HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 231-00 VillagePkwy SP RESOLUTION NO. 231 - 00
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING THE VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN AS RECOMMENDED BY STAff
AND REPEALING PORTIONS OF THE 1987 DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
PA 99-054, CITY OF DUBLIN
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is desirous of improving the appearance, functionality, economic
vitality of the downtown portion of Dublin in a manner consistent with the broad vision expressed in the
Dublin General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Village Parkway Specific Plan (Exhibit A) which has been
prepared pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65450 et. seq.; and,
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan includes permitted land uses, development standards, urban design
guidelines, transportation improvements and implementation programs to achieve the goals of the Dublin
General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin adopted a Downtown Specific Plan in 1987 for areas within the
boundaries of the proposed Specific Plan. However, due to changing market and other conditions, this'
Specific Plan is no longer relevant to this area or Development Zones (10 and 11) now included within
the boundaries of the Village Parkway Specific Plan and should be repealed; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and draft Negative Declaration have been prepared for this application
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15071, and are on file in the Dublin Planning Department. Based
on the Initial Study, a draft Negative Declaration was prepared for the Specific Plan with the finding that
the implementation of the Plans would have no adverse environmental effects as mitigation measures are
incorporated into the project. The draft Negative Declaration is recommended for City Council adoption;
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the Village Parkway Specific
Plan on September 26, 2000, October 10, 2000 and October 24, 2000, and recommended approval to the
City Council on October 24, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department did hold a public meeting on the Village
Parkway Specific Plan with property owners on November 9, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on the Village Parkway Specific Plan on
November 21, 2000 and December 19, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said
reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby find
that the proposed Village Parkway Specific Plan is consistent with the land use designations, goals,
policies and implementing programs set forth in the Dublin General Plan, as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council adopts
the Village Parkway Specific Plan as recommended by Staff, with the existing Village Parkway right-of-
way (as shown in Exhibit 7A in the Specific Plan) in attached Exhibit B as the established alignment for
Village Parkway, subject to modification in Exhibit C, and repeal of the 1987 Downtown Specific Plan as
it relates to those lands within the boundaries of the proposed Specific Plan.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 19th day of December 2000.
AYES:
Councilmembers Lockhart, McCormick, Oravetz, Zika and Mayor Houston
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST~~ C_~
K2/G/12 - 19 - 00/reso-vp - sp. do c (Item 6.4)
gXDowntown Spec~cPlan\cc-resVPSPsps2.doc
2
Village Parkway Alignment: Staff Recommendation (Existing
Alignment) ' '
EXHIBIT '~
i ~.
~' ' ~ A '~~ r"T ..... ' .........' ''
..Staff Re(;Om mend, ati.o,-*n
EXHIBIT C
To Attachment 9
VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN MODIFICATIONS
Change 1: Add to Section 1.5, Project Goals and Objectives, page 6, new Goal 10. As
follows: Enhance the visual quality of the planning area by encouraging appropriate
projects with major public access either visually from roadways, large outdoor areas,
or pedestrian traffic to incorporate public art into the design, and in accordance with
the City's Public Art Policy.
K2/G/12-19-00/vp-sp-exC.doc
G:/Downtown SpecifcPlans/cc -resoVP SPexB. do c
0>
C-
.;::;
(f)
.&
'-/
c
o
.~~ ~
~
-0
C
0)
E.
E.
o
<.)
0)
ct.
~
r:n
~
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
~.
'0'\
...\
(lS
"'0\
e;
e,
E'
S
O.
OJ
Q)'
ct
~
.....
(1)\
\ \ ~ \---.\
'" ~~\-J \7~'HS'VM
'-,,0 . " Cl'v'J
-', J \. i~'--'"
.. .......; \ . .....1
......., Q<y -",.._, , l.___;
-', l, \
/ ", '-, VA,
/ J' , i """7 "
/ "<::',,, ..::! 00 ..---__._____
,/ / )"---... e
' ,
, ,
. /'. /'/
/ ,
/
/'
.I
" i-
/"':0
, ~~
<......'(;;'>
~
,.--\ ~
L~~
\
\
3'
D
r-~
L-\ 9.~ \
L~
C:O'
~
S9
~
~
~
0)
E
C-
O>
~
~
~
\.--:;::;-
CO c
0-0)
0) E
o>c
COO>
- .-
-4-
5
O^18
-
-----------------.\
I' -'1;: \
\ \ o~ I
l .\ /'~&,>...,.....:
- . '-. /\. I
( "
'"', ,
!
,
~,~
. ,. J,.'.
~;x.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN
Table of Contents
Chapter Page
Executive Summary 1
1.0 Introduction, Purpose and Project Location 3
2.0 General Notes 6
3.0 Existing Conditions 8
4.0 Land Use Concept 12
5.0 Traffic Improvements and Parking 14
6.0 Urban Design Guidelines 18
7.0 Infrastructure and Maintenance 25
8.0 Administration and Implementation 26
Appendix
Item A:
Item B:
Item C:
Item D:
Parcel Map & List of Property Owners
Task Force Members & Locations
Village Parkway - Roadway Alternatives
Negative Declaration and Initial Study
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN
EXHIBITS
Exhibit
Title
Exhibit 1
Regional Context
Exhibit 2
Local Context
Exhibit 3
Specific Plan Boundary
Exhibit 4
Existing Land Uses
Exhibit 5
Existing General Plan
Exhibit 6
Existing Zoning
Exhibit 7
Existing Circulation System
Exhibit 7 A
Existing Conditions
Exhibit 7B
Village Parkway Roadway Improvements - Alternative
3: Task Force Recommendation
Exhibit 8
Existing Utility Plan
Exhibit 9
Land Use Plan
Appendix
Exhibit 10 Location of Task Force Members' Property/Business
Exhibits 10A-D Village Parkway Roadway Improvements - Alternatives
1 through 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VILLAGE P ARKW A Y SPECIFIC PLAN
FIGURES
Figure
Title
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Architectural Character 1
Architectural Character 2
Roofs
Building Form, Massing and Materials
Facade Improvement Elevation 1
Facade Improvement Elevation 2
Plaza Features
Gateway Diagram
Streetscape-Parallel Parking
Preferred Plant Matrix
Streetscape Character
Village Parkway Pedestrian Oriented Streetscape
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VILLAGE P ARKW A Y SPECIFIC PLAN
Executive Summary
The Village Parkway Specific Plan is one of three specific plan documents developed for the
central urbanized area of the City of Dublin which address the future development in the
downtown area of the City. Two other specific plan documents, the Downtown Core Specific
Plan and the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, have also been developed to address portions of
other sections in the downtown area. The Specific Plans are intended to direct the use of land,
the design of public improvements, and the design and appearance of private and public
development, including buildings, parking areas, signs and landscaping. Goals and objectives
are included in the planning document to assist in fulfilling the intent of the Plan. Design
Guidelines are also established in the context of the Plan to assist in guiding the design quality of
the area's development. Additionally, sections addressing Administration and Implementation,
and possible Financing mechanisms for Plan implementation are contained in the document. The
adoption of the Village Parkway Specific Plan by the Dublin City Council on December 19,
2000 required that portions of the previously adopted (1987) Downtown Specific Plan be
repealed to modify sections of that document relative to Development Zones 10 and 11.
The Village Parkway Specific Plan Area, West Bart Specific Plan Area, and the Downtown Core
Specific Plan Area, to the west of Village Parkway, represent what remains of the original
"Downtown" commercial area of the City of Dublin. The Village Parkway Specific Plan area is
generally located along the east and west sides of Village Parkway between Dublin Boulevard to
the south and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north. The Village Parkway area consists of
approximately 31 acres of commercial services, retail, restaurant, office and automotive service
type land uses. Under the Concept Plan for the area, these existing uses would not change, but
would be stablized and enhanced. A higher intensity of development and a more pedestrian-
oriented environment are encouraged by the Plan through increased floor-area-ratios (FAR),
establishment of design guidelines for development, and streetscape improvements. The FAR of
.35 for the Village Parkway area is consistent with the City's present General Plan. The
maximum amount of development in the Village Parkway area is anticipated to be 408,108
square feet.
In February 2000, a task force for the Village Parkway Specific Plan area was formed at the City
Council's direction to discuss the issues and problems facing businesses and property owners in
the area, direct the future land uses along Village Parkway and to evaluate traffic and circulation
issues relative to promoting increased economic growth in the area. The Village Parkway
Specific Plan Task Force consisted of thirteen business owners, property owners and residents of
the City that have shown an interest in the future physical and economic development of the
Village Parkway Specific Plan area. Task Force members appointed by the City Council to the
committee included Rick Camacho, George Churchill, Charlotte Fernandez, David Hess, Stan
McClanahan, Connie Mack, Thomas Odam, Dan Scannell, Redic Thomas, Jimmy and Yvonne
Tiu, and Wilma White. The Appendix of this document contains a list of these members and a
map, Exhibit 10, which shows the general location of the businesses or properties represented by
the participating members.
During the six-month period in which the Village Parkway Specific Plan Task Force met to
discuss the plan, the Task Force determined that there is a need to revitalize businesses along the
segment of Village Parkway between Amador Valley Boulevard to the north and Dublin
Boulevard to the south. To accomplish this and to achieve the goals and objectives of the
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.0 Introduction, Purpose and Project Location
1.1 Purposes of the Specific Plan
The Village Parkway Specific Plan has been prepared in concert with local property owners
and businesses to assure the highest and most productive use of the land in this portion of
Dublin is achieved. This Specific Plan governs the use of land, development standards,
design of public improvements, and the design and appearance of private improvements
including buildings, signs and landscaping. The Specific Plan also provides a blueprint to
implement the overall vision and design requirements contained in the Village Parkway
Specific Plan.
Land use standards, regulations, definitions and other criteria contained in this document
shall govern all of the property within the Village Parkway Specific Plan area.
1.2 Location
The Village Parkway planning area is sited within the City of Dublin, in south easterly
Alameda County, California. More specifically, the Specific Plan area includes commercial
and other non-residential properties between the north and south sides of Amador Valley
Road to the north and Dublin Boulevard to the south. The 1-680 Freeway forms the
southwestern boundary of the area and lies adjacent to the rear property line of commercial
uses. A combination of restaurants, offices, retail commercial, service commercial and other
non-residential uses front along Village Parkway.
The planning area contains approximately 31 acres of land. Exhibit 1 shows the regional
context of the planning area and Exhibit 2 shows the location ofthe project boundary in
relation to the remainder of the City of Dublin. Exhibit 3 depicts the Village Parkway
Specific Plan boundary in relation to other downtown Specific Plans prepared in the
downtown Dublin area.
1.3 Local and Regional Context
The Village Parkway planning area is sited within the Livermore-Amador Valley area, a
rapidly growing area in the East Bay of the San Francisco Bay region. The City of Dublin has
a population of approximately 32,500 and a geographic area of approximately 12.2 square
miles.
Major uses surrounding the specific plan area include low density, single family residential
housing to the north and east, commercial uses to the south and the 1-680 freeway to the west.
West ofI-680, commercial development exists, which is included in the Downtown Core
Specific Plan.
1.4 Proiect Goals and Obiectives
Goals and objectives of the Village Parkway Specific Plan include:
Land Use
Goal 1: Revitalize and upgrade the appearance and functionality of the Village Parkway area
so that existing businesses can thrive and new businesses that comply with the overall vision
of the Specific Plan can be attracted.
Village Parkway Specific Plan
City of Dublin
page 3
LEGEND
~~""" .",.),'C,'ton;;i,;!1
1""__J<<-I. ."s.~\.\~~. h...~~,~,<
,~r;t:.1:W"i',;;;,,,,,,~.,,,~ .
E~x. Jl
t '-,,]
'/(-..) l..-. ( ) '-'
E SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
DOWNTOWN COR SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
WEST DUBUN BART SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
VILLAGE PARKWAY
-
N.T.S.
DECEMBER 2000
LOCAL CONTEXT .
VILLAGE PARKWAY
SPECIFIC PLAN
CITY
OF
DUBLIN
EXHIBIT 2
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Objective 1.1: Encourage a diverse mix of complementary land uses along Village
Parkway.
Objective 1.2: Discourage additional drive-through facilities. Proposals for new or
expanded drive through operations shall be reviewed and determined on a case-by-
case basis by the Planning Commission.
Objective 1.3: Create opportunities for integrating live/work units into the Village
Parkway area.
Goal 2: Increase the amount of retail sales and related economic activity within the project
area.
Objective 2.1: Allow for intensification of land uses within the planning area, up to a
maximum floor area ratio of 0.35 per parcel.
Objective 2.2: Develop an on-going program of special events to encourage shopping
and overall visitation in the Village Parkway area.
Goal 3: Protect the quality oflife in residential areas adjacent to the Village Parkway area
while encouraging residents to shop in the neighborhood.
Objective 3.1: Extended business hours are encouraged for businesses within the
Village Parkway area, as long as noise and other negative influences, including spill
over of lighting, do not occur that would disturb adjacent residents.
Goal 4: Create public spaces within the Specific Plan area for people to enjoy while using
area shops and services.
Objective 4.1: A village square and/or plaza should be developed within the Specific
Plan area.
Traffic, Circulation and Parking
Goal 5: Village Parkway shall continue to provide access to and through the Specific Plan
area.
Goal 6: Traffic volumes and vehicular speed on Village Parkway shall be controlled to allow
for improved access to individual businesses and to encourage a more friendly environment
Objective 6.1: Maintain Village Parkway with two traffic lanes in each direction until
such time as it is determined that a reduction in lanes may be beneficial to the area.
