HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.3 Dublin Downtown Specific Plan AGENDA STATEMENT1
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 11, 1987
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Dublin Downtown Specific Plan
and Associated General Plan Amendment.
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1. March 11, 1987, Transmittal Letter from
Joe Devane, D.I.S.C. Chairperson, to
Planning Commission
2. March 6, 1987, Draft Dublin Downtown
Specific Plan with Replacement Pages
(Under Separate Cover)
3. Replacement Pages to March 6, 1987, Draft
4. Draft Negative Declaration
5. March 16, 1987, Planning Commission
Minutes
6. March 19, 1987, Planning Commission
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open public hearing.
2. Hear Staff and Consultant presentations
and D.I.S.C./public comments on an issue
by issue basis.
3. Provide conceptual guidance to Staff on
each issue.
4. Continue until Staffing and cost
implications are resolved as part of the
1987-88 budget review.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: To be determined through the budget process.
DESCRIPTION:
I. Background
The Dublin General Plan established an overall goal of maintaining the
downtown as the commercial center of the Tri-Valley area. To implement this
goal, the City Council appointed the Downtown Improvement Study Committee
(D.I.S.C. ) . The D.I.S.C. is made up of local business persons, local
citizens, and a Dublin Chamber of Commerce representative. To help provide
planning, engineering and architectural expertise, the City Council, in the
Fall of 1985, approved the hiring of three (3) consultant firms:
1) Wurster, Bernardi & Emmons (Larry Cannon)
2) TJKM (Chris Kinzel)
3) Laventhol & Horwath (Elliot Stein)
Over the past 15 months, the D.I.S.C. Staff and Consultants regularly
met and conducted detailed land use, traffic, and market studies; attempts
were made to contact each major property owner; and a joint City
Council/Planning Commission meeting was held to discuss the major downtown
plan concepts.
On February 19, 1987, the D.I.S.C. reviewed the Draft Plan, made several
revisions, and recopmended approval of the Draft Plan as revised.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES: DISC (10) -
Dublin Chamber of Commerce
Planning Commissioners (5)
Planning Department
Larry Cannon - WBE
ITEM NO. a Chris Kinzel - TJKM
'KZ:'r�r-y -r ,,T+E ,x ,a x��� � � ,.1T^- �.'''� ^.-` � 1+,,.. Ft G•f ,r��^���r-s�+rt-�fr^�� F � � .n� -t- ,
On March 16 and 19, 1987, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
on the Draft Plan and associated General Plan Amendment. The Planning
Commission recommended several modifications, including:
1) maintaining the existing allowable height limit of 45 feet,
providing for up to 75 feet in certain areas with a Conditional
Use Permit, and establishing a not to exceed height limit of 75
feet;
2) a Zoning Ordinance modification to establish a Downtown Overlay
Zoning District;
3) a diagram illustrating the pedestrian circulation; and
4) a General Plan Amendment with three changes to the Dublin General
Plan.
On April 6, 1987, the Planning Commission adopted resolutions
recommending adoption of the Negative Declaration and adoption of the Dublin
Downtown Specific Plan and associated General Plan Amendment as modified.
II. Issues
The Draft Dublin Downtown Specific Plan has five major sections:
1) Specific Plan Policies
2) Circulation/Parking
3) Development Plan, including Land Use and Central Block
Improvements
4) Urban Design Improvements
5) Implementation
The primary goal of the Draft Plan is to maintain and further develop
the downtown area as a vital and competitive regional retail center. Specific
focuses in the Draft Plan include:
- Central Block Improvements around the Mervyn's - Ward's (Toys R Us) -
Gemco (Target) Area
- Restaurant Row Concept along Amador Plaza Road
- Joint Promotional Program for Downtown Businesses
- Urban Design Improvements, including Entry Signage, Banners,
Landscaping and Street Furniture
- Public and Private Sector Implementation, including identification of
about $3 million in new projects/programs.
The Draft Plan includes several minor changes to the General Plan. The
General Plan Amendment is needed in order to have conformance between the
General Plan and Specific Plan. The changes include:
1) Changing the area west of I-680-from Retail/Office and Automotive to
Retail/Office.
2) Eliminating the designation on the General Plan Map of a new inter-
change on I-680 at Amador Valley Boulevard, but maintaining the
flexibility to accommodate such a facility.
3) Changing the area at Village Parkway and Dublin Boulevard from
Business Park/Industrial to Retail/Office.
The Implementation Section of the Draft Plan includes a number of new
projects and programs which could have significant staffing and cost
implications. Prior to adopting the various implementation strategies, the
City Council should have a clear understanding of those staffing and cost
implications.
If the City Council can review and give conceptual guidance or approval
to the various implementation strategies, the Staff could better address the
cost of each strategy and bring the information back to the City Council
through the budget process.
-2-
III. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Open the public hearing.
2. Hear presentations by Staff and Consultants, and comments by
D.I.S.C. and the public on each section, issue or strategy of the z
Draft Plan.
3. Provide conceptual guidance or approval on each section, issue or
strategy.
4. Continue the public hearing until staffing and cost implications
are resolved as part of the 1987-88 budget review.
-3-
;21ty;;77.;•.s M.'f+yT•*�t•�,;,3'SS4,�tiy T"'�3 1;Jt T, ^•, TY;.4t �'y l ' '7t y�;N;.y.i "G aY•^^T'yZ . �q ^[+^sF...rte q �'. _-p�":..._..q,
Y i t' s- ;`• ro- ..y dF U 5 7.•id.•;+,7•`' - •€'�,'..'1 ) ..: �' ` :? e''•:,i in i � � ��-.�, � ...
,;...' •.. _ a .:'4:'w Fake.Y.,4•....` �:...C..?. .., _ .asc .c....:.; � .r,r .. ,J.-.___ !_.__..,. ,;� ..�•� :3,P._ '°. • Y ��. -
CITY OF DUBLIN
Development Services Planning/Zoning 829-4916
PO. Box 2340 .uilding & Safety 829-0822
Dublin, CA 94568 Engineering/Public Works 829-4927
DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT STUDY COMMITTEE
March 11, 1987
TO: Planning Commission and City Council
Planning Director
FROM: Joe Devane, D.I.S.C. Chairperson
RE: Transmittal of Draft Dublin Downtown Specific Plan
On behalf of the Dublin Downtown Improvement Study Committee (D.I.S.C.) , it is
with great pleasure that I transmit for your consideration the Draft Dublin
Downtown Specific Plan. Over the last 15+- months, the D.I.S.C. , Staff and
Consultants have devoted hundreds of hours and considerable thought and effort
in producing a plan that should benefit the Downtown and overall City for many
years to come. By concensus, the D.I.S.C. strongly recommends that the City
adopt the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan.
JD/LLT/ao
ATTACHMERT
•
Dublin
Downtown
Specific
DRAFT
March 6, 1987
(R-1 with Replacement Pages as Revised
by Planning Commission)
WURSTER , BERNARDI AND EMMONS , INC .
