighboring freeway.
(2) One of the uses contemplated in this development zone
provides for the possibility of a hotel. We agree with your
consultant that, with a maximum height of 75 feet. it is
unlikely that the hotel would be built at any greater height
than five stories. Again, with respect to the costs
involved as previously noted, that limitation may preclude
the possibility of a hotel as a viable use. '
i'
tlJ
e
n. , (:
tlJ
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Page 3
May 19, 1987
(3) If a lack of a development incentive appears because of the
height limitation and the infrastructure investment (i.e..
the new street recommended in your study), the property
owner may just continue with the existing use. This
possibility might delay the construction of the new street
and preclude the possibility of a focal point or identity
that could assist in the implementation of your.downtown
_oJ
plan. For these reasons, it is suggested that the minimum
height be established as 75 feet with the poss~biiit~ of a
maximum height of up to 150 feet with a conditi~nal~use
approval. tA.
~:
In conclusion, we respectfully,request the fol~owint:
;../',
1. Diagram II be revised so that it does not include the remaining
portion of the Bedford property;
2. That the floor area ratio in Development Zone 3, on Table C, be
revised to .35; and
3. That the height allowed in Zone 3 be revised to show
a 75 foot allowable height with a notation of up to 150 feet with a
conditional use permit.
As indicated, Bedford Properties support the proposed downtown specific
plan and believes that revisions that have been suggested in this letter
will further encourage the property owners to work closely with the City
and its agencies to implement some of those objectives at a greater pace.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters. I hope to be able to be
able to attend the meeting; but if not. our suggestions have been noted.
Respectfully submitted,
BQl:TIE~. INC.
Wifliam L. BOP~
Vice President
WLB:cp
.
e
e
..
..
t
.~
RESOLUTION NO. 87 - 026
.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONCERNING
THE DUBLIN DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AND ASSOCIATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as
amended together with the State's administrative guidelines for implementation
of the California Environmental regulations, requires that certain projects be
reviewed for potential environmental effects and that environmental documents
be prepared; and
WHEREAS. an Initial Study was conducted finding that the Specific
Plan and General Plan Amendment, as proposed, would not have a significant
effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS. a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the Dublin
Planning Department; and , '1..:
.i';." <
d,
WHEREAS. public notice of the Neg~tive Declaration wa~,~given in all
respects as required by State Law; and .'..
.
A'
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission', did review the Negative
Declaration and considered it at a public hearing oh March 16 and 19, 1987;
~: ." ., .
. _ . u
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE. -Dublin Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council find that the Negative Declaration has been
prepared and processed in accordance with State and local environmental law and
guideline regulations, and that it is adequate and complete.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration for the Dublin
Downtown Specific Plan and Associated General Plan Amendment.
PASSED. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of April, 1987.
AYES:
Commissioners Barnes. Mack. Petty and Raley
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Petty
~/?
Planning Commission
ATTEST:
~clJl:a
.
ATTACHMENT LI
e
-
,
. ....~
.. "
RESOLUTION NO. 87 - 027
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE DUBLIN DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
AND ASSOCIATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
J
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin prepared the Dublin Downtown Specific
Plan and Associated General Plan Amendment with the intention of setting forth
the City's policies for the development of the area involved; and
WHEREAS. the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said
Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment on March 16 and 19, 1987; and
WHEREAS. notice of said public hearing was provided in all respects
as required by law; and
WHEREAS. the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said
reports, recommendations, and testimony fS hereinabove set forth;
; ,
. . :t,~
WHEREAS. said Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment have been
reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental
~ ~'''' .
Quality Act, and a Negative Declaration has been recommendedror adoption for
this project as it will not have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS. it is the City's intention'to'establish a policy framework
against which specific development schemes miy be judged, leaving maximum
opportunity for design freedom; and' "
WHEREAS. the Specific Plan details the development goals for the
area and sets forth the criteria for judging development proposals;
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council adopt the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan and
associated General Plan Amendment as modified.
PASSED. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of April, 1987.
\
AYES:
Commissioners Barnes, Mack. Petty and Raley
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Burnham
irperson
ATTEST:
ATTACHMENT 5