. Objective 6.2: Develop and implement measures to decrease vehicular speed using
Village Parkway. Appropriate traffic calming measures to be incorporated into the
design of Village Parkway include bump-outs and raised crossings.
Village Parkway Specific Plan
City of Dublin
page 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Objective 9.5: Standards and guidelines are to be developed for signs and lighting
within the Specific Plan area to provide for a unified urban design appearance.
Goal 10: Enhance the visual quality of the planning area by encouraging appropriate projects
with major public access either visually from roadways and large outdoor areas, or pedestrian
traffic, to incorporate public art into the design in accordance with the City's Public Art
Policy.
Implementation and Administration
Goal 11 : New land uses, additions to existing land uses and remodeling of existing buildings
shall be reviewed by the City of Dublin to ensure consistency with the Village Parkway
Specific Plan.
Goal 12: The City of Dublin shall work cooperatively with local property owners and
businesses to achieve the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan.
Objective 12.1: The City of Dublin should take the lead in funding public
improvements called for within the Specific Plan assisted by local property owners
and businesses to the fullest extent feasible.
Objective 12.2: A Village Parkway Merchants Association and/or a Business
Improvement District should be formed for the purposes of organizing special events
and coordinating other area-wide improvements.
Objective 12.3: Area property owners and merchants should investigate the feasibility
of forming a parking district or an assessment district to develop common parking lots
within the specific plan area.
Objective 12.4: The City of Dublin should consider undertaking a Design Assistance
Program for businesses within the Specific Plan area to help in implementing design
guidelines for building enhancements.
1.5 Organization of the Specific Plan
The Specific Plan provides a framework for development and redevelopment within the
planning area. Development standards are provided for the various land uses comprising the
planning area as well as for the other components necessary to make a successful retail and
service area. These include transportation and circulation, infrastructure requirements, public
services and facilities, streetscape, amenities, and implementation and administration of the
Specific Plan.
2.0
General Notes
2.1 Relationship to General Plan
Implementation of The Village Parkway Specific Plan furthers the goals of the Dublin
General Plan. The Specific Plan also allows the community to adopt more detailed guidance
for the Village Parkway area, and to tailor regulatory standards to the unique needs and
characteristics of the planning area. It also allows the opportunity to establish standards and
Village Parkway Specific Plan
City of Dublin
page 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The word" subdivision" shall include tentative and final tract maps, tentative and final parcel
maps, parcel map waivers and lot line adjustments.
2.4 Severability
If any term, provision, condition or requirement of this Specific Plan shall be held invalid or
unenforceable, the remainder of the Specific Plan or the application of such term, provision,
condition or requirement to circumstances other than those in which it is held invalid or
unenforceable shall not be affected thereby; and each term, provision, condition or
requirement of the Specific Plan shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted
by law.
3.0
Existing Conditions
3.1 Overview
This section of the Specific Plan identifies physical and other environmental conditions on
the project site at the time this Specific Plan was prepared.
3.2 Topography and Natural Features
The site is generally flat with a gradual slope to the south. There are no unique or unusual
geographic or topographic conditions present on the site, since all of the properties are
developed and the Specific Plan area lies in an urbanized portion of Dublin.
3.3 Existing Land Use and Parcelization
The project site has been developed with a range of retail commercial and office buildings
providing goods and services primarily to local residents. One regional use within the area is
the main Dublin Post Office, located on the east side of Village Parkway near Lewis Avenue.
Exhibit 4 shows the general distribution ofland uses within the project area. Typically,
buildings are oriented toward Village Parkway or Amador Valley Boulevard. Vehicular
parking is typically provided behind or adjacent to buildings, although a number of uses do
provide parking in front of buildings. Landscape and streetscape improvements vary from lot
to lot, although the overall amount oflandscaping is generally minimal.
Exhibit 4 also indicates existing parcelization within the project area. A summary of current
parcelization, including lot sizes and ownership (as taken from the most recent County
Assessor records) is contained in the Appendix of this document.
3.4 Land Use Regulatory Framework
Land use regulation for the project area is provided by the City of Dublin through the General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The General Plan Land Use designation for the Village Parkway
site is a combination of "Retail/Office and Automotive," on the west side of Village Parkway
which allows retail/office uses such as shopping centers, retail shops, eating establishments,
business and professional offices, auto dealerships, auto body shops and similar uses and
"Retail/Office" on the east side of Village Parkway, which permits shopping centers, retail
shops, eating establishments, business and professional offices, motels, service stations and
sale of auto parts.
Village Parkway Specific Plan
City of Dublin
page 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The project has been zoned a combination ofC-2 (General Commercial), C-l (Retail
Commercial), C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) and PD (Planned Development) by the City.
Each of these zoning districts allows a range of retail commercial, office, restaurant and
similar land uses.
Exhibit 5 depicts existing General Plan designations within the project area and Exhibit 6
shows current zoning designations.
3.5 Transportation and Circulation
Major principal streets serving the Specific Plan site include Village Parkway, Dublin
Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard. These are described more fully below:
· Village Parkway extends from Dublin Boulevard north to Alcosta Boulevard. A major
arterial roadway, Village Parkway has four travel lanes with raised center landscaped and
hardscaped medians. Between Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard, Village
Parkway provides access to commercial land uses. Continuing northward, this roadway
provides primary access to residential areas off of Tamarack Drive, Brighton Drive and
Davona Drive. A new northbound on-ramp to 1-680 from Village Parkway recently
opened.
· Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west roadway through the south part of the Village
Parkway planning area. Dublin Boulevard has six travel lanes and raised medians from
San Ramon Road to just east of Regional Street. As Dublin Boulevard approaches
Golden Gate Drive, the roadway narrows to four travel lanes and maintains this
configuration east to Dougherty Road. Dublin Boulevard is designated as a route of
regional significant in the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency's
Congestion Management Plan.
· Amador Valley Boulevard extends from Cronin Circle east to Dougherty Road. A major
east-west arterial street, Amador Valley Boulevard has four travel lanes within the
Specific Plan area and provides access to commercial and retail areas.
Regional circulation linkage is provided by 1-680, a north-south freeway and 1-580, an east-
west freeway.
The Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority ("WHEELS") provides bus transit service
through the Dublin area. Bus routes serving the downtown Dublin area include Routes 3, 4,
10 and 201/202 .
Regional transit to and from the Dublin area is provided by the Bay Area Rapid Transit
District (BART). BART opened a Dublin/Pleasanton station in the late 1990's, located
approximately one mile southeast of the project site. A recent proposal has been submitted to
BART to construct a Downtown Dublin station approximately one-half mile south of the
Village Parkway Specific Plan area at the terminus of Golden Gate Avenue.
Bikeways exist or are proposed on Village Parkway, Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin
Boulevard. Village Parkway is designated as a Class II Bikeway Route, which provides for
shared use of a bike way with either pedestrians on a sidewalk or motor vehicles on a street.
Village Parkway Specific Plan
City of Dublin
page 9
I
I
\.......- ^ \ /~'-..../ r--.
---\ '\'\ )' "-....).--\, ,/ J \
" / "....-., , / / ,
/', 'y i \ "y" r-.. !
/',-,; \ ....,/---...
A '~i \ /'. i
/' ~.~ \~
"'> ,~..-,~ t !
_--/ ' j \ ! ~ J
- l.f \, 'r---.;
i L-...J''y0 i {
----\<fl.\ ,--t---i i~
. ~'~c.---- \ i i .:
\ _"'~\ \ ' .......... I
\;-~ \ \ ~1--i i i
\ .~\()\ ' i' i
\__~~ \;;...f'" \ i ,r---;
'. \",,",,'\~\I
'-.------? U'J--r--<''--i
'\ />-.......".r-,! \ \ ,r
\ ,,/'" \ i, \ \
\/ 1 t .\....,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL
".
I
___, ,"y-:\ \,
_..-~, ..
, \ ~\:-;-- -,'
.'0\ ."...~;. ....,,'
\ ()\ _____ " " '1' :, :,
I, '\ \ '; \ \\
.~\ ~ .J\'-\~'~-\_~~j \~~\~),
c;;.\\ __'/'_/~"
-_.,-"~'\."-
( ., ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEGEND
\
/":~/
/i
<if
"
'..,''-......
, ,
/~//
/~/
,., ,,//
I
~t.~4~~;~i
~'-'"';:';',~.'-:-;j
~)<><>X>~>l
C-1: RETAIL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT
C-2: GENERAL COMMERCIAL (COMBINING) ZONING DISTRICT
PO: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT
", 'I CoN: NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT
....,...""~';
'~\. '1
~\~~;::;:;:c..:.,,/'"
I
~,
\
~~...............,,'\,\
. \,~;~~~>"" '--
__ '.....,--....,~.__...._~,r...,/<
I
--
I
EXISTING ZONING
VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN
N.T.S.
DECEMBER 2000
CITY
OF
DUBLIN
EXHIBIT 6
I
I
-,..'
./
_.....----'~\
--......'......,
I
I
I
I
I
I
..---;~ \
==:~~~";,//~/> ~\':;\\
\~y~,\\\,:
" .,JJ ~ " \' \.
--\t~=~~J-~~~\ ..
r-----:'"t?
I
I
I
P
"t~~j"'~'\/-/
.-"....
,,,"'''''
I
I
I
I
I
LEGEND
....... ARTERIAL STREET
- . . - RESIDENTIAL STREET
-~- BIKEWAY - CLASS II (LANE)
..~... PROPOSED BIKEWAY - CLASS II (LANE)
. .61€>.. PROPOSED BIKEWAY - CLASS III (ROUTE)
CIRCULATION SYSTEM
VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN
,y];<<~ ~
--
I
I
N.T.S.
DECEMBER 2000
I
CITY
OF
DUBLIN
EXHIBIT 7
If.
_.
..
-
I f
. ... _ __,I \ -. ___. _ "...--- '\
..--_QQYER cr-'-- ,
-.- - - ..,- - ,_./
===-
.. "~'-'-" ""~--r
,
/J'..
.::}:{;'
.~. cr
I.,\., . . .~. ;
"
'-
\
\
\
\
,
,
~
'~~i
.o'tI
~''1.!''''k_'
iiI ;
.. .:.*-_:-......1
r" ---J__.._...j'
11((~'-" '_
, ~" G,; f:> "
'-. 'A", '~
.~, "1'(,1(1" '--."
"". , .~Y-1 }- --.,
,/ ,. /
/', / ~ /<R"~
4,.... j ~~ ,C,,, ~ '"
"'Ie,. , <<;:' .'lR..:
I<Fe ~~.... /~ .s' " ~ ! /
~g_S!.:~~/ <00 (, !""":"='~::'::~"--PARKWAY",~::
,__ ~':~iL~~~~ --~_ _ _'_ -.. ._._-~... \"'.
I \
/ -- ~ I!.... \..' ;,"'"
~ i. '_'_'. __.__,1 li.' f.. /9;J;"
/ ...--. b ~ i jOii
/ ; ~~ t" L
.,........_.._...L,~.IL_...__;.._.,.._..,....._..::._._.~~... _ ,...1:;:.::::;.-L.~." ., '.u. f /
~==,-==--=-==-._~---~.~-----_----=.::=~:.::.:::-:::~~;~:::~"~.:~ - - .-. - g._~~=::::=.:.::::.::::=:::.::.:-=.::.::- -- -. -.
~~~~. ~- ~ ~-~~_-_ ...-~ :.~..~-~-- ~=:~$-!A--+E-:fiiQ
,- . , ~.... ... -.., _.. --.. .. - ........ - - -..-. - - .....-.- .. "'-.. - - --_.,. .. .. -.._- .. .. .-.... -.... .---' - ~7 - --- - - ---.. ..7'....-7.. .... '-- .. .. ._____.. .---.----~___...... -
, , ~.. . .:.JJ '1 ,f,' .. "-_.. -______ ".
/ il'ftlfiks-'; . 'f .. -.... - ........
,! I I ; l..,..___",..,_..~ t i ~ I Q " -....-
f ,Ct-IUCK E: i 0:" {
'.t'.i_~ES~.; T..J, MAXX 1..___.1 ~ I
I kt I
:~. J -.J I
10 I=:>;
i~~ ; g i
.. _._._ j~2 ,: //
, ~ i,'
)iiit
- -, . ,
-,......,
'~.
''''--.
~~-...
,
,
i /
.':;;: l
(-J i
I 1
._wm._____ 1 \
SUTTON '
- - -_.- - -. ............ .. /
')
,,.;
....'--
\ i
\..~(~~, I
t'\..\ /
" ,,--_/
...........~..
.....,
-,
k~ ~-.\.
il \
:i I
;' .
~~I~~
hI
i
/ @ !
I~
Ikt
I -.J
=:>
o
lb
i......
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1_
-
-
, ..~-'-
-.,.-
f)/
+
/,., /
/<:::;i'';''
" /
/<,,,<<" /
,.~~/
/" //
./ /
" /"
/,
/ '
,
'\'" \
....,\ " /:. /~
'~"~"\.'~~" ..,.., '/,,/
J /\~, "J
" \
, i
,..,~;/
;/
- -_...-'
0,
\ \ .-.-
\,~\....-..
\ 0., ...--..
\4. (
,~\
\ \
\ "
.. ,
\ \
, "
/"
--_.,,-
... /',./..
"..........-
.,-
--
/.-...
..---\'0\
\.a.1~
( (i. )
\~.