CREDITS -
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION
Linda J. Jeffery, Mayor Brian Raley, Chairperson
. Georgean Vonheeder , Vice Mayor Valerie Barnes, Vice Chairperson
Peter J. Hegarty Bill Burnham
Paul C. Moffatt Eddie Jo Mack
Peter W. Snyder Dave Petty
CITY STAFF
Richard Ambrose, City Manager
Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director
Lee Thompson, City Engineer
DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT STUDY COMMITTEE
Joe Devane , Chairperson
Tom McCormick , Vice Chairperson
Jim Daugherty
Rick Camacho
Bill Burnham
Arnold Durrer
Rich Enea
Steve Heath
Scott Thompson
Cara Vose
Bud Lake
CONSULTANTS
Wurster, Bernardi and Emmons, Inc. Laventhal & Horwath
Larry L. Cannon, Principal Elliot Stein
Trina Auelmann
TJKM Traffic Consultants E.I.P. Associates
Chris Kinzel Donald Dean
Ty Tekawa
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
CONCEPT
PAGE
1. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Project Area Description 1
B. Specific Plan Goals 1
C. Specific Plan Overview 6
2. SPECIFIC PLAN POLICIES 10
A. General 10
B. Circulation 10
C. ' Parking 11
D. Land Use 11
E. Urban Design 12
F. Implemen-tation and Funding 12
3. C I RCULAT/ON AND PARKING 14
A. Circulation Plan 14
�) Existing Conditions 14
2) Vehicular Circulation Plan 14
3) Pedestrian Circulation Plan 19
B. Parking Plan 21
1) Existing Conditions 21
2) Parking plan 22
4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 24
A. Land Use Plan 24
1) Overview 24
2) Land Use Zones 27
3) Interim Use Zones 30
4) General Plan Changes 33
5) Zoning Ordinance Modifications 35
6) Development Standards 36
B. Central Block Improvement Plan 38
1) Existing Conditions 38
2) Circulation Plan 39
3) Parking Plan 39
4) Improved Project Entries 39
5) Development Intensification 40
6) Implementation Overview 43
5 . URBAN DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 46
A. Center Median Theme 46
B. Downtown Entries 49
C. Project Entries 52
D. Restaurant Row 52
1) Enhanced Landscaping 54
2) Pedestrian Crossings 54
3) Pedestrian Lighting 54
4) Street Furniture 55
E. Street Furniture 55
6. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 58
A. Implementation Strategy 58 '
1) Circulation Strategies 59
2) Parking Strategies 61
3) Land Use Strategies 63
4) Central Block Improvement Strategies 64
5) Urban Design Improvement Strategies 66
6) Restaurant Row Strategies 68
7) Special Programs 69
B. Funding Plan 74
1) Implementation Costs 74
2) Potential Funding Mechanisms 78
3) Funding Strategy 83
7. APPENDIX
Item A: Current Development Conditions
Item B: Existing Zoning Map
Item C: Largest Landholding Property Owners
Item D: Preliminary Intersections Improvements Plan
Item E: Street Furniture Standards/Examples
Item F: Summary of Estimated Market Demand
LIST OF DIAGRAMS
PAGE
1. Location Map: Downtown Specific Plan Area 2
2. Specific Plan Area Boundaries 3
.3. Study Intersections and Traffic/Parking Zones 15
4. Circulation Improvements 18
5. Pedestrian Circulation Plan 20
5A. Proposed Street -Sections 20A
6. Peak Off-Street Parking Utilization Summary 22
7. Existing Land Use Plan 25
8. Land Use Objectives 26
9. Development Zones Map 28
10. Interim Use- Zones and Standards 31
11. General Plan Changes 34
12. Special Site Development Standards 37
13. Central Block Potential Improvements Summary 41
14. Central Block Development Intensification
Opportunity Areas 42
15. Central Block Illustrative Plan 44
16. Conceptual' Section - New Central, Block Structure 45
17. Urban Design Public Improvements Concept 47
18. Center Median Theme Treatment 48
19. Other Center Median Theme Potentials 50
20. Downtown Entries Elements 51
21. Project Entries 53
22. Restaurant Row Conceptual .Plan 56
23 . Restaurant Row Conceptual Section 57
LIST OF TABLES
A. Existing Intersections Levels of Service 16
B. Downtown Parking Requirements 23
C. Downtown Dublin Development Standards 36
D. Estimated Implementation Costs 75
E. Capital Improvements Financing Alternatives 82
F. Recommended Funding Mechanisms 85
R-1
s
1 . Introduction
.1.. INTRODUCTION
A. PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION
Downtown Dublin lies at the southern edge of the City
adjacent to the intersection of Interstate Highways 580 and
680 as shown on Diagram 1. The Specific Plan Project Area
is approximately 220 acres in size and contains close to 2-
1/2 million square feet of building area devoted to a
variety of land uses. Approximately 10 percent of the land
area .is currently vacant.
The area as shown on Diagram 2 is surrounded on the north,
east and west edges by residential development within the
City of Dublin. The southern edge, Interstate 580 , is
dominated by a mix of uses within the City of Pleasanton the
focus of which is the Stoneridge Regional Shopping .Center.
Within the Specific Plan area itself, there are numerous
privately owned parcels. However, a large percentage of the
area is controlled by a relatively small number of property
owners (See Appendix) .
Four major arterial streets serve the area and provide
direct access to retail stores and services within the
downtown area. They are Dublin Boulevard, San Ramon Road,
Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway. Three lesser
streets , Regional Street, Amador Plaza Road, and Golden Gate
Drive are also important to the vehicular circulation within
the downtown area.
Today, the population of Dublin is approximately 18 ,000
residents. Frequently, the cities of Dublin, San Ramon and
Pleasanton are referred to as the Tri-Valley Area within the
county. The population of that area is approximately
170 ,000 residents. Over the coming fifteen years the City' s
population is projected to increase to 40 ,000 residents and
the Tri-Valley Area' s to 210 ,000 , an increase of around
70 ,000 residents. These future population figures exist
within the context of a year 2000 Alameda County population
estimate of around 1 .4 million residents.
Within this larger regional context, Downtown Dublin serves
a major role as a retail center. Its location at the ,
junction of I-580 and I-680 greatly strengthens that role
and potential strength. Interstate 580 provides access to
and from cities in Alameda County. Interstate 680 connects'
Dublin to Pleasanton and Santa Clara County to the south and
cities in Contra Costa County to .the north.
B. SPECIFIC PLAN GOALS
Until 1981 when the city voted to incorporate, planning ,
engineering design and other services were the
responsibility of Alameda County. Many of the projects
1
r a
/�`
A
f�
9j-
o y PO
y 680
10
JP
O 00R, ¢
F
W
2
O
DOWNTOWN
DUBLIN
o.
P
P
cJ
80
J
E
0
O
9�
of
Location Map
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
2 Diagram 1
ono
Cr. 10
x.
Z cn• uBL ��„ d ,�`
3Z co
All
UWA
�slooi
Specific Plan Area Boundaries
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN 200 400 feet
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
1
3 Diagram 2
within Downtown Dublin were approved and constructed prior z '
to City incorporation. In 1985 a General Plan was adopted
for the new City--..of Dublin and includes the goal of
maintaining the Specific Plan area as the "downtown" - for the
Tri-Valley Area. As growth has accelerated in the area,
however, surrounding cities and large private developments
have stepped up efforts to capture a greater share of future
retail spending. In most cases, plans for new competing
retail areas are better integrated functionally, planned
for a higher degree of shopper convenience and exhibit a
higher level of visual quality than currently exists in
Downtown Dublin. In recognition of the fact that Downtown
Dublin needs to change and improve its overall image in
order to maintain and enhance its competitive position in
future years, the City decided upon a thorough analysis of
the downtown area and the preparation of a Specific Plan to
establish standards, controls and implementation programs
uniquely tailored to the area.
In formulating the Specific Plan, the specialized planning
consultant team and the city staff worked with a City
Council-appointed citizens committee known as the Downtown
Improvement Study Committee (D. I.S.C. ) . As part of the
planning process for Downtown Dublin, the following goals
were established for planning and implementation.
-1) General Goals .
a) To maintain Downtown Dublin as a strong regional
retail center.
b) To maintain and enhance the current sales tax base
of the downtown area.
c) To enhance the quality of Downtown Dublin as a
source of the pride for the residents of the City.
d) To achieve a greater identification of the area
with the City of Dublin.
e) To update development standards inherited from the
County.
f) To protect the residential quality of the
neighborhood adjacent to the downtown area.
2) Circulation Goals -
a) To control the amount and location of future
development to avoid excessive traffic congestion
which could be detrimental to Downtown Dublin' s
retail vitality.
b) To avoid street improvements which would reduce
the visual quality of the downtown environment.
4
c) To encourage better internal circulation among '
adjacent. developments.
d) To encourage better pedestrian connections among
downtown developments.
e) To consider a future regional transit station
within the downtown area or at other locations.
3) Parking Goals
a) To develop and enforce realistic and appropriate
parking standards.
b) To discourage commuter parking on city streets and
in retail parking lots.
c) To encourage a greater joint use of parking areas
through compatible mixes of uses and enhanced
pedestrian connections.
4) Land Use Goals
a) To increase the amount of retail development
downtown.
b) To broaden the mix of retail uses downtown.
c) To encourage the retention of existing automobile
dealerships while developing contingency plans for
their potential relocation within the City of
Dublin.
d) To encourage a greater intensity of development at
appropriate locations.
e) To encourage more full-service restaurants
downtown.
f) To allow increased development without requiring
additional parking in those areas of downtown
where past parking requirements have been
excessive.
5) Urban Design Goals
a) To improve the overall visual quality of the
downtown area.
b) To improve the entry image to downtown.
c) To establish an identifiable design theme.
5
d) To improve the visual relationships between the
two sections of downtown divided by Interstate `
680 .
e) To encourage more landscaping in parking lots.
f) To improve the visual appearance of future
structures.
g) To establish an area within the downtown for
public use and events.
6. Implementation and Funding Goals
a) To establish a realistic level of public
improvements.
b) To utilize both public and private sources of
funds for project implementation.
c) To encourage a greater sense of cooperation among
the downtown property owners and tenants.
d) To encourage the promotion of Downtown Dublin as a
whole.
e) To establish programs for improving existing
developments as well as future ones.
f) To encourage public/private partnerships to
accomplish common objectives.
C. SPECIFIC PLAN OVERVIEW
A Specific Plan is a tool authorized under California
Government Code Sections 65450 through 65457 to give
communities greater control over guiding community
development. A Specific Plan allows the community to provide
more detailed guidance in a localized area and to tailor
regulatory standards more specifically to the unique aspects
of each plan area in order to better implement the policies
and goals of the General Plan. The Specific Plan must be
consistent with the General Plan.
In the case of Downtown Dublin, many of the existing land
use regulations have been adopted from County standards
which were in effect -prior to the City's incorporation.
This Specific Plan examines the opportunities and
constraints which are unique to this area and establishes
standards and implementation programs to meet the goals and
needs of the City.
The following is a brief overview of the highlights of this
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.
6
Circulation
While Downtown Dublin is strategically located at the
intersection of two major interstate highways, its very
location creates ingress and egress problems because of peak
hour traffic flows. Future development will be limited to a
level supportable by a reasonable and affordable level of
street improvements which emphasize the maximum utilization
of existing rights-of-way, and the avoidance of visually
unattractive and expensive traffic solutions.
Provisions will be made for the accommodation of a future
transit station serving the downtown area.
Pedestrian circulation within the downtown will be
encouraged and enhanced with special emphasis given to
Amador Plaza Road, the Central Block Shopping Complex and
the areas connecting the future transit station site to
major shopping and activity areas.
Parking
Parking studies revealed that past standards have resulted
generally in a substantial oversupply of parking within the
downtown. The results have contributed greatly to a
downtown environment dominated by large paved parking areas
with a minimum of. landscaping. The plan revises the parking
standards for downtown, establishes requirements for parking
lot landscaping, encourages additional development without
additional parking where conditions warrant and allows for
the consideration of parking reductions for mixed use
projects. The plan also encourages the placement of
additional landscaping within existing parking lots to
improve the overall visual quality and shopper amenity level
of downtown*.
Land Use
The plan emphasizes retail development on the ground floor
of structures and encourages office and residential uses on
upper floors. Development standards have been prepared to
allow an approximate 30% increase in building area within
the downtown.
Development intensification locations are controlled to
avoid the overloading of critical street intersections and
controls are established to reserve land for parking to
serve regional transit.
Interim use standards are established for key sites which
may. continue to operate with current uses for some time but
for which more .retail-oriented uses are desired if and when
the current uses move.
7
A Dublin "Restaurant Row" with restaurants, specialty shops, '
entertainment uses and second story offices is encouraged
along Amador P1aza 'Road.
Other special requirements are established to improve the
visual appearance of downtown, protect adjacent residential
areas and encourage increased pedestrian connections among
projects.
Central Block Improvements
A conceptual plan is suggested for review and discussion by
property owners and merchants located within the major
central area of Downtown Dublin. The plan encourages
greater vehicular and pedestrian access among the various
portions of the block , a clearer identification of entries
from adjacent streets, and additional landscaping to improve
the visual environment. It further encourages
intensification of development by the selected infill of
buildings where a substantial oversupply of parking spaces
exist.
A major feature of the concept is 'the potential for creating
a structure and/or plaza space for a combination of public
and private use. Since the downtown area does not currently
contain an area where public events can be held, this
element of the concept could assist in creating a greater
civic focus within the area for the benefit of both city
residents and downtown businesses.
Urban Design Improvements
The image and identity of downtown with the City of Dublin
will be enhanced by a series of public urban design
improvements which will be complementary to those recently
implemented by the City. They will consist of improvements
to major downtown entries, the creation of continuity theme
elements located in the medians of the major boundary
streets , entry pylons to major projects and landscape and
pedestrian amenity improvements along the proposed Dublin
Restaurant Row.
Designs will emphasize colorful banners which may be changed
seasonably to support downtown promotional efforts and will
utilize the repetition of a Downtown Dublin logo.
Implementation and Funding
The Specific Plan implementation and funding strategies
emphasize a public/private partnership which includes
flexibility and the. utilization of a variety of funding
sources and methods. Costs of implementing the improvements
and programs for which some certainty of interest and scope
8
are known are estimated to be approximately $4,600 ,000 for
which $1,470 ,000 of funding has already been allocated under `
the current Capital Improvements Program.
Programs are outlined to deal with implementing all major
aspects .of the Specific Plan. In addition, a special
program for -the formulation of a Downtown Dublin Business
Association and the establishment of strong downtown
promotional efforts is outlined.
9
2. Specific Plan Policies
2... SPECIFIC PLAN POLICIES
A. GENERAL
_ 1) The emphasis of Downtown Dublin upon regional retail
uses shall be maintained.
2)- Improved relationships among downtown developments
shall be encouraged and required.
3) Contingency plans to insure the retention of automobile
dealerships within the City of Dublin shall be
prepared. .
4) The City shall seek to enhance the image of Downtown
Dublin as a source of community pride.
B. CIRCULATION
1) The City shall consider the location of a B.A.R.T.
Station in the downtown area after evaluating the
actual impacts of the Park-and-Ride facility and
estimated impacts of a transit station.