/
i
i
I
I
(~)
.-.' - .. ....JI::,
...- .. - ..'-' -ALCEGHEN'[Jf~. _ .. _ <t '"
I _ _.,.- - p' -~ ......., \"
I ~ - ...._-~ - '~
\
I
-"""--", t - - ~_.-"'
)l.J.J{
(~\
.q, ,
. \~{"
~~!~,..
c..~~~l ,h.
~i'i:;) ~.
<:J)0,<~\. , /
".4 /
"
('
,
,
""'" \
'. C('.
'\,%
, ~
.. ,
\
,./
"
,.
,
./
....
/"
/ /\
,
;
j
!
I
I
i
/
//~'
/
/',.../
.'
.....---.-
I
I
I
I
!
i
I
r
"
/
.~~ ,
,
,/
"
/
,
/,; :." \';
/'
<.~\.
.'<:\./
I
\
,
'.
"
-..
"
/
, "
) /,,/
-.," /
"
\
I
f
I
\.
WmtDER
OU11..tT
....--i
'. /
'. /
J' "
\......
t-~; '-,
~ POST ;
'omCEl
/"
-.
CiRCUI;
GIT'(
,
r~~
;13'.j
:<'j~
CITY OF DUBIJN
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
ALTERNATIVE THREE
VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN
DECEMBER 2000 SCALE: 1"=100'
i
(
\..... ---- .. - ""..- .. .. .
iTOG~'S
...l-....l.~. _ _
EXHIBIT 7B
~
I
I
,
I
,
,
I
,
,
I
,
, ..', //
~>~_/....\ \-.-/....y ......---
..
........-',
r-- \
\/...):r--J ~I
, ,--..-..~("
\. /"_/ '.. :. '!.- 24"1SD)
\/' '; ',",,!
.~ \ -
'1;
\~
\~',
",(1)\
\ ::..A '
.~,
\-:;,A\
\.{\'\ '-
6f
-'PC,
. " ~ ;\
c--_.\.</ )
/__'_'~. / -_1.' I"
j--\'" "\\..."".//</;>"\ ," \~ ;//
r---.....r ,/ ~.
-"-"'.-\ "-
/'"., ,,/ ~\
\ ,,\_/A.c"r
\ //,,/' \.
'""
/-..........
r_
,
,--,'/// .............""-/ I ..
1. \
/./..-..../,.
..,...r/.r.......
/'...~, '
,../'...... \
,//'
/
.......-/
/
/
..
;'
/
l
,/
-
_ 0<:' S)
(XU \N\
- -"0.--
_-~~f2l--
" .., \
,\'- __~12"'#)
_ SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNOARY ~~~l----.
_ gEWERMi'lN tSIZE>SNOfED) . DUIlUN
WAlER Mi'lN [SIZE >S NOfED) .'. . .... .
",QRM QRAlN Mi'l~ tSIZE >S ~01ED) ·
( -, !
12" i1?-.--./ ..
.....-.. ....... -"'''''....."j!
.' 80...... '"
u,-/;];,- ..
'A,ltj)"-"
LEGEND
EX\SI\NG Ul\L\1Y PLAN
- -
VIllAGE PARy,)/'JAY SPECIFIC pLAN
N.T.S.
DECEMBER 2000
C \1Y
Or
-
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,-'
~' \ !~' r-
-..............\ '\ /........ 'l--< ." / ---\
\.,/~\ "\// i
/'" "" j.' i \/;" --___. -'
" '\ ...... f l; /',1 ..,
/"'-.~ \, j
! . ~in
~ r---r--. " .
~s
.. '--"\05\ \ ! i-......J
y \~. , ': !
'~ '--(N"' ~~
\. )y~~ i
\// \ \ ; \ i
\.. ~ i
-'
'~~\
. \ 'X,.
\. \~
r-..... ~ ",
'\ ,/ "\ \,\\\,'"
rr---' ~,
\ W~',-,,/~ \'\
~\
;\
~;\
~-- ----,. \ \ \\
.. ~..\\'.\
'\ \. ' \\\:\
\ ;\
~\
____,X .,
~.---'
\, \
\ ". "')
~. \ j-/
-.- >' ,-----/. .--.....--'."
\t>\~;-\. /~\\\ \
\0, \., II
"?:I' '.', W
i. \_.......---...-__:.-4 \ I, \ \
---\ \ \~ ~
, t\_/<::~;::-_V'_'~'
---,\';\
\ \ ,--
. .....--....-'
',~~\\~.--.
,.....-:;,
; 1\
~ \_~ '--~)
-.L.---;UBUN
-----,
~._-
BOU~\
/--:----- "
.' .
('~
\, I
'.\--------\
/s::::\
:--/
""..-;/--
- ,,----
\.--
LEGEND
~
.
(RIO)
(R10&A)
OPPORTUNITY SITE
POTENTIAL PLAZA LOCATION WI DEVELOPMENT
RET AlLJOFFICE
RETAlLJOFFICE AND AUTO SERVICE
-
LAND USE PLAN
VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN
N.T.S.
DECEMBER 2000
CITY
OF
DUBLIN
EXHIBIT 9
I
I
I
I
I
I
! I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.3 Development Standards
a. Minimum lot size
(i) residential lots: 1.5 acres (excluding Planned Developments)
(ii) non-residential lots: 10,000 square feet
b. Minimum lot dimensions (residential lots only, Planned Developments excluded)
(i) width: 50 feet
(ii) depth: 80 feet
c. Maximum Floor Area Ratio: 0.35
d. Maximum lot coverage: 35 percent
e. Maximum site area per residential unit: 2,500 square feet.
f. Setbacks:
(i) front: 10 feet (all uses)
(ii) rear: 20 feet for residential lots, otherwise none
(iii) side, comer: 10 feet (all uses)
(iv) side: 5 feet (residential uses)
g. Building height: Two stories or 35 feet
h. Landscaping. The following areas on private lots shall be landscaped:
(i) All required setbacks
(ii) Parking lots
5.0 Traffic Improvements and Parking
This section ofthe Specific Plan describes the range of traffic/circulation improvements and
parking requirements for the Village Parkway 'Specific Plan area:
5.1 Traffic Imvrovements and Roadway Alternatives
Major Roads. Existing roads currently serving the site will be maintained and improved to
meet Specific Plan standards. Village Parkway will continue as the major north-south arterial
road in the center ofthe planning area, providing access to the majority of uses in the Plan
area, as well as functioning as part of Dublin's city-wide circulation network. Amador Plaza
Road and Dublin Boulevard will remain in their respective present locations north and south
ofthe Specific Plan area. No new right-of-way or other improvements are anticipated to
either ofthese two major roads.
Village Parkway Specific Plan
City of Dublin
page 14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Task Force also suggested that the median be reduced in height for better visibility for
pedestrians crossing the street.
The total right-of-way (ROW) required for this option would be 100 feet. As the
roadway ROW is currently 100 feet, no additional ROW would need to be obtained
from property owners. The amount of ROW needed for this alternative is less than that
required for the other options considered, but it would reduce the number of through
traffic lanes from four to two, thereby slowing traffic considerably. In slowing traffic
on the roadway, Alternative 3 would also create additional congestion on Village
Parkway during peak hour periods, and traffic may be diverted to Amador Plaza Road
and residential streets with less capacity in the vicinity. With the existing level of
traffic plus approved projects' and BART's estimated traffic volume, the traffic
consultant's estimate is that the level-of-service (LOS) on Village Parkway would
operate at LOS F (unacceptable level), decreasing from LOS C (acceptable level) with
this alternative. Additionally, the LOS at the intersections of Amador Valley
Boulevard/Village Parkway and Dublin Boulevard/Village Parkway would operate at
LOS D during the AM peak hour, and LOS F during the PM peak hour.
Implementation of this alternative would require a public/private partnership, or joint
partnership between private property owners and the City to balance the cost of
improvements, which are estimated at approximately $1,050,000 (preliminary
estimate). This alternative requires cooperation and commitment by both the City and
the property owners on Village Parkway to be successful. Therefore, a major
commitment by a property owner or property owners is necessary before any change is
to occur.
5.1.2 Staff Recommendations - Streets cape and Parking Improvements.
Along Village Parkway, should a public/private partnership not be feasible,
staff srecommendation is that the existing roadway be maintained and the parallel
parking on both sides of the street remain. Improvements in the streetscape and
sidewalk wouldbe provided as described in the section related to streetscape standards,
and Chapter 6.0 related to urban design guidelines, to encourage increased pedestrian
use in the area.
A Parking Authority District should be considered to fund development of joint parking
areas, and may be further studied by the City Council. The district could provide an
administrative unit for managing existing on-street and public parking lots, as well as
fund structured parking facilities, when such facilities are necessary and financially
feasible. The parking district can establish and administer a range of revenue sources
including paid parking, impact fees, benefit assessments, and other private or public
contributions. Other options recommended by staff to provide needed parking in the
area in lieu of diagonal parking are to provide improved access to the rear of properties
adjacent to the freeway corridor, and to remove barriers such as fences between parking
lots by property owners. Joint access between properties would encourage customers to
combine trips to various businesses and improve pedestrian access.
If a substantial commitment is made by a developer to redevelop a portion of the
Village Parkway Specific Plan area, the introduction of diagonal parking in the area
should be reconsidered and addressed at that time.
5.1.3 Staff and Task Force Recommendations. The following are
recommendations of both the staff and the Task Force:
Village Parkway Specific Plan
City of Dublin
page 16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
have a minimum width of 20 feet and shall be marked in accord with
Fire Department standards.
5.IA City Council Recommended Improvements and Roadwav Alignment
In adopting the Village Parkway Specific Plan, the Dublin City Council determined that the
optimum roadway alignment for Village Parkway is the existing four lane roadway. Based
on safety and traffic concerns, the diagonal parking alternative will not be implemented at
this time, and the parallel parking along Village Parkway will remain intact.
Additionally, the City Council adopted the Specific Plan with the staff recommended
streetscape and parking improvements, and also with the staff and Task Force
recommendation as outlined in Section 5.1.3, above.
At a future date, the City Council may decide to study the issue of diagonal parking on
Village Parkway, but a more detailed analysis and evaluation of roadway conditions would
be necessary at that time.
5.2 Parking and Loading
The Specific Plan can establish parking requirements that augment or alter existing zoning
ordinance-based requirements. Incentives may also be offered for development of mixed
uses that create opportunities for shared parking or reduced parking demand. Parking and
loading for individual land uses shall be as required per the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, with
the following exceptions:
a) Shared Parking. Where two or more nearby land uses allow for shared use of parking
facilities, sharing of parking areas is encouraged subject to the preparation of a shared
parking study and the approval of this study by the City of Dublin Community
Development Director.
b) Parking Authority District. Where the City or other public entity forms a vehicle
parking authority district, on-site parking for individual parcels of land within the
district may be reduced based on contributions of the land owner(s) to the District.
c) City Parking Lots. The City of Dublin may determine that construction of City-owned
and operated parking lots is necessary due to increased commercial and business
activity in the Village Parkway area. Should the City construct parking lots within or
adjacent to the Specific Plan area, the amount of on-site parking that is required for new
or expanded uses may be reduced by the Community Development Director based on
the proximity of City parking lots.
6.0 Urban Design Guidelines
6.1 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of this section is to provide design guidelines that will direct new construction
and remodels with consistent character and quality of architecture throughout the Village
Parkway Specific Plan Area, which is also consistent with the desired theme. These
guidelines establish an approach to design that will allow and encourage diverse architectural
solutions throughout the development area while maintaining a clearly recognizable overall
design character and quality. The guidelines and images were assembled and written to
Village Parkway Specific Plan
City of Dublin
page 18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Architectural Character, Building Form and Massing I
I
/6~-:R.~4~'
Ilill ~ ,\,"-
":J/.l">,'W'~."'''\
(l~~~ ~~~
\:~~~'" ~ A~v
"{i~7
Village Parkway Urban Design Guidelines
FIGURE 1
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dormer window
Clerestory windowS
)
",..
Multi-form roofs
Encouraged roof
materials include:
_ corrugated metal
_ Metal raised seam.
_ Concrete tile
_ Composite shingle
-~~~\
1\ ~
:.". . Z},1
"(i~~~7
---
F\GURE 3
Roofs
Village ParkWay Urban Design Guidelines
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project landscaping
Pedestrian friendly elements
Dual frontages and enhanced
entries for pedestrian access
Mixed use, commercial, office
and professional space
//~
,/ \
....0- \
\ . .~.~"-
l Agrarian character architectur~
Linkages to adjoining
developments
Internalized parking
Building Form, Massing and Materials
..~iC[l?!::4. '
t;9'~'~\~\\
1191~~18,
~,JV~~I/~
\~~~~i~3;
Village Parkway Urban Design Guidelines
FIGURE 4
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
Facade before renovation
I
Cornice Detail at Cap
I
L:JD
DO
Decorative Lighting
Street! Auto Signage
I
Recessed Channels
I
il
<> <> <> <>
Plaster Accent Band with
Accent Tiles Proportion
Facade
Fabric Awning Enhances
Pedestrian Scale
Pedestrian Signage
Multi-Paned Storefront
Window and Doors
I
I
Base~
Plaster Finish
Accent Tile to Enhance
Base
Tile/Stone Base
Treatment
I
Facade afterrenovation
I
I
Facade Improvement Elevation 2
IG'~~--<U!!!~ '
I;';j ~ \;~\\\
H~ ~~~
\:~~~~~~1
"r:~t/
Village Parkway Urban Design Guidelines
FIGURE 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Elements of a Plaza:
- Canopy trees
- Central gathering area
- Seating areas
-Public art
- Adjacent to street
- Pedestrian access
Plaza Features
<~-i5!..P~;,,::,
k:/' ~ '\',\.\\
il~~~\r.;
\\~~;~~~t;,7
"~~~;';/
Village Parkway Urban Design Guidelines
FIGURE 7
I
I
I
I
I
!I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
\
Symbol Description
@ Primary Gatewayllntersection
[!] Secondary Gateway/Intersection
Gateway Diagram
1~~?.--1?~~i; "
:lff.p,~~~~
,.,\q~/1/1
\;~~;" ~ /.'1//
':r..~..::;/
FIGURE 8
Village Parkway Urban Design Guidelines
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Crosswalks: The introduction of mid-block crossings between Amador Valley
Boulevard and Lewis Avenue, and between Lewis Avenue and Dublin Boulevard should
be considered. These crossings should incorporate emiched paving, lighting and a raised
walkway to assist in traffic calming and enhance safety.
1. Pedestrian crossings should have a minimum width of 12 feet.
2. Mid-block crosswalks should be elevated 6 inches from road grade and be
fitted with pedestrian activated crosswalk lighting.
3. Enhanced pedestrian crosswalks should be provided at the intersections of
Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway, and Amador Valley Parkway and
Village Parkway.
4. The intersection at Lewis Avenue should be enhanced with enriched pavers
at crosswalks.
Street trees: Planting of new and/or replacement street trees within the Specific Plan
area shall be governed by the following standards
1. Trees planted along Village Parkway are to be selected from the tree palette
in the Preferred Plant Matrix (Figure 10) or be an approved alternative with
comparable characteristics.
2. Trees are to be placed in tree wells along Village Parkway and should be a
2.5 inch caliper tree. Trees should be planted at 30 feet on center with as
much regularity as possible.
3. Tree wells are to be irrigated with bubblers.
4. Each tree well should have an electrical outlet for lighting of street trees.
5. Tree wells are to be out filled with ornamental metal tree grates.
6. Where feasible, existing street trees should not be removed until new trees
planted along Village Parkway in tree wells have been well established.
7. Street trees along Village Parkway should be a consistent species selection
to maintain uniformity.
8. Tree plantings near intersections should be accent trees to set apart
intersection character.
Street Furnishings: The following guidelines are also to be employed for the selection
and location of street furniture elements. (see Figure 11)
1. One bike rack should be placed at a minimum of every 300 feet on each side
of the Village Parkway.
2. Bike racks should be installed in additional locations throughout the
Specific Plan Area as needed.
3. Benches should be located at an approximate minimum of250-foot
intervals with at least one bench near each comer on each side of the street
at intersections.
4. Benches shall be placed at the back of the sidewalk adjacent to buildings,
facing the street. Where the sidewalk is only 5 feet wide, bench shall be
placed off the sidewalk area.
Village Parkway Specific Plan
City of Dublin
page 23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I' Note:
Street furniture such as benches, trash receptacles, bicycle racks and planters will be incorporated into pedestrian areas.
I Enhanced sidewalks, street tree~ingrates and streetlights will be used throughout the Specific PlanArea streets.
I
I
I
Planter
Street Sign
Thematic
Bollard
Thematic
Bench
Accent Paving
Thematic Trash Receptacle
,.,/ . ~
Scored Concrete Sidewalk
Tree Well
Thematic Bike Rack
Thematic
Streetlight
Diagonal Parking
Streets cape Character
Village Parkway Urban Design Guidelines
FIGURE 11
I
I
I
I
I
~
Facade Renovation of Existing
Commercial Structures.
~
Street Trees 30' O.C.
~~
..
o
Parallel Parlcing Y
s
Village Parkway Pedestrian Oriented Streetscape
4J'-'-"f(~
(f~~d-I\
~:'l-&~182i
~",-~./~'
(>~o/
nr
Village Parkway Urban Design Guidelines
FIGURE 12
..,
)
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Underground utilities
within public rights-of-
way or dedicated
easement
Open
Space/Landscaping
Parkways and medians-
public streets
Project entries
Appropriate utility
provider
Includes water, sewer, drainage, natural
gas, electricity, telecommunications
City of Dublin
Includes landscape and hardscape
adjacent to streets
Includes entry signs, landscape and
hardscape
Public park/plaza
City of Dublin or
BID
City of Dublin,
BID, or private
development
8.0 Administration and Implementation
8.1 Introduction
This section of the Specific Plan outlines methods for translating project objectives, the land
use concept, circulation plans and other elements of the Specific Plan into reality. Primary
methods for implementation include rezoning the Specific Plan area to ensure permitted uses
and development standards established in the Specific Plan are incorporated as official City
zoning, review of private development plans, including subdivision of land, and capital
improvement projects undertaken by the City of Dublin and/or local property owners and
businesses. Also addressed are methods to amend the Village Parkway Specific Plan.
8.2 Village Parkway Specific Plan (VPSP) Zoning District
One ofthe first implementing actions for the Specific Plan is the initiation of a rezoning
action for the Specific Plan area. Proposed zoning for the area would be "Village Parkway
Specific Plan" District. The Village Parkway Specific Plan would constitute the text of the
proposed zoning district and all new developments within the Specific Plan area would need
to be consistent with the requirements and standards of the Specific Plan.
8.3 Non-Conforming Uses
Only permitted and conditionally permitted land uses, as identified in Section 4.2 of the
Village Parkway Specific Plan shall be allowed. Land uses existing as of the adoption date of
this Specific Plan may continue to remain after the adoption of the Specific Plan, as allowed
by Chapter 8.140 ofthe Dublin Zoning Ordinance, Non-Conforming Structures and Uses.
8.4 Review of Building Plans
All proposed plans for new buildings, expansion of existing buildings and remodeling of
existing buildings shall be submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Department for review of
consistency with the standards and requirements of the Village Parkway Specific Plan.
Minor additions and remodeling may be approved on an administrative basis by the
Community Development Director, so long as proposed plans are consistent with all of the
provisions of this Specific Plan.
Village Parkway Specific Plan
City of Dublin
page 26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
improvements. It is anticipated that these and/or other programs would be included in future
City of Dublin Capital Improvements Budgets in phases, based on priority, for forthcoming
years.
Phase I:
· Construction of improvements at Village Parkway/Dublin Blvd. intersection with
eastbound approach to be widened and include separate right-turn lane.
· Construction of localized drainage improvements along flood control channel to
alleviate identified flood hazards within the Specific Plan area.
Phase II:
· Completion of a streetscape program to add new landscape elements, street
improvements, street furniture and other items identified in the Specific Plan.
· Widening of sidewalks to 10 feet, wherever possible, with special paving treatment.
.
Delineation of crosswalks with paving treatment at two mid-block locations on
Village Parkway.
.
Gateways or entry features with plazas at one or two locations (partial funding from
private development).
.
Development of a comprehensive sign, directory, and lighting program for the Village
Parkway area, which may be in conjunction with similar programs for other Specific
Plan areas.
Addition of benches, outdoor seating areas, trash cans and bicycle racks at various
locations throughout (partial funding from private development).
· Addition of landscaping and street trees to improve streetscape.
.
Phase III:
· Develop economic development program with involvement of merchants, business
and property owners.
· Establish architectural design assistance program for assistance to property owners,
business owners and developers.
8.12 Financing ofImprovements/Financing Plan
Implementation of the public improvements within the Specific Plan area may be shared
between the City of Dublin and private landowners and businesses. As an implementation
program following the adoption of the Village Parkway Specific Plan, the City shall prepare
a detailed Financing Plan for the Village Parkway area, identifying proposed public and
private improvements, estimated improvement costs and specific methods to pay for
improvements. It is anticipated that some or all of the following financing mechanisms will
be employed to carry out the vision of the Village Parkway Specific Plan.
8.12.1 City of Dublin Capital Improvement Budget
The City's Capital Improvement Budget can be used to design and construct major public
improvements within and adjacent to the Village Parkway area, including but not limited
Village Parkway Specific Plan
City of Dublin
page 28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix
Item A: Parcel Map & List of Property Owners
Item B: Task Force Members & Locations
Item C: Village Parkway - Roadway Alternatives
Item D: Negative Declaration & Initial Study
_.~\ "
, '\
" "
\ \;
J \ ~ \
\ \'.~'
h I, ,
\ \ '". \
\j "':". \ \""
, "
I .
Item A
":,,:__0#
- -
U)
<:
<:(
-I
Q
()
u::
(3
~
U)
~
o
a.f-
c:t~
:Eo
...Ja
W<:
u-
0:: CiS
c:t::J
a.a
. ....,.'. .......
. -.
"~::-:5--~- -:--/-. . >:'. '
..,- --
.- -
; , I
. 'I
~ I !
I..
,\ \
. I
1- '\ ~ \
\ '. \ \
. I \
'. \
, \ \ \
. \' \
'. " \
I .
'\ \ \ \
\ ,'.....,. \\..~' '. "'\
'. '. '. "
\. ..... "" \
" ... ,
. . .
, '.
I, '. " \
. . .
. ..
--
. ,
.,
, '.
,
,
,
,
, ,
, .
. ,
, :
I
I
I
: :
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jimmy & Yvonne Tiu
ARCO
6248 Village Parkway
Dublin, CA 94568
Redic Thomas, Jr.
Dublin Resident
George Churchill
6990 Village Parkway #20 I
Dublin, CA 94568
Dan Scannell
Dublin Resident
Task Force Members
Item B
Sawsan Wolshi
The Frame Company
7038 Village Parkway
Dublin, CA 94568
Connie Mack
Dublin Resident
Stan McClanahan
Dublin Resident
David Hess
7140 Village Parkway
Dublin, CA 94568
Rick Camacho
7136 Village Parkway
Dublin, CA 94568
Charlotte Fernandez
6918 Village Parkway
Dublin, CA 94568
Thomas Odam
Lawrence Gallery
7079 Village Parkway
Dublin, CA 94568
Wilma White
The Dublin Trophy House
7030 Village Parkway
Dublin, CA 94568
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Item C
VILLAGE PARKWAY
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES
During the six-month period that the Village Parkway Specific Plan Task Force met, the
committee determined that there is a need to revitalize businesses along the segment of Village
Parkway between Amador Valley Boulevard to the north and Dublin Boulevard to the south. To
accomplish this, it was decided by the task force that slowing traffic and providing better parking
opportunities close to businesses would create a more pedestrian and shopper friendly
environment, thereby stimulating the economic growth of businesses and increasing the activity
level in the area. Four different options for roadway improvements along Village Parkway were
evaluated during the specific plan development process, along with the existing roadway
configuration as shown in Exhibit 7A of the Specific Plan. The Task Force recommended
implementation of a roadway design that would decrease the number of traffic lanes and add
diagonal parking within the existing right-of-way. Staff recommended maintaining the roadway
with four lanes of traffic and parallel parking as it currently exists, with streetscape design
modifications. This section contains a brief description of each of the Village Parkway roadway
alternatives considered followed by exhibits illustrating the alignment and cross section of
Village Parkway for each alternative.
Alternative 1: The Village Parkway Specific Plan Task Force reviewed the various options for
the roadway, all of which contained diagonal parking to bring people closer to business
storefronts and to change the streetscape in the area. Alternative 1, as shown in Exhibit
lOA, would provide four lanes of traffic on Village Parkway (two lanes in each direction)
combined with diagonal parking along the street frontage in selected locations. There are
approximately 60 existing parallel parking spaces along Village Parkway at this time, and
121 parking spaces could be provided with this alternative.
A four-foot class III bicycle lane would be located between the diagonal parking and the
right traffic lane. The sidewalk would be widened from five feet (existing right-of-way is
eight feet) to 10 feet to provide enough space for increased pedestrian use. Two new
crosswalks for pedestrians would be provided in mid-block locations with caution
signals. Each traffic lane would be 12 feet and the center median would be reduced from
16 feet to 14 feet in width.
In the Consultant's Report of the Transportation Impacts for the Proposed Village
Parkway, Downtown Core, and West BART Station Specific Plans prepared by Omni-
Means for the Downtown specific plans, the consultant determined that this alternative
would create the least potential roadway impacts of the four alternatives and
recommended it for implementation. This determination was based on the follovring: 1)
four travel lanes would be maintained; 2) diagonal parking would provide additional
spaces close to business frontages; and, 3) bicycle traffic would be provided on the street
(however, this could create some conflicts between motorists backing out of spaces and
bicyclists). Some conflicts may occur between through vehicles and those backing out of
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
traffic lanes from four to two, thereby slowing traffic considerably. In slowing traffic on
the roadway, Alternative 3 would also create additional congestion on Village Parkway
during peak hour periods, and traffic may be diverted to Amador Plaza Road and streets
with less capacity in the vicinity. With the existing level oftraffic plus approved
projects' and BART's estimated traffic volume, the traffic consultant's estimate is that
the level-of-service (LOS) on Village Parkway would operate at LOS F (unacceptable
level), decreasing from LOS C (acceptable level) with this alternative. Additionally, the
LOS at the intersections of Amador Valley BoulevardNillage Parkway and Dublin
BoulevardNillage Parkway would operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour, and LOS
F during the PM peak hour
Implementation of this alternative would require a public/private partnership, or joint
partnership between private property owners and the City to balance the cost of
improvements, but to a lesser degree than Alternative 1 and 2. This alternative requires
cooperation and commitment by both the City and the property owners on Village
Parkway to be successful. The preliminary cost estimate for this alternative is
$1,050,000, and is the lowest cost alternative when compared to the other three
alternatives.