2) Circulation improvements shall be limited to normal
street and intersection improvements without
extraordinary elements such as elevated fly-overs or
similar measures.
3) Downtown development shall not depend upon additional
freeways ramps from Interstate Highways.
4) Emphasis shall be placed upon the improvement of
downtown pedestrian circulation where appropriate.
5) The quantity of future development in the downtown area
shall be limited to a level consistent with a realistic
and affordable level of circulation improvements.
6) An annual report shall be prepared for the City Council
on Downtown traffic conditions at least annually to
determine whether any future development limits or
controls are necessary.
7) Internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation among
adjacent projects shall be encouraged. __:
8) The City shall work with regional transit agencies and
will consider all regional transportation programs,
which might have positive impacts upon Downtown Dublin.
9) The City shall consider plans which propose new points
of access to San Ramon Road.
10
C. PARKING `
1) Parking requirements for new construction or for
existing development changes shall take into account
the efficiencies of joint utilization of parking
resources by complimentary uses.
2) Where previously required parking standards can be
demonstrated to have been excessive, the city shall
consider the removal of existing spaces for landscaping
and additional compatible development.
3) On-street parking shall be discouraged except along the
Amador Plaza "Restaurant Row". � .
4) The City shall require that parking lots be
appropriately landscaped.
D. LAND USE
1) Automobile dealerships shall be encouraged to remain
within the City of Dublin.
2) Industrial uses shall be phased out of the downtown
area.
3) Retail use shall be emphasized west of I-680.
4) Non-dinner house and fast food restaurant uses shall be
discouraged along Amador Plaza Road.
5) The City shall encourage and give priority to
restaurants supported by specialty retail and
entertainment uses along Amador Plaza Road.
6) Compatible mixed use projects shall be encouraged.
7) Office and residential uses, shall be encouraged on
levels above the ground floor.
8) Flexibility shall be maintained to accommodate a
B.A.R.T. or other transit system station within the
downtown area.
9) Higher intensities of development shall be encouraged
in locations where resulting traffic conditions will
not substantially contribute to a deterioration in
downtown traffic flows.
10) Development adjacent to residential neighborhoods shall
be carefully reviewed for compatibility. Building
structures immediately adjacent to residential areas
may be limited in height.
11
An increase of height over a portion or all of the site z
up to that specified in the Development Standards may
be granted if the city finds that such an increase
would not be detrimental to adjacent residents.
11) The city shall seek the creation of a downtown plaza
space for joint public and private uses.
E. URBAN DESIGN
1) .Additional public improvements within the downtown area
shall be used to identify the area more strongly with
the City of Dublin.
2) The City shall require adequate landscaping between
. sidewalks and.. parking lots.
3) The City shall encourage and require a high level
building, landscaping and signing quality.
4) Properties adjacent to the freeways shall be required
to adequately landscape the edges of their property as
part of any development approval.
5) The use of tar and gravel roofs shall be discouraged.
6) Substantial areas of sloped roofs shall be encouraged.
7) The use of colorful fabric awnings shall be encouraged.
8) A strong pedestrian environment shall be encouraged
along Amador Plaza Road.
9) Uses along San Ramon Road shall be encouraged to
increase their orientation toward that street and to
implement appropriate building and landscape
improvements.
F. IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
1) Implementation of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
shall be considered a joint public and private sector
effort. The City shall re-evaluate the plan
implementation progress annually to determine whether
private sector participation and cooperation warrants
the continuation of projected public funding levels.
2) The City shall consider the establishment a city-wide
Business License Fee Program.
3) The city shall establish a Traffic Monitoring Program
to periodically assess current and projected traffic
impacts and shall take appropriate actions to revise
the downtown or other area plans to maintain traffic
congestion at levels acceptable to the City.
12
4) Major downtown projects, downtown projects which differ '
substantially from the Specific Plan Development
Standards and projects outside of the downtown area
which are of sufficient size to adversely affect
downtown traffic conditions shall receive special
scrutiny. The city staff may require that special
traffic studies be prepared by the developers, and the
city may require changes or mitigation measures for
those projects which create unacceptable traffic
impacts.
5) The City shall work closely with the Bay Area Rapid
Transit District (B.A.R.T. ) and the Livermore Amador
Valley Transit Authority to coordinate plans and
improvements within Downtown Dublin.
6) The City shall schedule and construct planned street
improvements in a timely manner to accommodate future
development phasing.
. 7) The City will work closely with the downtown property
owners, merchants, other business people and the Dublin
Chamber of Commerce in planning and implementing
improvements and programs for the downtown area.
8) The City will encourage the establishment of a special
downtown promotional program.
9) The establishment of a Downtown Dublin Business
Association will be encouraged.
13
I Circulation and Parking
3. CIRCULATION AND PARKING
A. CIRCULATION PLAN
1) EXISTING CONDITIONS
As part of the Specific Plan process the p.m. peak hour
traffic conditions were evaluated at 11 key downtown
intersections as shown on Diagram 3. Level of Service
calculations were made for each intersection and are
shown on Table A. Level of Service is a volume-to-
capacity measure of an intersection's congestion based
upon a scale of A (good conditions) through F (capacity
or jammed traffic conditions) . A volume-to-capacity
ratio of 0 .90 (the borderline between Levels of Service
D and E) is generally considered the highest limit of
acceptability.
Two downtown intersections (Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon
Road and San Ramon Road/Amador Valley Boulevard)
currently approach or exceed this 0 .90 rating. The
most congested intersection is at Dublin Boulevard and
San Ramon Road with a volume-to-capacity ratio of 0 .99 .
More traffic. placed at this intersection would result
in increased delays and congestion and would be
reflected in a lengthening of the peak traffic period.
Although, additional circulation improvements will be
made, the amount of traffic using the Dublin
Boulevard/San Ramon Road intersection will continue to
be a major determinant of future traffic congestion and
allowable new growth within Downtown Dublin.
2) VEHICULAR CIRCULATION PLAN
The primary vehicular circulation objectives of this
Specific Plan are as follows:
a) Provide circulation improvements to accommodate
reasonable growth in the downtown and avoid
congestion levels which would be detrimental to
continued retail vitality.
b) Avoid street improvements which would reduce
the visual quality of the downtown environment.
c) Provide better internal circulation among projects
located south of Dublin Boulevard.
d) Reduce street widths where. possible consistent
with projected traffic volumes in order to improve
the visual quality of Downtown Dublin.
The Circulation Plan consists of the existing street
system plus the circulation changes shown on Diagram 4 .
They are intended to improve downtown circulation and
accommodate approximately a 30% increase in downtown
14
p0O �
O
�. ) ^�'� Qty/) 0�• �
1 Q
�• ��o°ooh -, � �� ��� �
C7 A
• STUDY INTERSECTIONS -
TRAFFIC/PARKING ZONES
Study Intersections and Traffic/Parking Zones
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN fir`
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
Diagram 3
15
TABLE A
EXISTING •INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE
Intersection
Number Intersection V/C LOS
1 San Ramon Road and Amador Valley
Boulevard 0.90 D
2 Regional Street and Amador Valley
Boulevard 0 .60 A
3 Donohue Drive and Amador Valley
Boulevard 0.53 A
4 Amador Plaza Road. and Amador Valley
Boulevard 0.55 A
5 Village Parkway. and Amador Valley
Boulevard 0.56 A
6 San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard 0.99 E
7 Regional Street and Dublin Boulevard 0 .67 B
8 Golden Gate Drive and Dublin
Boulevard 0.59 A
9 Amador Plaza Road and Dublin
Boulevard 0.59 A
10 Village Parkway and Dublin Boulevard 0.77 C
11 Village Parkway and Lewis Avenue 0 .49 A
V/C = Volume-to-Capacity Ratio
LOS = Level of Service
16
development growth while maintaining a reasonable '
visual quality to attract additional retail shoppers.