Staffhas several concerns regarding narrowing Village Parkway to two lanes of traffic
and adding diagonal parking. Vehicle trip diversion may occur and adversely affect the
adjacent neighborhood to the east. This could affect the quality of life for that portion of
the City residential area by creating safety hazards for residents and children attending
the neighborhood school. Noise levels could also increase in the area with the additional
cut-through traffic. Additionally, the Alameda County Fire Department and Dublin Police
Department have expressed concerns related to community safety, response time, and the
creation of roadway hazards in the event that Village Parkway is reduced to two lanes of
traffic with diagonal parking within the existing right-of-way.
Another option for the alignment of Village Parkway, which is the staff recommended
option, is to maintain the existing roadway without expansion, and continue the use of
parallel parking on both sides of the street. Improvements in the streetscape and sidewalk
could be provided as described in the section ofthis document on design to encourage
increased pedestrian use in the area. Additionally, joint/shared parking should be
encouraged between properties, with fences removed which impede pedestrian access.
This option would require less capital funds for implementation and would create less
roadway impacts.
Alternative 4 - Alternative 4, as shown in Exhibit lOD, would provide four lanes oftraffic on
Village Parkway (two lanes in each direction) and a four-foot bicycle lane. Diagonal
parking would be provided along the frontage of businesses in selected locations, but it
would be separated from street traffic by narrow medians. A total of approximately 106
parking spaces would be provided with this alternative along Village Parkway. Drive
aisle entrances would provide access to these separated parking areas. Two new
crosswalks for pedestrians would be provided in mid-block locations with caution
signals. Each traffic lane would be 12 feet and the center median would be reduced from
16 feet to 14 feet in width. The total right-of-way (ROW) required for this option would
be 128 feet. As the roadway ROW is currently 100 feet, an additional14 feet of ROW on
each side of the street would need to be obtained from property owners.
3
. \ \..J \__---.-\
ct.U-\ \ \ d L!
..... 4.-:> L-- \ /" \ l----.-' HS\fNI
' ".....r..:: \ \ 'C1'V;)
".." ',- } \
".., Il '........_ _/ \,
r'".-. ' -......., V<YL - \
/ J '..... V-1'>" '.
< /' //"'-., "......._ ..::J 1/)00 ""_
/ ",' <..:J
/ / '-'
/ / .....
/ /
../,/ /"
/
/
/
/
4:
o
~
I-
ea
~
U1
i-
\;}\:J ;'
~
I
,
,
I
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
GAl8
A3ll\i A
~OG\iV'fv'
---...----------------.....
r'-.'W'"\
I i
LJ
"-,
o-j-~ j
./'-,iJ<'y/~',o..
'. "'~ I
\,/ :
I
,
-----.--------.-----.........\
,/ -;\
f __.._"
: IN\i;)V^ '
! ,......._,;
j i__J!
.
I
[L' '1.-1'
"- ex: J \ \, ---1 L_--.
'"'' ""-~ ,---- \ > L~;
- "-, "- : \ L-~.. i-ISVlvl
'"' '"' ',,- n" ): &Vo
/ ) , vdr,t........,,' I ____.__
//' /\'",,- V -- ~ .....
/~ /''\ ",,- --1.)j, \
,'.-/ ). "..... I)On ''-,
,''"'' ./ ~,,, '------.
,'/ ',,: ----._---.-
" ^ " N/7
// / "',", '\ ana
// ,/',0 '. "
" '"':-\ \ "I ~'\'t't
'viv~<::) 1 \\11 I'il! i ~/-- ----.__--=__
~ u:: ,::: /' ,<'--;
L_J ~ h i ~~iti~ /! :....
U j I' j j' L-S~Gl'iNOG::JV'l
~:il' 11 II J
I : ::
I ! ;1:, _ ~____---;
j--' J ~ ii' i: j [--- __J I
! i' _=-_.~- ,
ii' ; 'L_-~-------~-ll
ii, I:
I. I i L-_._.--~..-.-..._._.-~..Jl
r~~ ----.--------.----i i
Ll___:--~L.l i i
-- i i
i j;
L-" I
I
I
,
I
/
i
i
,
I
I
./'
I
j:'
I
ESt] r--~.-..------'"-i
~F!i !
o=> L----L--....J
:;::0
I
:J)
I
r-"
! I
I
I
i 1
.__-1
I
....
~)
r.J~wt.,
. 1-0 I
L, gsG: !
i o..~ I
~
,
...
, r -"-" ."(S;;iSc-;j"---'-l
~~)
j
I
:::
I
( i
l~----:
I
\
\
,
I
,
j- (s:ijlvJS<in) i
j I
i (S>.;!Y~) 1
L-_______l
w
IC)--
, ! <(
i! -1
: I -1
!i >
, I
I !
: j
~ I
L__~
,
j
,
,
'-----1 !
! : ;
. ,
, ,
I,
; i
I;
j:
L---..jJ
HSVM i
~VJ
I
,
,
,
!
l/
,
I
,
Ji
),
:j
:j
):
./
,
i
\
\
,
/
.!
I
I
---'--, I
i j ,
L__-.-J I
[-1,
, ,
___-! I
i
I
.
r--'--'1i
I 1t
j ; 1
I II
i 'I
if;
I "
\.___J i
,
f-----,po'-1 j
, I'
1 f:
I 'I
l ~ :
!____._1 i
:
,
!--~ !
II!
I "
i : I
----------. L_~J i
----------'1
dOOVYVI;i :
. i
-- ,
--------i
r".!
---...j I
i
: r--
Ii
, I
, I
I !
: t .
I L~___J
II
I
.~
8:] r-~
<(wi i
I- m '--_.._
I
.l!
I
U',
't>. .',
/./\~ \ \
'\ \~ \ 1
\ \0, : \
.. .- i> 'e--!
I
01\ 7 a
l,
.....
~3771;i 1\
---------------.-- -
--------
'\
,
I
I
,
/
I
;/'"------------
I '--
/ 1 NV.:)'tfJ\ r~'---"? r'~
j r--"'7 / ;
/ ....----...J ,! .
J ;--.___
I
1--'-'1
LJ
7-
/\00 <:y 7-.
\ \0-"..,,-
<' \
\p...-/
I
J
!
,
j~
..:..
o
C>
.,-
t:
~
:r:
><
UJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project Title:
Item n
t. .~ ,,'.
CITY OF DUBLIN
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568
Website: http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us
DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION
September 2, 2000
Revised December 14,2000
Downtown Specific Plans - Downtown Core Specific Plan (PA-99-055), West
Dublin BART Specific Plan (PA-99-056), and Village Parkway Specific Plan (PA-99-
054)
Description of Project: The proposed Project consists of three specific plans developed for the downtown area
of Dublin, the Downtown Core Specific Plan, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and the
Village Parkway Specific Plan to be considered for adoption by the Dublin City Council.
The Specific Plans are intended to direct the use of land, the design of public
improvements, and the design and appearance of private and public development,
including buildings, parking areas, signs and landscaping. The adoptions of the Plans will
require General Plan Amendments for the Downtown Core and West Dublin BART
Specific Plan areas related to land use changes and land use intensification. Additionally,
the portions of the previously adopted (1987) Downtown Specific Plan will require repeal
with adoption of the plans, to modify sections of the document relative to Zones 1, 2, 3, 4,
7,8,10 and 11. Following Plan adoption, amendment of the City's Zoning Ordinance will
be necessary.
Project Location: Central downtown area of Dublin, generally west of Maple Drive and Portage Road,
south of Amador Valley Boulevard, north of Interstate 580, and east of Regional Street.
Name of Proponent: City of Dublin, Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568,
(925) 833-6610
Public Heari'ngs:
Determination:
A Planning Commission Public Hearing on the Draft Negative Declaration and the
associated Project is tentatively scheduled for September 26,2000 to consider a
recommendation of approval to the City Council. A City Council Public Hearing for
approval is tentatively scheduled for October 17, 2000, November 21 ,2000 and
December 19, 2000. All hearings will be held in the City Council Chambers, City of
Dublin offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA.
I hereby find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the
environment and a Negative Declaration will be adopted. This document and the
accompanvino Environmental Initial Study have been revised to incorporate and
evaluate modifications in the Specific Plans that occurred durino the proiect review
process. All impacts of these chanoes have been assessed and determined to be
insionificant based on the policies and pr?orams incorporated in the Specific Plans.
Because the modifications are minor in nature and result in no new sionificant impacts,
recirculation of the Neoative Declaration is not required.
Area Code (925) . City Manager 833-6650 . City Council 833-6650 . Personnel 833-6605 . Economic Development 833.6650
Finance 833-6640 . Public Works/Engineering 833.6630 . Parks & Community Services 833-6645 . Police 833-6670
Planning/Code Enforcement 833.6610 . Building Inspection 833-6620 . Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606
Printed on Recycled Paper
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INTERSTATE 580
-
N.T.S.
SEPTEMBER 2000
LOCAL CONTEXT
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PlAN C I T Y 0 F DUB L I N
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INTRODUCTION
This initial study has been prepared by the City of Dublin to assess the potential
environmental effects of the proposed Specific Plans and General Plan Amendments for the
Downtown Core Specific Plan, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and the Village Parkway
Specific Plan areas. The analysis is intended to satisfy the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and provide the City with adequate information for project review.
This initial study includes a project description, environmental checklist and discussion focused upon
issues identified in the checklist. Modifications in the Specific Plans have been made since the
oriqinal draft Neqative Declaration and Initial Study were circulated in September 2000. The
revisions to the Plans are described in this revised document. and have been evaluated on the basis
of their related environmental impacts in this revised document. Because the modifications are minor
in nature and result in no siqnificant impacts, recirculation of the Neqative Declaration and Initial
Study is not required under CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. Additions to the oriqinal document
are shown with an underline, and deletions from the document are shown with a ctriko throuqh.
In summary, this Initial Study concludes that the project will not pose any significant adverse
environmental impacts. With the policies and proqrams are included in the Specific Plans, no
siqnificant impacts will result.
The Initial Study was prepared based upon the location of the project, planning staff review,
field review, comments from City, County and local agencies, studies prepared by consultants, use
of City Planning Documents, the CEQA Law and Guidelines, and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of three specific plans developed for the downtown area of Dublin, the
Downtown Core Specific Plan, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and the Village Parkway Specific
Plan to be considered for adoption by the Dublin City Council. The Specific Plans are intended to direct
the use of land, the design of public improvements, and the design and appearance of private and public
development, including buildings, parking areas, signs and landscaping. The adoptions of the Plans will
require General Plan Amendments for the Downtown Core and West Dublin BART Specific Plan areas
related to land use changes and land use intensification. Additionally, the portions of the previously
adopted (1987) Downtown Specific Plan will require repeal with adoption of the plans, to modify sections
of the document relative to Zones 1,2,3,4,7,8,10 and 11. Following Plan adoption, amendment of the
City's Zoning Ordinance will be necessary.
The Downtown Core Specific Plan area is generally located between 1-680 to the east and San Ramon
Road to the west, and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north and Dublin Boulevard to the south, and
consists of approximately 51 acres of commercial land uses. The westerly boundary of the Plan area is
the westerly property line of the parcels containing the existing Montgomery Wards and Target retail
stores. The Specific Plan calls for a maximum development potential of 1,206,848 1,100,110 square feet
commercial, office and mixed-use development and approximately 148 dwellings. The oriqinal
environmental initial study evaluated a maximum development potential of 1,100,110 square feet for the
area. However, since that time, the City Council has discussed an alternative plan to remove the High
Densitv Residential land use for senior housinq from the Plan, and maintain the retail commercial use on
the Dublin Place shoppinq center site with an increase in FAR to AO. This chanqe. if approved, would
increase the square footaqe of Commercial A retail use in the area bv approximatelv 40,000 square feet.
Additionallv, an increased FAR of .79 was recommended to the City Council bv the Planninq
Commission for the property owned bv Dublin Honda on Amador Plaza Road, which could increase the
potential buildout square footaqe of the 2.55acres of Retail/Auto use in the Plan area bv 65,330 square
feet to 87,750 square feet:.
The West Dublin BART Specific Plan area is generally located between 1-580 to the south and Dublin
Boulevard to the north. San Ramon Road lies to the west of the area, and properties on the west side of
Golden Gate Avenue are included in the plan area. The area consists of approximately 70 acres of
commercial, office and light industrial land uses. The Village Parkway Specific Plan area is generally
located between the north and south sides of Amador Valley Road to the north and Dublin Boulevard to
Dublm Plannmg Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF DUBLIN
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
1. Project title: Downtown Specific Plans - Downtown Core Specific Plan (PA-99-055), West Dublin
BART Specific Plan (PA-99-056), and Village Parkway Specific Plan (PA-99-054)
2. Lead agency name and address: City of Dublin, Community Development Department, 100 Civic
Plaza, Dublin, CA, 94568
3. Contact person and phone number: Janet Harbin, Senior Planner (925) 833-6610
4. Project location: Central downtown area of Dublin, generally west of Maple Drive and Portage
Road, south of Amador Valley Boulevard, north of Interstate 580, and east of Regional Street. See
Exhibit 1 for a regional location map and Exhibit 2 for the location of the three proposed Specific
Plans.