The planned •.improvements should allow the addition of a
regional transit facility, a hotel and approximately
675 ,000 square feet of new development within the
downtown area.
Specific improvements to be made are as follows:
a) Widening of San Ramon Road to 6 lanes
b) Widening of Dublin Boulevard to 6 lanes with
additional capacity improvements between San Ramon
Road and Regional Street
c) Realignment and signalization of the I-580 off-
ramps at San Ramon Road to create an intersection
in place of the existing merging lanes
d) A new street south of Dublin Boulevard connecting
Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road
e) New traffic signals at the Amador Valley
Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road and the Village
Parkway/Lewis Avenue intersections
The improvement of Dublin Boulevard between San Ramon
Road and Regional Street will require a modification of
the existing Dublin Boulevard plan line in addition to
the cities proposed improvements in this area. This
should be undertaken as soon as possible. Similarly it
is important to establish the precise alignment through
the adoption of plan lines for the new street south of
Dublin Boulevard.
In addition to these major improvements, project access
from San Ramon Road along with additional minor
modifications and improvements will continue to be
studied and implemented over time to enhance traffic
movements. Intersection lane configuration changes
will be an important part of this effort. Preliminary
changes are shown on item D in the Appendix to this
Plan. Also Amador Plaza Road, while maintaining its
current width at its intersections with Dublin -
Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard, will be reduced
in width. To enhance the pedestrian environment for
restaurants, specialty retail shops,- and entertainment
uses along the street, the space currently utilized for
a continuous left-turn lane will be allocated to
additional landscaping on each side of the street.
Completion of these improvements should allow the sub-
stantial new development outlined above to proceed under
reasonable traffic conditions. Regional market condi-
tions will likely limit the amount of new development
17
s
` NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL \� '
0
WIDENING OF \ J 00
DUBLIN BOULE D
NEW TRAFFIC
SIGNAL
LTZTZ�
RIP-,
son
spot
s \\�
i
G�o -
•
•
NEW STREET
SAN RAMON ROAD
WIDENING
.SAN RAMON ROAD
OFF-RAMP IMPROVEMENTS
Circulation Improvements
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN 200 4W feet
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
18 Diagram 4
which will occur over the next ten to fifteen years to a z '
level below these development estimates. However, other
improvements outside of the downtown area and other
conditions could impact the functioning of the downtown
street network. The Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road
intersection will continue to be the most critical compo-
nent of the system and should be evaluated periodically.
3) PEDESTRIAN. CIRCULATION PLAN
Currently, pedestrian circulation among various portions
of the downtown is difficult, hampered by major streets
and the lack of previous development coordination between
adjacent projects. While Downtown Dublin, because of its
size and character, is unlikely to ever become a strong
pedestrian oriented area, at least a limited network
should be encouraged as shown on Diagram 5 . This network
should be emphasized through the use of wider sidewalks,
substantial landscaping, special pedestrian lighting,
benches, and other pedestrian amenities. Elements of the
network are as follows:
a) Amador Plaza Road
Pedestrian improvements here are intended to support
the "Dublin Restaurant Row" concept, encourage
future specialty retail uses along Amador Plaza Road
and connect the area to potential future hotel uses
south of Dublin Boulevard.
b) Central Block
Improvements here should build upon the existing
pedestrian connection behind the Montgomery Ward and
Mervyn' s stores. Major retail uses in the center of
the area will be tied more closely to restaurant,
retail and entertainment uses along Amador Plaza
Road in order to encourage a stronger relationship
between uses, encourage longer shopping visits to
Downtown Dublin and promote a joint usage of parking
resources while reducing traffic congestion.
c) South Area
The new Circulation Plan road connecting Regional
Avenue and Amador Plaza Road will be designed to
include a strong landscaped pedestrian way along
its length.
d) B.A.R.T. Connection
Improved pedestrian access between the future
potential B.A.R.T. (or other regional transit mode)
Station and the Central Block retail uses will be
encouraged.
19
00
�ti
[� 0 e
IL
12a �
� •i
a
Pedestrian Circulation Plan
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN 200 400 feet
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA �i
20 Diagram 5 .
i.
ANIN
EXISTING
PARKWAY PARKING 2 TRAVEL LANES ENLARGED PARKWAY
EXISTING R.O.W. 68'
ALTERATION TO GOLDEN GATE DRIVE
' �.is fj:'.'•;y::.
PARKWAY 8' 2 TRAFFIC LANES & TURN LANE 44' PARKWAY 16'
PROPOSED R.O.W. 86'
STREET SOUTH OF DUBLIN BLVD.
Proposed Street Sections
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
R-1 20A Diagram 5A
` B. PARKING PLAN
1) EXISTING CONDITIONS
. Much of the development in Downtown Dublin was
constructed under County zoning standards prior to city
incorporation. In many cases, those standards along
with retailers' desires led to substantially more
parking than is realistically needed and to parking
lots which are inadequately landscaped.
A survey of parking conditions was made from 12 to 4
. p.m. just prior to Christmas (December 14) in 1985. A
total of 9 ,273 off-street parking stalls were
inventored in 12 zones and an additional 487 on-street
parking stalls were counted on eight separate street
sections. At this peak retail period the year, only
45% of the off-street and 24% of the on-street parking
spaces were occupied. Occupancy percentages varied in
different areas of the downtown as shown on Diagram 6.
In addition to the above referenced survey, commuter
parking conditions were also observed on a Friday
morning. During the 7 to 8- a.m. survey period, a total
of 125 commuters were parked in private off-street
parking areas (mostly in the Central Block area near
Mervyn' s and Montgomery Ward) and 22 were parked in
legal on-street spaces, mostly on Regional Street.
These concentrations were located near the B.A.R.T.
Shuttle Bus Stop at the intersection of Dublin
Boulevard and Regional Street.
2) PARKING PLAN
Parking requirements for the downtown area will be
modified to reflect a more realistic relationship
between uses and demands. For those uses most
likely to be applicable to the downtown area the
parking ratios in Table B will be applied.
In areas where a mix of uses exist with different peak
parking periods, a joint usage of parking stalls may be
possible and a reduction in the combined parking
requirements will be considered upon submission by the
applicant of a report describing and justifying joint
usage.
In areas where excess parking spaces currently exist,
the City will encourage property owners to increase the
amount of parking lot landscaping and will consider
application on a case-by-case basis for increased
development without requiring additional parking so long
as the appearance and quality of the development are
enhanced through building and landscape improvements.
21
16 S
1 /
December 14, 1985
12:00-4:00 p.m.
Peak Off-Street Parking Utilization Summary
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN 200 4M F t
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
Diagram 6
22
TABLE B
DOWNTOWN PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Current Revised
Use Requirements* Requirements*
1. Retail Store, Market . . Varies from 1/200
or Shop 1/100 to
1/300
2. Wholesale store, Varies: 1/600 1/500
furniture, appliance under 5 ,000 z
autos plus 1/300
3. Restaurant or bar 1/4 seats 1/4 seats
4. Office, bank, clinic 1/250 1/250
5. Theatre 1/4 seats 1/4 seats
* Figures are in gross building square feet unless otherwise
specified
23
4. Development Plan
4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A. LAND USE PLAN
1) OVERVIEW
Downtown Dublin includes a mix of retail stores,
offices, restaurants, auto dealerships, warehousing and
auto-oriented retail and service establishments as
shown on Diagram 7. Occupancy rates are high and the
area has performed well economically over recent years.
However, two major downtown retailers have recently
moved from the area and competition is increasing in
the Tri-Valley Area where Downtown Dublin is being
challenged by new retail and office areas which have `
been planned as integrated developments with carefully
interrelated parts, a high degree of visual appeal,
well-designed common areas and substantial pedestrian
amenities. Downtown Dublin, while. containing a good
mix of retail and service uses to attract shoppers,
is difficient in these features and suffers
substantially from a development pattern which lacks
focus and offers little in the way of visual appeal.
In addition, one of Downtown Dublin' s greatest assets -
the ease of reaching the area by car and moving quickly
among the various downtown areas is being threatened by
increased freeway and local street congestion. If
Downtown Dublin is to continue to function as a strong
retailing center, development controls are necessary to
avoid the creation of a level of traffic congestion
which would discourage shoppers from patronizing the
area.
Improvements contained in the Circulation Plan should —
allow reasonable traffic conditions for a new regional
transit facility, a hotel and approximately 675 ,000
square feet of additional development. Market
projections have indicated the likely demand for around
500 ,000 square feet of new development over the next 15
years. (See Item F or the Appendix for a Summary of
Estimated Market Demand. )
Finally, some areas of downtown, such as the auto.
dealership properties, are susceptible to future major
land use changes and need special attention.
The primary objectives of the Land Use element of this
Specific Plan are shown on Diagram 8 and summarized as
follows:
a) Encourage the retention of automobile dealerships
but develop contingency plans for their potential
relocation.
24
m MR
• i� �i1•�♦�♦•i i� �1� •�� /�t � � ♦♦1♦♦♦100 ♦1
i11 O��1� •� �� �� ���000'���►� ♦111
SM
LAI
WpAS
O�'�� ■� ��• ♦ ,il//; `���;�`♦♦•i��;��rye••� -
� • ��♦ � X11,•• ,1`,��� ♦♦ ♦ ♦♦
i 1 . I s I • ♦ ♦ �ir-
�
,s
Oil
■■■ 1111•
HY U/.
ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF A `DUBLIN
RESTAURANT ROW' AND PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED
SHOPPING STREET
F
ALLOW GREATER DEVELOPMENT
. INTENSITY IN AREAS LESS
AFFECTED BY TRAFFICI �oOiJ
CONGESTION CONST AIN
O�RAGE RETENTION OF.
Q UT D'EALERSHIPS BUT PLAN
O R VENTUAL RELOCATION'
1
TTI� � ✓ �
ENCOURAGE INCREASED
DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS WITH
EXCESSIVE PARKING\
CONTROL DEVELOPMENT
• AND DEVELOPMENT —PLAN FOR FUTURE ACCOMODATION
DISTRIBUTION TO LIMIT
OF A REGIONAL TRANSIT STATION
CONGESTION AT KEY
INTERSECTIONS
Land Use Objectives
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN 200 4W feet
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
26 Diagram 8
b) Plan for the future accommodation of a regional
transit station within the downtown. `
c) Develop" a greater mix of uses to increase downtown _
vitality and encourage greater development
intensity without increased traffic congestion.
d) Establish development standards to encourage
greater intensity near Amador Valley Boulevard to
reduce congestion at the Dublin Boulevard/San
Ramon Road intersection.
e) Encourage more full service, dinner house-type
restaurants.
f) Allow increased development without requiring
additional parking in those area where parking
ratios are currently excessive relative to the
actual need.
g) Encourage the development of a high quality
Restaurant Row and pedestrian oriented shopping
street.
2) LAND USE ZONES
The goals and requirements for commercial uses downtown
are different from those in other parts of Dubin and
require a more defined set of development standards than
provided in the City' s zoning ordinance. To accomplish
this, eleven special Development Zones have been
established within the downtown area as shown on
Diagram 9 . Development standards for each of the zones
will vary slightly in order to tailor future development
more closely to the City' s downtown .objectives.
In general, the zones are as follows:
Zone 1: Office/Commercial
Currently occupied by the one of the two 3-story
buildings in Downtown Dublin, this zone will continue
as a mix of retail , office and service commercial uses.
Zone 2: General Commercial
Currently developed with a mix of retail ,_ office, hotel
and commercial recreation uses including one 3-story
building, this area is constrained from substantial
development intensification by the traffic capacity
limitation of Dublin Boulevard and the Dublin
Boulevard/San Ramon Road intersection. A mix of uses
will continue to be encouraged but retail , hotel and
commercial recreation uses rather than office use will
be encouraged.
27
TTTI ✓� � ✓ Zoo �f � � _\
� r
V.
Ar-
tA
�
=ice
=��i
I ��++++
Development Zones Map
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN t
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
R-1 28 Diagram 9
Zone 3: Regional Transit Mixed Use
s
Identified as a site initially for B.A.R.T. 's Park-and-
Ride parking 'lot and later for parking related to a
potential B.A.R.T. Station in the I-580 median, this
area is difficult to develop in the interim for high-
quality commercial uses because of its relative
isolation from Dublin Boulevard.
A mix of uses integrating transit - related parking and
commercial uses similar to Zone 4 will be encouraged in
this location. Limitations on the quantity of
commercial development will be necessary in recognition
of the Dublin Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon
Road intersection traffic capacity limitations. _
Zone 4: Planned Mixed Use
This area will be devoted to a wide mix of uses
including retail, office, hotel, restaurant and
commercial recreation facilities. Internal pedestrian
linkages within the area and related to adjacent zones
will be encouraged and required. Contingency plans for
the integration of the existing automobile dealership
property into the complex will be developed to insure
compatibility should the dealerships relocate at some
time in the future.
Zone 5: San Ramon Road Retail
Currently oriented almost exclusively to Regional
Street, uses in this area will be encouraged to
increase their presence on San Ramon Road to improve
visual appearances along that frontage. Proposals
which provide new access to San Ramon Road will be
considered. Pedestrian linkages to Zone 5 will be
encouraged. Uses will continue as a mix of retail and
commercial services.
Zone 6: Central Block West Retail
A continuation of current retailing and service
commercial uses will characterize this zone.
Improvements to zone entries, internal circulation and
parking lot landscaping will be strongly encouraged.
Zone 7: Central Block East Mixed Use
Currently occupied by a mix of retail, service,
restaurant and entertainment uses, this zone will be
encouraged to develop additional specialty retail uses
and additional restaurants along its eastern edge to
create a "Dublin Restaurant Row" . As in Zone 5
improvements to entries, internal circulation and
parking lot landscaping will be strongly encouraged.
29
Zone 8: Restaurant and Specialty Retail
Located between I-680 and the proposed "Dublin Restaurant
Row" this zone will be encouraged over time to increase
its pedestrian orientation for restaurant, specialty
retail and entertainment uses.
Zone 9: Amador Valley Boulevard Commercial
Strategically situated in a good location_ relative to
traffic access within the downtown area, this zone will
be encouraged to intensify its development in the future.
A mix of uses with some two or three story structures is
desired. Design cohesiveness among portions of the area
will be strongly encouraged. Proposals providing direct
access to San Ramon Road will be considered..