5. Assessors Parcel Number(s): Various
6. Project sponsor's name and address: City of Dublin, Community Development Department, 100
Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568
7. General Plan designations:
Downtown Core Specific Plan Area - Retail/Office
West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area - Retail/Office and Public/Semi-Public Facility
Village Parkway Specific Plan Area - Retail/Office and Retail/Office and Automotive
8. Zoning:
Downtown Core Specific Plan Area - C-1 (Retail Commercial), C-2 (General Commercial), and PD
(Planned District)
West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area - C-1 (Retail Commercial), C-2 (General Commercial), and
M-1 (Light Industrial District)
Village Parkway Specific Plan Area - C-1 (Retail Commercial), C-2 (General Commercial), C-N
(Neighborhood Commercial), and PD (Planned District)
9. Specific Plan designation: Previously adopted (1987) Downtown Specific Plan, Zones 1,2,3.4,7,
8,10 and 11
10. Description of project: See previous page.
11. Surrounding land uses and setting: The project area is located in the commercial core of the
City of Dublin and generally consists of retail, commercial service, office and some light industrial
type uses. Easterly of the project area is Portage Road and Maple Drive, and the residential
DublIn Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Date: Auqust 30.2000: revised December 14. 2000
For: PA 99-054, -055 & -056
Downtown Core, West Dublin BART & Village
Parkway Specific Plans, GPA
Printed
Janet Harbin, Senior Planner
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis following each
question. A "no impact" 'answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls
outside a fault rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative
as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "potentially significant impact" entries when the determination
is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" implies elsewhere the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "potentially significant effect" to a
"less than significant impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
processes, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). References to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
document in substantiated. A source list shDuld be attached and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
7) This is only a suggested form and lead agencies are free to use different forms.
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
IV. Water. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of surface
run-off? (Source: 1)
b) Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? (Source:
FEMA map, 1)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
(Source: 1,5,6)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in
any water body? (Source: 1,5,6)
e) Changes in currents or the course or
direction of water movements? (Source:
1,6)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or
withdrawals, or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? (Source:
1,6)
g) Altered direction of rate of flow of
groundwater? (Source: 1,6)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source:
1,6)
V. Air Quality. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
to an existing or projected air quality
violation? (Source: 3,4)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
(Source: 1,3,4)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, temperature,
or cause any change in climate? (Source: 1)
d) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 1)
VI. Transportation/Circulation. Would the
proposal result in?
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(Source: 3)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
(Source: 3)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? (Source: 3,4,5)
d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite?
(Source: 1, 3)
x
X
X
X
X
X
6 ~
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6 X
X
Dublm Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source:
1,5)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
(Source: 1,5)
XI. Public Services. Would the proposal result in
a need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas?
a) Fire protection? (Source: 1,4)
b) Police protection? (Source: 1,4)
c) Schools? (Source: 1,4)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? (Source: 1,4,5)
e) Other governmental services? (Source:
1,4,5)
XII. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems
or supplies, or substantial alterations in the
following utilities?
a) Power or natural gas? (Source: 4)
b) Communication systems? (Source: 4) .
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution systems? (Source: 4)
d) Sewer or septic systems? (Source: 4)
e) Storm water drainage? (Source: 1,4,5)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Source: 1,4,5)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source:
1,4)
XIII. Aesthetics. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or view? (Source: 1, 5)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? (Source: 1, 5) .
c) Create light or glare? (Source: 5)
XIV. Cultural Resources. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Source:
1,5)
b) Disturb archeological resources? (Source:
1,5)
c) Have the potential to cause a physical
change which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values? (Source: 1,5)
d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within potential impact area? (Source: 1,5,6)
XV. Recreation. Would the proposal:
Dublm Planning Department
Downtown SpeCific Plans
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number of or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects).
d) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Unless Impact
Mitigated
X
X
X
X
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts
1. Dublin General Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance
2. Evaluation of Development Scenarios, Downtown Dublin, prepared by Economic and Planning
Systems (EPS) (July 25,2000)
3. Traffic analysis prepared by Omni-Means (August 4, 2000); secondary revisions to the Omni-
Means traffic analvsis (September 22. 2000: memo from Georqe Nickelson of Omni-Means dated
November 13, 2000: and, letters from Peter Gallowav of Omni-Means dated December 8, 2000.
4. Communication with appropriate City of Dublin Department(s) and service providers
5. Site visit
6. Other source (geotechnical reports, biological surveys and other studies)
Dublm Plannmg Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
commercial establishments. The mixed-use area (high density residential and commercial
combination) shown at the southeast corner of Amador Valley Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road would
be compatible with the residential development across Amador Valley Boulevard and the existing
retail commercial uses on Amador Plaza Road.
In both the Downtown Core and the West Dublin BART Specific Plan areas, intensification of
development through increased floor area ratios (FAR) is anticipated. The City's General Plan
presently allows a up to a maximum FAR of .50 in each area for retail and office type uses. The
Downtown Core Specific Plan suggests a maximum FAR of .79 for retail and office uses, and the
West Dublin BART Specific Plan suggests a maximum FAR of .83 for retail and office uses, .,.S7. 1.00
for strictly office use, and 1.00 for mixed-use development. An increased FAR of 1.00 for office use.
as considered for approval by the City Council, on 6.98 acres within this Plan area has been
evaluated in this assessment. Additionally. an increased FAR of 1.12 for the property adiacent to the
West Dublin BART Station is beinq considered in coniunction with the development of a 240 room
hotel. Although these proposed FAR's under the specific plans are greater than those presently.
provided for in the existing General Plan, they are consistent with FAR's in traditional, thriving
downtown areas, and in transit villaqes as proposed with the West Dublin BART Station
development. This is not considered a siqnificant increase nor would it create a siqnificant impact.
General plan amendments will be necessary to amend the allowed FAR for the downtown plan areas
and modify the land uses. The proposed FAR's for the plan areas have been analyzed in regard to
traffic generation rates, and only minor traffic improvements are necessary to support the
intensification of the proposed development under the plans (refer to Section VI, Transportation).
Possible chanqes in trip qeneration rates and levels of service related to the land use chanqes from
. the oriqinal Plans are addressed in the Transportation/Circulation section of this document. These
improvements have been programmed into the Specific Plans. Should FAR's exceedinq these
amounts be proposed with future land use applications. a specific traffic analysis and land use
analysis would be required prior to approval to determine the impacts of the related intensified land
use on the roadway system.
Additionally, adoption of the Downtown Core and West Dublin BART Specific Plans will require that
portions of the previously adopted (1987) Downtown Specific Plan be repealed to modify sections of
the document relative to Development Zones 1,2,3,4,7,8,10 and 11, which are within these specific
areas. Following Plan adoption, amendment of the City's Zoning Ordinance will be necessary.
There are no proposed land use changes or modifications for the Village Parkway Specific Plan area.
The present General Plan allows up to a maximum FAR of .50 for the Village Parkway area, and the
average FAR in that area is currently .26. Therefore, further intensification in this plan area up to a
FAR of .50 would be within the range permitted under the present General Plan. No general plan
amendment will be necessary in conjunction with adoption of this Specific Plan.
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies? NI. The City of Dublin has adopted no other
city-wide or specific environmental plans or policies which would affect this project.. No impacts would
therefore result
c) Incompatibilities with existing land use in the vicinity? NI. The proposed land uses to be established
with the Specific Plans would be compatible with and support the surrounding retail commercial uses
in the three areas (refer to Comment a, above). Non-confprminq uses in the Specific Plan area
would be reviewed in accordance with the City's established zoninq requlations. There will,
therefore, be no impacts related to land use compatibility.
d) Effect on agricultural operations or soils? NI. The site has been used for commercial uses since the
early 1960's. No agricultural operations exist in the subject areas or the surrounding areas of the
City. No impacts would therefore result. (<
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c) Displacement of existing housing, especially affordable housing? NI. The project site has been
developed as a retail commercial and office downtown area. 'It presently contains no housing.
Therefore, there would be no displacement of housing units on the site.
III. Soils and Geology
Environmental Settinq
The site lies within the Tri-Valley area, in the commercial core of Dublin. According to historic geologic
studies in the area, the site is underlain by poorly consolidated, non-marine deposit sedimentary rocks of
the Tassajara Formation. The geotechnical investigation report prepared for the project indicates that the
site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone (1982). There are no mapped faults which are known to .
traverse the site, the closest Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone is the Calaveras Fault located along San Ramon
Road approximately one-quarter mile to. the west. The next nearest active seismic faults include the
Hayward and the San Andreas Faults which are located approximately 9 miles southwest, and 27 miles
west-southwest, respectively. The closest potentially active faults include the (1) Verona, which is
located approximately 3 miles to the south, and (2) the Las Positas, which is located approximately 9
miles to the southeast.
The soil conditions in the downtown area are summarized from previously prepared geotechnical studies
as follows: Medium stiff to stiff lean clays to the maximum depth of about 41.5 feet below site grade
(BSG). The upper 2 to 5 feet BSG consist of dark brown lean clays with varied gravel and sand content.
The upper 6 to 12 inches of the clays were intermixed with wood debris suggesting that the upper 6
inches was engineered fill. The near surface clays exhibit low to moderate plasticity, a low to moderate
expansion potential, and moderate shear strength. The consolidation tests indicate that the clays are
over-consolidated and exhibit low compressibility under the anticipated foundation loads. Groundwater
was encountered in most of the test borings drilled below 10 feet BSG at depths ranging from 12 to 13
feet BSG. From a geotechnical standpoint, the area is suitable for proposed retail commercial and
residential development with regard to support of shallow spread foundations and concrete slabs-on-
grade. As this is a currently built and urbanized area, when excavation activities are proposed with
individual projects on specific sites, geotechnical studies specific to that property may be required at that
time.
Project Impacts
a) Is the site subject to fault rupture? NI. The risk of fault rupture on the site is anticipated to be low,
since the nearest known active or potentially active faults lie a minimum of one quarter mile away.
No impacts would therefore result.
b) Is the site subject to ground shaking? LS. The site as well as the encompassing region is anticipated
to be subject to moderate to severe ground shaking from a number of active and potentially active
faults in the greater Bay Area, including the Hayward fault, San Andreas fault and Calaveras fault.
The ground shaking issue is less than significant for properties in the Specific Plan areas because
new development constructed will be required to adhere to the requirements of the Uniform Building
Code and other seismic safety standards as they are developed over the life of the Specific Plans.
c) Is the site subject to seismic ground failure? NI. Based on previous geotechnical reports and
information for this area of the City, the risk of ground failure would be low. Routine enforcement of
provisions of the 1997 Uniform Building Code and recommendations contained in geoteChnical
reports prepared for specific development projects will serve to reduce potential impacts of seismic
ground failure to a less than significant level.
Dublm Plannmg Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
allow for drainage and irrigation. Construction of new buildings within the areas, under the auspices
of the Specific Plans, would add new impervious surfaces, but would also add additional pervious
surfaces in terms of plazas and more landscaping as required by the Specific Plans. Less-than-
significant impacts to absorption patterns are therefore anticipated.
b) Exposure of people or property to flood hazard? LS. Portions of the Village Parkway and Downtown
Core Specific Plan are subject to flooding during 1 DO-year flood events and are generally inundated
with water during periods of intense and/or long-term rain fall. Representatives of the City of Dublin
Public Works Department have indicated that sub-regional drainage improvements will be
undertaken in the future as part of the City's Capital Improvement budget to alleviate flooding
hazards. Programs to deal with flood hazards are included in the Village Parkway and Downtown
Core Specific Plans. Less-than-significant impacts are therefore anticipated with regard to flood
hazards.
c) Discharge into surface waters or changes to surface water quality? NI. Existing storm drainage
facilities are planned to be used to accommodate stormwater runoff from the Specific Plan areas.
Since the amount of stormwater runoff is not anticipated to increase above existing volumes (see
comment a, above), no impacts are anticipated with regard to discharge into surface water. Future
development projects undertaken under the auspices of the Specific Plans will be required to meet
the water quality requirements of the City of Dublin's NPDES permit and the Alameda County Urban
Runoff Clean Water Program.
d) Changes in amount of surface water? NI. Adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would have no
impacts to surface waters as all drainage shall be directed to the existing storm drainage system. No
impacts to surface bodies of water are therefore anticipated.
e) Changes in currents or direction of water movement? NI. The project would not alter currents or
direction of water movement in nearby water bodies since no substantial changes are anticipated to
the volume of stormwater runoff.
f) Changes in quantity of groundwater? NI. Approval and implementation of the three Specific Plans
would not significantly alter existing ground water resources on or near the project site because all
drainage is directed to the storm drainage system operated by Zone 7. Similarly, significant amounts
of groundwater use are not anticipated, since representatives of the Dublin-San Ramon Services
District have indicated that adequate water supplies have been identified to serve the maximum
amount of development envisioned in the proposed Specific Plans.
g) Altered direction of groundwater? LS Nf. The project would not affect groundwater direction, since no
significant subsurface construction is anticipated. In the event that subsurface excavation is
proposed, adopted City standards require that specific development proiects. such as those requirino
underoround parkino structures. prepare a site-specific hydrolooical analysis with oeotechnical and
soils analysis to determine oroundwater levels. No sionificant impacts are anticipated related to
altered direction of oroundwater.