Zone 10: Village Parkway Mixed Use
Currently occupied by a wide mix of commercial uses, this
zone will continue to serve a variety of needs in the
future. Visual landscape and building design improve-
ments will be sought to compliment the City's substantial
investment in public improvements along Village Parkway.
Zone 11: Retail/Office
Located on two streets which serve the nearby residential
population, this area will continue as a mix of commer-
cial uses'. Small scale resident-serving offices such 'as
medical or dental offices will be encouraged along with
retail uses oriented to the nearby residential areas.
Proposals which incorporate residential uses will be
considered.
3) INTERIM USE ZONES
Four areas of Downtown Dublin have been identified as
Interim Use Zones. These are areas which will likely
remain in their current use for the foreseeable future
but for which substantial later change is possible.
Interim use standards gill be developed for each zone to
allow current uses to continue and to encourage property
changes where appropriate to mitigate negative visual
impacts on adjacent properties.
Interim use Zone locations and general standard are
shown on Diagram 10.
Interim Use Zone A:
This area currently contains three warehouse structures
containing non-retail uses and a large vacant property.
The area is the potential location for a B.A.R.T. Park-
and-Ride facility initially and a later parking
R-1 30
PROPERTY CHANGES SHALL INCI. \ '
\�
'INCREASED LANDSCAPING AN ADDITIONAL
V i O .ANY•
IMPROVEMENTS TO EXIS IN \ �po utalELOP
O MENT SHALL
RUCTURES \` � ool, E.CONTINCENT UPON
REENING SERVICE USES
INCREASED
/�� \ �� '♦ LANDSCAPING
I TERIM USE- LIMITED
�� ��'' ���` •� T AUTOMOBILE
E�LER IP
1 ®A
1 C��` O� ,%�off% •::��.�:. � `.; •� ' �
U
rr
rx
Y i
ANY PARKING L DE ; OPMENT
SHALL BE ADEQUA L ANDSCAPED
PROPERTY* IMPROVEMENTS SHALL
REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW STRUCTURES SHALL BE LIMITED TO
ROADWAY EXISTING BUILDINGS OR THOSE RELATED
TO REGIONAL TRANSIT. ACTIVITIES }
Interim Use Zones and Standards
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN 200 4w feet
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
R-1 31 Diagram 10
r
- ... ___ __ .... .. ... -- .- -. ....._.. v. _ .-......--..'..-.-... .._
resource for a B.A.R.T. Station or other regional
transit facility. The need to accommodate these
potentials in the future combined with the property's
current relative isolation from Dublin Boulevard
requires a different set of development standards than
would be desirable for a future commercial mixed use
project related to a regional transit facility.
Interim standards should:
a) Prohibit development which would preclude the
economical development of transit parking.
b) Require recognition that the property is highly
visible from Interstate 580 and does much to
establish the image of Downtown Dublin.
c) Allow for a new street connecting Regional Street
and Golden Gate Drive.
d) Recognize the limited retail potential of the
property until roadway and transit improvements are
implemented.
e) Require an overall master plan emphasizing a mix of
commercial uses for long term change for the area
prior to the approval of any additional structures
or uses.
Interim Use Zone B:
Currently occupied largely by older industrial type
structures, this area is in marked contrast to other
development in the downtown area. While the area will
eventually change, current ownerships patterns and the
relatively sound condition of the structures suggest' that
some time may pass before substantial change will occur.
Interim standards are needed to improve the appearance of
this area and should:
a) Require substantial additional landscaping along
the Village Parkway frontage as a condition of any
future property improvements.
b) Encourage improvements to the visual character of
existing structures.
c) Encourage additional landscape improvements to all
parking areas.
Interim Use Zone C:
Auto dealership uses contained in this zone are felt to
be an asset to Downtown Dublin and will be encouraged to
remain. However, it is realized that in the longer term,
increased land values may eventually precipitate a change
R-1 32
in land use. Development standards for this zone will be
formulated to enhance a pedestrian-oriented environment
with restaurants, specialty retail shops, small offices
and entertainment uses.
Interim use standards should focus upon fostering a
retention of current uses while controlling -modifications
to insure their compatibility with the future changes
along Amador Plaza Road. Interim standards should:
a) Encourage additional landscaping along Amador Plaza
Road.
b) Provide for the screening of service and non-display
autos areas.
Interim Use Zone D:
As in Interim Use Zone C, the existing auto dealership
use will be strongly encouraged to remain. Interim use
standards will support the existing use while insuring
that any changes to the property do not adversely affect
adjacent commercial projects or the overall visual
quality of the downtown area.
4) GENERAL PLAN CHANGES
Elements of this Specific Plan are in conformance with
the City' s General Plan adopted in 1985 with the
following minor exceptions:
a) Retail/Office and Automotive use categories west
of interstate 680 have been changed to a
retail/office classification in the Specific Plan.
Existing automotive uses will be encouraged to
remain and accommodated through interim, use
standards.
b) Special provisions for adding an Interstate 680
interchange at or near Amador Valley Boulevard have
not been made given the uncertainty of workable
solutions with respect to the likely complexity of
the I-680/I-580 interchange improvements. The
Specific Plan has been prepared to not depend on a
new interchange but to remain flexible in
accommodating new ramps which can be located to
enhance rather than harm downtown circulation and
its visual environment. (Note: Traffic modeling
studies indicated some benefits to I-680 ramps but
did not suggest that additional development within
the downtown would be possible with them. )
In recognition of the goals of this Specific Plan
the General Plan and Specific Plan will be
reconciled as shown on Diagram 11:
R-1 33
ELIMINATI8 O 1 1-440, \ i;�'�? ,::•.''`:: /
CONNECTION DESIGN TION
NX
0
V•
v.......::.:...:.
::r•
1
•r.
. ...... ...
.. .. . .:.•.::...
TRA i;
MIXE
Ova '•; ::• ...,.::.;,� �,:;: .. ... .... ...
C !
Retail/Office .
Retail/Office & Automotive
1 1 Areas of Change
General Plan Changes
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN zoo 400 feet
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
R-1 34 Diagram 11
5) ZONING ORDINANCE MODIFICATIONS
The Zoning Ordinance will be amended to allow properties
within Downtown Dublin to be designated as part of a
Downtown Overlay Zoning District to supplement the
current zoning designations. Land uses, development
standards and interim uses will be as outlined in the
Development Standards for each Downtown Development Zone
and the supporting diagrams outlining special
requirements. The Zoning Ordinance and Map will be
�- changed to implement the purposes of the Downtown
Specific Plan.
To the extent that such changes are adopted as part..of
the Specific Plan, they will' be reviewed and approved as
part of the regular procedures for amendment of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Permits for new construction and other property
improvements will be subject to conformance with the
Specific Plan, and to the requirements of both the
underlying district and the overlay zone, or the more
restrictive of the two.
Where a subject is not addressed by the overlay zone, the
existing provisions of the Zoning Ordinance will remain
in effect.
6) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
In order to tailor land uses and development
characteristics more closely to the goals and needs of
Downtown Dublin, special Development Standards will
govern future change within the downtown area. Table C
contains land use, development intensity, and building
height standards.
For the purposes of these standards, "Service Commercial"
uses which are to be located on the ground floor of
structures are to be interpreted as businesses which are
compatible with and strongly supportive of the primary
downtown retail character. Uses which would be
substantially disruptive to retail continuity or which
are inappropriate to the goals and policies of this
Specific Plan will not be allowed.
The following standards shall apply to all areas of the
downtown:
a) Parking lots shall be screened by low walls and/or
landscaping from adjacent streets.
b) Parking lots shall contain a minimum of 20% of
their surface area in landscaping.