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? NI. The scope of the project is such that groundwater resources will
not be affected, as discussed above.
i) Substantial reduction of groundwater resources? LS. The project involves approval of three Specific
Plans to upgrade the appearance and land uses in downtown Dublin. Since more intensive land uses
are anticipated in the Plans above that allowed in the current General Plan, some increase in the use
of water is anticipated. Representatives of the Dublin-San Ramon Services District have indicated
that adequate water supplies have been identified and addressed in future District plans to serve the
Dublin Planning Department Page 18
Downtown Specific Plans
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Although building heights may be somewhat higher than currently found on the site, no substantial
interference regarding prevailing wind patterns or climatic conditions is anticipated.
d) Create objectionable odors? NI. Permitted uses allowed by the Specific Plans include primarily retail,
office, entertainment, lodging and residential land uses, none of which are associated with the
release of significant amounts of objectionable odors. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
VI. Transportation/Circulation
[Note: The following section is based on an analysis of the traffic and transportation performed by Omni-
Means, Transportation Consultants in AUQust 2000. with updates in September, November and
December 2000.]
Environmental SettinQ
Major roadways serving the site include:
. Interstate 580, a six-lane east-west freeway connecting Dublin with nearby local communities
such as Livermore and Pleasanton and regional destinations, such as Tracy and Oakland. In the
vicinity of the proposed project, 1-580 carries between 160,000 and 187,000 vehicles per day.
Nearby interchanges include 580/680; Dougherty Rd.lHopyard Rd. and Hacienda Dr. .
. Interstate 680 is a six-lane north-south freeway connecting Dublin with local communities in the
Tri-Valley area and regional destinations north and south of Dublin. This freeway accommodates
between 123,000 and 144,000 vehicles per day with interchanges at Alcosta Blvd., Interstate 580
and Stoneridge Drive.
Dougherty Road extends in a north-south direction east of the Specific Plan areas. A major
arterial roadway, Dougherty Road has four travel lanes north of Dublin Boulevard. South of
Dublin Boulevard, the roadway widens to six travel lanes as it crosses over 1-680, a full-access
interchange for eastbound/westbound traffic is located at Doughertyll-580. In the Dublin
Boulevard area, Dougherty Road provides access primarily to commercial and retail areas. North
of Dublin Boulevard, the road provides access to residential areas as it approaches Amador
Valley Boulevard.
. Amador Plaza Road. is a north-south street extending from Amador Valley Boulevard south
through Dublin Boulevard. Between Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard, Amador
Plaza Road has two travel lanes and a two-way left-turn lane. South of Dublin Boulevard, the
roadway has two travel lanes and provides access to existing and new retail-commercial land
uses . Amador Plaza Road is planed to connect to the new 1-680 southbound on/off ramps
currently under construction.
Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west roadway through the south part of the Village Parkway
planning area. Dublin Boulevard has six travel lanes and raised medians from San Ramon Road
to just east of Regional Street. As Dublin Boulevard approaches Golden Gate Drive, the roadway
narrows to four travel lanes and maintains this configuration east to Dougherty Road. Dublin
Boulevard is designated as a route of regional significant in the Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency's Congestion Management Plan. .
. Golden Gate Drive is a short, two-lane roadway that extends south from Dublin Boulevard.
Providing access to commercial areas, Golden Gate Drive is designed with two travel lanes.
. Regional Street extends south, from Amador Valley Road through Dublin Boulevard. South of
Dublin Boulevard, Regional Street is a wide, two-lane road provides access to retail and
commercial areas. North of Dublin Boulevard, the road has two travel lanes with a two-way left-
turn lane.
Dublm Pla,r:mlng Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
The Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority ("WHEELS") provides bus transit service through the
Dublin area. Bus routes serving the downtown Dublin area include Routes 3, 4, 10 and 201/202.
Regional transit to and from the Dublin area is provided by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART).
BART opened a Dublin/Pleasanton station in the late 1990's, located approximately one mile east of the
project site. A recent proposal has been submitted to BART to construct a Downtown Dublin station
within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area at the terminus of Golden Gate Drive, approximately 1/2
mile south of this Specific Plan area.
Bikeways exist or are proposed on Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard . Amador Valley
Boulevard is presently designated for a Class II bikeway lane, which is designed with a one-way striped
lane for bicycle travel on the roadway. Dublin Boulevard is proposed for a Class II bikeway lane, to be
opened with the completion of the roadway improvements. Public sidewalks have been constructed
adjacent to many of the streets within and adjacent to the Specific Plan areas.
The City commissioned a traffic consultant (Omni-Means, transportation consultants) to prepare a traffic
analysis regarding transportation arid circulation impacts of approving and implementing the three
Specific Plans.
General Plan Transportation Policy Framework
The General Plan measures and evaluates traffic congestion conditions of the roadway network by using
intersection level of service ("LOS") analysis. The LOS analysis describes the operational efficiency of
an intersection by comparing the volume of critical traffic movements to intersection capacity and
determining average delays. LOS can range from "A," representing free-flowing conditions, to "F,"
representing very severe congestion and intersection breakdown.
The General Plan adopts LOS D or better as the acceptable LOS for all routes of regional significance
(these routes include: Dublin Blvd., Dougherty Rd., Tassajara Rd., and San Ramon Rd.). Development
and road improvements should be phased so that the LOS does not deteriorate below LOS D (V/C .91
or greater) (General Plan Guiding Policies 5.1.1 B and C).
Siqnificance Criteria
Based upon General Plan policies, an intersection impact is considered significant if it causes the overall
intersection LOS, or a movement LOS in the intersection, to fall below LOS D.
Proiect Impacts
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? LS. The proposed project would increase vehicle trips
and traffic congestion on the local roadway network, which could deteriorate existing levels of service
on some affected roadways. Table 1, summarizes existing traffic conditions in and around the
Specific Plan sites, which also includes anticipated traffic from approved but not yet constructed
projects. The table also shows anticipated traffic impacts for the same intersections at full build out of
maximum Specific Plan densities. For two of the intersections, Golden GatelDublin Boulevard and
Amador Plaza/Dublin Boulevard, projected traffic would exceed City thresholds of significance. For
these two intersections, the Specific Plans require the installation of traffic improvements as part of
Specific Plan development to raise the future Level of Service to comply with City standards.
Additional roadway widening improvements would be needed with the projected traffic volumes.
Golden Gate Drive would require widening to four travel lanes with two-way left-turn lanes between
Dublin Plannrng Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
feet. Accordino to the City's traffic consultant, this would result in more traffic trips per day than the
residential use at the same location. Because of this, intersections in the vicinity may operate at
LOS "DOl rather than LOS "C". LOS "0" is oenerally considered an acceptable level of service, so
althouoh trips would increase, it would not be a siqnificant increase and will be adequately addressed
by the policies and proqrams in the Specific Plans.
At their meetinq on October 24, 2000, the Planninq Commission suqqested revisions to be included
in the Downtown Core Specific Plan, and also in the General Plan Amendments for the proiect. The
Commission suqqested a chanqe in the! FAR for a 2.55 acre Retail/Auto use property to reflect a
request by Kenneth and Marc Harvey of Dublin Honda for property on Amador Plaza Road. The
chanqe modifies the FAR from 0.20 (or 22,420 square feet with the existinq development on the site)
to 0.79, resultinq in a development potential of 87,750 square feet. This chanqe would provide for
consistency between the FAR of the Honda dealership property and that of the adiacent property,
former site of Shamrock Ford, at the corner of Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road. It is not
anticipated that traffic in the area would increase with this FAR increase as the existinq use would
remain the same, and the additional square footaqe would be utilized for storaqe and office space
associated with that use. The policies and proqrams in the Specific Plans should be adequate for the
proposed land use. Anv land use chanqe application for this property in the future would require a
land use and traffic analvsis to evaluate the impacts on the Specific Plan area.
For the Village Parkway Specific Plan area, the City Council appointed a Task Force which met over
a six-month period to discuss and direct the revitalization of the business community along the
segment of Village Parkway between Amador Valley Boulevard to the north and Dublin Boulevard to
the south. To accomplish this revitalization effort, it was decided by the Task Force that slowing
traffic and providing better parking opportunities close to businesses would create a more pedestrian
and shopper friendly environment, thereby stimulating the economic growth of businesses and
increasing the activity level in the area. Four different options for roadway improvements along
Village Parkway were evaluated during the specific plan development process, along with the
existing roadway configuration as shown in Exhibit 7 A of the Specific Plan. The following is a brief
description of each of the Village Parkway roadway alternatives considered. Exhibits illustrating the
alignment and cross section of Village Parkway for each alternative are contained in Appendix A5 of
the Village Parkway Specific Plan.
Alternative 1: The Village Parkway Specific Plan Task Force reviewed the various options for the
roadway, all of which contained diagonal parking to bring people closer to business storefronts
and to change the streetscape in the area. Alternative 1, as shown in Exhibit 10A of Appendix
A5 of the Specific Plan, would provide four lanes of traffic on Village Parkway (two lanes in each
direction) combined with diagonal parking along the street frontage in selected locations. There
are approximately 60 existing parallel parking spaces along Village Parkway at this time, and 121
parking spaces could be provided with this alternative.
A four-foot class III bicycle lane would be located between the diagonal parking and the right
traffic lane. The sidewalk would be widened from five feet (existing right-of-way is eight feet) to
10 feet to provide enough space for increased pedestrian use. Two new crosswalks for
pedestrians would be provided in mid-block locations with caution signals. Each traffic lane
would be 12 feet and the center median would be reduced from 16 feet to 14 feet in width.
In the Consultant's Report of the Transportation Impacts for the Proposed Village Parkway,
Downtown Core, and West BART Station Specific Plans prepared by Omni-Means for the
Downtown specific plans, the consultant determined that this alternative would create the least
potential roadway impacts of the four alternatives and recommended it for implementation. This
determination was based on the following: 1) four travel lanes would be maintained; 2) diagonal
parking would provide additional spaces close to business frontages; and, 3) bicycle traffic would
be provided on the street (however, this could create some conflicts between motorists backing
out of spaces and bicyclists). Some conflicts may occur between through vehicles and those
Dublm Planning Department
Downtown SpeCific Plans
Page 24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
intersections of Amador Valley BoulevardNillage Parkway and Dublin BoulevardNillage Parkway
would operate at LOS 0 during the AM peak hour, and LOS F during the PM peak hour
Implementation of this alternative would require a public/private partnership, or joint partnership
between private property owners and the City to balance the cost of improvements, but to a
lesser degree than Alternative 1 and 2. This alternative requires cooperation and commitment by
both the City and the property owners on Village Parkway to be successful. The preliminary cost
estimate for this alternative is $1,050,000, and is the lowest cost alternative when compared to
the other three alternatives.
Alternative 4 - Alternative 4, as shown in Exhibit 100, would provide four lanes of traffic on
Village Parkway (two lanes in each direction) and a four-foot bicycle lane. Diagonal parking
would be provided along the frontage of businesses in selected locations, but it would be
separated from street traffic by narrow medians. A total of approximately 106 parking spaces
would be provided with this alternative along Village Parkway. Drive aisle entrances would
provide access to these separated parking areas. Two new crosswalks for pedestrians would be
provided in mid-block locations with caution signals. Each traffic lane would be 12 feet and the
center median would be reduced from 16 feet to 14 feet in width. The total right-of-way (ROW)
required for this option would be 128 feet. As the roadway ROW is currently 100 feet, an
additional 14 feet of ROW on each side of the street would need to be obtained from property
owners.
This alternative would increase the distance between roadway traffic and the businesses on
Village Parkway, and may not meet the objective of slowing traffic and providing a more
pedestrian oriented streetscape, as the width of the ROW would be substantially increased.
Implementation of this alternative would require a public/private partnership, or joint partnership
between private property owners and the City to balance the cost of improvements. The
preliminary cost estimate for this alternative is the highest of the four alternatives at $3,130,000.
Therefore, as the cost is extremely high and it would not meet the basic objective of providing
parking close to the street and businesses with better pedestrian access, it is not recommended
as a viable alternative. .
Staff has several concerns reqardinq narrowinq Villaqe Parkway to two lanes of traffic and addinq
diaqonal parkinq, as preferred by the Task Force. Vehicle trip diversion may occur. as discussed in the
previous section, and adversely affect the adjacent neiqhborhood to the east. This could affect the
quality of life for that portion of the City residential area by creatinq safety hazards for residents and
children attendinq the neiqhborhood school. Noise levels could also increase in the area with the
additional cut-throuqh traffic. Additionally, the Alameda County Fire Department and Dublin Police
Department have expressed concerns related to community safety. response time, and the creation of
roadway hazards in the event that Villaqe Parkway is reduced to two lanes of traffic with diaqonal
parkinq within the existinq riqht-of-way. Another option for the alignment of Village Parkway, which is the
staff recommended option (see attached diaqram), is to maintain the existing roadway without
expansion, and continue the use of parallel parking on both sides of the street. Improvements in the
streetscape and sidewalk could be provided as described in the section of this document on design to
encourage increased pedestrian use in the area. Additionally, joint/shared parking should be
encouraged between properties, with fences removed which impede pedestrian access. This option
would require less capital funds for implementation and would create less roadway impacts.
A letter has been received from the Alameda County Conqestion Manaqement Aqency (ACCMA)
commentinq on the transportation and circulation analysis prepared for the Specific Plans. The City's
traffic consultant has responded to these comments ina letter dated December 8, 2000. The ACCMA
stated that the Dublin Specific Plans qualified for analysis usinq the CountyWide Transporation Demand
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DO.85 CO.78 DO.87 D 0.89
AO.36 A 0.54 A 0.48 CO.79
A 0.28 A 0.48 B 0.68 E 0.91
B 0.62 CO.80
A 0.44 CO.76 AO.58 F 1.02
A 0.50 00.83
A 0.47 A 0.60 A 0.47 B 0.66
A 0.40 A 0.51 A 0.42 AO.53
AO.35 A 0.51 A 0.36 A 0.54
AO.37 B 0.66 AO.39 C 0.71
CO.74 D 0.90 C 0.75 D 0.88
B 0.62 AO.58 B 0.62 AO.56
C 0.73 D 0.85 C 0.72 D 0.85
A A
AO.56 B 0.61
A 0.41 A 0.45
Note: Italics text indicates volume to capacity ratio and Level of Service after implementation of Specific
Plan traffic improvements
d) Insufficient parking capacity on site or offsite? LS. Approval of the three Specific Plans and
construction of improvements based on the Specific Plans would increase the demand. for on-site
parking within each of the three areas. Parking demand would also be increased due to the planned
presence of the proposed West Dublin BART station, the development of which is not part of the
Specific Plan project. Requirements included in each of the Specific Plans require that all new land
uses proposed pursuant to a Specific Plan include on-site parking to meet current City of Dublin
parking requirements. Existinq uses are assumed to provide sufficient parkinq with applicable City
standards on-site at the time of oriqinal construction and development. The Specific Plans provide
that ~xceptions to parkinq requlations may be allowed for shared use of parking facilities, or in
instances where the Planninq Commission or City Council find evidence based on a parkinq analvsis
that a reduced parkinq ratio is appropriate due to the proximity of the use to public transit service.
The Specific Plans also provide that Provioion of additional parking facilities maybe reviewed and
required will be reviewed as individual Site Development Review applications are submitted to the
City of Dublin for new construction projects. This review process will ensure that adequate parking is
provided and any parking impacts would be less-than-significant.
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? NI. The proposed Specific Plans .would require
construction of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities to encourage non-auto travel modes. No impacts
are therefore anticipated.
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle
. racks)? Nl. Each of the Specific Plans require the installation of some new facilities to support
enhanced bus service to each of the three sites. However, the additional facilities would be within
areas presently served by transporta~ion services. The new facilities would be consistent with
. adopted policies supporting alternative transportation as they would provide more opportunities to
use varying modes of transportation. Therefore, no impacts are foreseer:.
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? Nl. The proposed project is not sited near operating railroad
facilities, near a navigable waterway or near an airport. Although the West Dublin BART Specific
Plan is located near the proposed West Dublin BART station, the intent of the Specific Plan is to
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
generated by residences, business and industrial establishments by promoting recycling and similar
programs.
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the
region and residents of the State? NI. The project site is not located in an area designated by the
California State Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, as having sufficient
mineral resources that are suitable as marketable commodities. No impacts are therefore expected.
IX. Hazards
Environmental Settinq
The Specific Plan areas are located in previously developed commercial. office and similar non-
residential areas. Existing uses within the West Dublin BART and Downtown Core Specific Plan areas
include automobile sales and service uses. Operation of these facilities use oil, grease, solvents and
other potentially hazardous materials. It is anticipated that some or all of these uses would remain in
business after adoption of the two Specific Plans; however, storage and handling of potentially
hazardous materials is controlled by the Alameda County Fire Department, Alameda County Health
Department, Regional Water Quality Control Board and other regulatory agencies..
Proiect Impacts
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances including but not limited to oil,
pesticides, chemicals, or radiation? NI. With the exception of auto-oriented uses, none of the land
uses permitted by the proposed Specific Plans would store, use or transport significant quantities of
hazardous substances. No impacts are therefore anticipated with regard to hazardous substances.
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? NI. Future
site development plans proposed within the three Specific Plans will be reviewed by the Dublin
Police Department, Dublin Planning Department and Alameda County Fire Department to ensure
that adequate emergency evacuation is provided per City requirements. No impacts are therefore
anticipated.
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? NI. Development of land uses and
other facilities pursuant to the three Specific Plans are not anticipated to generate significant health
hazards, since permitted uses would generally include commercial, office, entertainment, restaurant
and residential uses. No industrial or manufacturing land uses are proposed. No impacts are
therefore anticipated.
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? LS. Generally, new land uses in
the Specific Plan areas would include commercial, office, lodging, entertainment and similar uses,
none of which would involve creation of a health hazard. New development that may be located near
automobile serving uses could have the potential to expose employees and visitors to health
hazards; however, the potential for exposure of people to health hazards from existing uses will be
reviewed during the Site Development Plan process to ensure compliance with all applicable health
and safety regulations. Less-than-significant impacts are therefore expected.
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees? LS. The proposed Specific Plan
areas are located in urbanized areas and existing uses have been constructed in compliance with
Uniform Fire and Building Code requirements. Existing and future landscaped areas will be
permanently irrigated and maintained so that the potential for fire is reduced to a less-than-significant
level. .
Page 30
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Other Qovernmental services. Other governmental services are provided by the City of Dublin
including community development and building services and related governmental services.
Library service is provided by the Alameda County Libr~ry with supplemental funding by the City
of Dublin.
The City of Dublin has adopted a Public Facilities Fee for all new residential development in the
community for the purpose of financing new municipal public facilities needed by such development.
Facilities anticipated to be funded by the proposed fee would include completion of the Civic Center
Complex, construction of a new library, expansion of the existing senior center, acquisition and
development of new community and neighborhood parks and similar municipal buildings and facilities.
Future applicants for development pursuant to the Specific Plans would be required to pay this fee.
Environmental Impacts
a) Fire protection? LS. Approval of the three Specific Plans and future construction in compliance with
the Specific Plans would incrementally increase the demand for fire and emergency calls for service
since additional building square footage would be added to each site. As part of the site development
review process for individual buildings, specific fire protection requirements will be imposed to ensure
compliance with applicable provisions of the Uniform Fire Code. Such measures would include but
not limited to installation of new fire hydrants, fire extinguishers and similar features. Based on
standard City fire protection requirements, fire protection impacts would be less-than-significant.
b) Police protection? LS. Approval of the three Specific Plans and future construction in compliance
with the Specific Plans would incrementally increase the demand for police calls for service since
additional building square footage would be added to each site. As part of the site development
review process for individual buildings, specific security requirements will be. imposed to ensure
compliance with applicable provisions of the City's building security ordinance. Such measures would
include, but not be limited to, installation of appropriate locking devices, installation of security
lighting and similar features. Based on standard City security requirements, police protection impacts
would be less-than-significant:
c) Schools? LS. The West Dublin BART and Downtown Core Specific Rlans each call for a residential
component. Although the size, type and orientation of dwellings that would be proposed for
development would likely generate a minimal amount of students to be served by the Dublin Unified
School District, there could be an incremental increase in the number of school-aged children. As
part of subdivision and site development review of future residential projects, coordination will occur
with school district officials to ensure that less-than-significant impacts would result,
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? LS. Approval of the Specific Plans and construction
of individual development projects pursuant to the Plans would incrementally increase the need for
maintenance of public facilities. Payment of public facility fees to the City of Dublin by individual
projects would ensure that future maintenance impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant
levels.
e) Other governmental seNices? LS. Approval of the Specific Pions would represent incremental
increases in the demand for general governmental services. Payment of the City's Public Facility Fee
by individual project developers would offset any impacts caused by such projects, reducing any
impacts to a less-than-significant impact.
Page 32
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
I
I
I
I
I
'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Although approval of the proposed Specific Plans will incrementally increase the amount of solid
waste, any such increases will be insignificant because the existing facility would be able to be
accommodated given the existing solid waste facilities and resources. As stated in VIII-b above, the
City is mandated by AB 939 to reduce the solid waste stream generated by residences, businesses
and industrial establishment by promoting recycling and similar programs.
g) Local or regional water supplies? NI. DSRSD staff indicate that adequate long-term water supplies
are available from Zone 7 and other sources to serve the proposed project.
XIII. Aesthetics.
Environmental Settinq
The Specific Plan areas are located within existing urbanized areas and are not located adjacent to.
scenic highways.
Environmental Impacts
a) Affect a scenic vista or view? Nl. The proposed Specific Plan includes development programs to.
intensify existing land use patterns. Each Specific Plan contains height and bulk requirements to
ensure that scenic vistas from surrounding areas would not be blocked. The Specific Plans establish
a heiqht limit of six stories for the Downtown Core and Villaqe Parkway areas. . The Planninq
Commission has recommended a heiqht limit of ten stories for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan
area to the. City Council. which is common with development in most urban downtowns and
development near freeways. The City Council may determine that ten stories is appropriate for this
area due to its location near the BART Station, a maior transit facility, and the 1-580 and 1-680
freeways. Review of individual proiects in accordance with the desiqn quidelines related to
reduction in bulk and quality of desiqn as detailed in the Specific Plan will result in less-than-
siqnificant impacts on views.
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Nl. Each Specific Plan contains design guidelines to
ensure that new development projects occurring pursuant to an approved Specific Plan would result
in an aesthetically pleasing manner and would include additional landscaping. As part of the Specific
Plan programs, new public plazas, streetscape elements and other improvements would be
completed to improve aesthetic conditions. Therefore, no negative aesthetic impacts would be
created.
c) Create light or glare? LS. Proposed new uses constructed pursuant to the Specific Plans could
incrementally increase light levels in each of the Plan areas. New sources of light would include
street lighting, plaza lighting and building security lighting with new development projects and,
possible, extended hours of business. However, a significant amount of exterior lighting has already
been installed within each of the Specific Plan areas. Standard conditions of approval for individual
development projects will require that pole-mounted lights shall be equipped with cut-off luminaires.
Wall-mounted lights must also be equipped with cut-off lenses. Any additional light or glare created
would be therefore be minimalless-than-significant.
XIV. Cultural Resources
Environmental Settinq
The project site has been developed for a range of commercial and similar non-residential areas. No
cultural resources remain on the graded surface of the site. Since surface improvements are less than
fifty years old or newer, no historic resources exist on the site.
Dublm Planning Department Page 34
Downtown Specific Plans
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8
I:
I
I
I
I
I
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects). LS. Although incremental increases in certain areas can be
expected as a result of constructing this project, including additional traffic, short-term air emissions
and need for public services and utilities, the project site lies within an already urbanized area and
sufficient capacity exists within service systems to support the anticipated amount of development
planned as part of the three Specific Plans.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly? NI. Due to project design and site characteristics, approval and
implementation of the three Specific Plans involve no impacts that would adversely effect human
beings, either directly or indirectly.
Initial Study Preparer
Janet Harbin, Senior Planner
Jerry Haag, Consulting Planner
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study:
City of Dublin
Eddie Peabody Jr., AICP, Community Development Director
Lee Thompson, Public Works Director
Kevin van Katwyk, Senior Engineer
T. Philipps, Alameda County Sheriff's Department
James Ferdinand, Alameda County Fire Department
Dublin-San Ramon Services District
Bruce Webb, Senior Engineering Planner
References
Dublin General Plan, Revised September 1992
Dublin General Plan Housinq Element, June, 1990
Dublin Zoninq Ordinance, Adopted September 1997
Draft Downtown Core Specific Plan, City of Dublin, September /\uguct,2000
Draft Villaoe Parkway Specific Plan. City of Dublin, September August, 2000
Draft West Dublin BART Specific Plan, City of Dublin, September J\uguct, 2000
Consultant's Report on the Transportation Impacts .for the Proposed Village Parkway, Downtown
Core and West BART Station Specific Plans, prepared by Omni-Means, LTD., August 28, 2000;
secondary revisions to the Omni-Means traffic analysis (September 22, 2000; memo from
Georqe Nickelson of Omni-Means dated November 13, 2000: and, December 8, 2000 letters
from Peter Galloway of Omni-Means.
DublIn PlannIng Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 36
------~~--~--~-----
Village Parkway Alignment: Staff Recommendation (Existing
Alignment)
~/
"" '..",
''''\\,,'' " ;'
\ ! /
"~/./,,
'\,
, ,
...., /'
.... ) ,
". /'/'
'v'.' /
/ 0 ,-
, ~ /..
/ r;) "{ ,/ C~~
.;::;'-/ / r-
o ( L-
Qj .,.......------
,
"""
\,
,
,
"
\.,
,
.--..------ I!OOSTINO CONl>mON
VlLLAOE PJJlICllAY Sl'IlCIFIC PLAN
SIlP'I'EUBBR 2000 SO.ll..E, 1.....0.
EXHIBIT 7A
Staff R~~ommel1~a~iQ.n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED' that the Dublin City Council does hereby find that:
A The Specific Plans and associated actions would not have a significant effect on the environment,
because mitigation is incorporated into the Plans as part of Plan implementation.
B. The Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Stat~ and local environmental
laws and guidelines.
C. The Negative Declaration is complete and adequate and reflects the City's independent judgment
and analysis as to the environmental effects of the proposed Specific Plans, General Plan Amendments and
repeal of portions of the 1987 DoWntown Specific Plan. . .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby adopt the Negative.
Declaration for P A 99-054, Village Parkway Specific Plan; P A 99-055, Downtown Core Specific Plan;'
and, P A 99-056, West Dublin BART Specific Plan, including the Initial Study incorporated herein by
reference.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 19th day of December, 2000.
AYES: Councilmembers Lockhart; McCormick, Oravetz, Zikaand Mayor Houston
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
~Ir
Mayor
.dt-
K2/G/12-19-00/reso-SP-negdec.doc (Item 6.4)
G\Do-wntown Specfic P1ans\CCNDRES.doc
2