R-1 35
10
8
I
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 6 1 4
DOWNTOWN DUBLIN Table C i 2 s
DEVELOPMENT ZONES
LAND USES 1 2 3 4 5 6 T 8 9 10 11
l' _
RETAIL STORES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
OFFICES •
�! FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS 0 0 0 0
RESTAURANTS (NON FAST FOOD)
HOTEL/MOTEL • • • •
SERVICE COMMERCIAL • r♦ •
COMMERCIAL RECREATION/ • • • • O • • • • • •
ENTERTAINMENT
RESIDENTIAL • • • • • • • •
AUTOMOBILE SALES/SERVICE -
♦DRIVE-IN BUSINESS • • • •
AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION • • • •
RCN DISTRICT SHOPS& SERVICE
AUTOMOBILE REPAIR FACILITIES - -
MM-1 DISTRICT USES -
REGIONAL TRANSIT FACILITIES • no
0 OTHER C-1 DISTRICT USES
MOTHER C-2 DISTRICT USES
OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO 0.45 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.30 0.50 1 0.30 1 0.30
ALLOWABLE BLDG. HEIGHT (FEET) '45 45 45* 45* 45 45 45 35 45 35 35
PERMITTED O CONDITIONAL USE
PERMITTED ON AN INTERIM BASIS r771 SUBJECT TO PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND
APPROVAL AS SUPPORTAIVE OF DOWNTOWN GOALS
O LIMITED TO SECOND FLOOR OR ABOVE SPACE ONLY * 45' MAX. WITH UP TO 75' WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
■ PERMITTED LAND USES WILL BE DEFINED AS THE ZONING APPROVAL OF ANY PROPOSAL IN EXCESS OF THIS LIMIT SHALL REQUIRE
' ORDINACE IS AMENDED AN AMENDMENT TO THIS PLAN.
♦ INCLUDING FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS
VISUAL APPEARANCE FROM
SAN RAMON ROAD IMPORTANT
�Q DG. ENTRIES
BUILDING HEIG MITED\. �J Q
2 STORI 5 A ACE T -TO TP{ ORIENTED TO
PR RTY ES \ O� AMADOR PLAZA RD.
15' MIN. LANDSCAPED
ETBACK REQ'D.
0
�� �o�oo l.� '•; `���
ONX PEDESTRIAN
�� �►� ���,� ;��� NMENT REQ'D.
elo
votoo,
4
or
_ BLIC AND DIT, L ECIALTY
RETAIL USES E U I:
_ 11
STRONG PEDESTRIAN C CTION
SUBTTANT1AL LAN SCAP19C ENCOURAGED 1
REQUIRED
IMPROVEMENTS TO INTERNAL CIRCULATION
AND PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING ENCOURAGED
NEW ROADWAY AND LANDSCAPED
PEDESTRIAN WAY REQUIRED INTEGRATED PROJECT WITH PUBLIC FOCAL POINT
COMMERCIAL USES AND REGIONAL TRANSIT PARKING
DESIRED
Special Site Development Requirements
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN 200 400 feet
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
R-1 37 Diagram 12
c) Roof top equipment which can be seen from the
downtown area, adjacent freeways, off-ramps and
overpasses shall be screened from view.
In addition , the Specific Site Development Requirements
described on Diagram 12 will be applied to each affected
properties.
Development standards not identified in this Specific
Plan will generally be as required for C-1 Districts
in the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. However, each ----
new development ,or property change will be subject to
Site Development Review as prescribed by Sections 8-
95.0 through 8-95 .8 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
unless exempted from such review by the Planning
Director on the basis of being of minor impact.
Special review shall be given to those properties
adjoining residentially-zoned property and more
stringent site development and architectural design
requirements may be imposed to mitigate impacts upon
those residential properties. Where potential
mitigation measures to eliminate undesirable impacts
on adjacent residential properties are felt by the
City to be insufficient, additional landscaped
setbacks and lower height restrictions may be imposed.
B. CENTRAL BLOCK IMPROVEMENT PLAN
1) EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bounded by Dublin Boulevard, Amador Plaza Road, Amador
Valley Boulevard and Regional Street the Central Block
is the hub of downtown. Located within this
superblock are a number of separate properties and
large anchor stores which have established the retail
image of Dublin. The major buildings on the site are
grouped into two shopping centers facing opposite
directions. This arrangement has left a service
corridor running north and south through the center of
the block. The other uses within the block have been
pushed to the perimeter and separated from the retail
center by parking. These uses include the City's
Public Library, a service station, several
restaurants, and a movie theater complex.
The following existing conditions are noteworthy:
a) A poor circulation route links . the stores and
parking in the Central Block
b) A surplus of parking resources exists
c) Little or no concern has been shown for pedestrian
circulation and amenities
R-1 38
d) A multitude of individual poorly signed automobile
entries serve the Central Block
To overcome the negative aspects of the existing
conditions and to enhance the Central Block as the
major focus of Downtown Dublin's retail activity, a
Conceptual Plan *for the Central Block has been
prepared. Major elements, of that plan are described
below.
2) CIRCULATION PLAN
The uncoordinated development that occurred under the
County' s jurisdiction has resulted in poor circulation
networks both for pedestrians and automobiles within
the Central Block. This plan aims to improve the
existing conditions through the following projects:
o Enhanced East West Access: The current parking
arrangement provides for only limited east-west
automobile circulation across the site. This plan
proposes connections at each end of the shopping
centers in order to simplify access for the users.
o Simplified Circulation and Access: The existing
circulation route around the center is awkward and
confusing. This plan smoothes out some of the
difficult intersections and articulates a clear route
through roadway modifications and increased
landscaping.
o Improved Pedestrian Circulation: A strong axis for
pedestrian movement has been created through the site
connecting both major shopping complexes and linking
them to the cinema and restaurants on Amador Plaza
Road. Special attention should be given to
landscaping and creating a high level of pedestrian
amenities along this route.
3) PARKING PLAN
The Central Block contains 3415 parking spaces. As
shown by the parking survey summarized earlier in this
plan, the parking supply is more than adequate. In
fact on the eastern half of the site only 65% of the
spaces were being utilized at the peak shopping season
of the year. This abundance allows for the potential
to incorporate circulation improvements, increased
landscaping amenities, and some new development without
requiring additional parking resources.
R-1 39
4) IMPROVED PROJECT ENTRIES
Currently twenty-two separate driveways give access to
the Central Block. In order to create a more uniform
project image, the identification of eight major
entries is proposed. These are existing entry points
which could be articulated more strongly using the
following techniques.
o Master shopping center signs of uniform design to
signal the key project entries.
o New improved circulation corridors linking the
entries so that a clear circulation network will be
formed.
o Special landscape improvements to enhance the Central
Block's image.
The above components are summarized on Diagram 13.
5) DEVELOPMENT INTENSIFICATION
Although there is no vacant land within the Central
Block, the excess of parking may permit some new
development.
Additional development could most easily be
accommodated on the eastern portion of the Central
Block within Development Zone 7 where the greatest
oversupply of parking exists and where the presence of
cinemas and restaurants offer a high potential for the
joint use of parking resources. Examples of specific
opportunity areas are shown on Diagram 14.
Areas 1 and 2 perhaps offer the greatest benefits
relative the goals and policies of this Specific Plan.
Area 1 could be used to construct an additional
restaurant which would enhance the potential of Amador
Plaza Road becoming a strong "Dublin Restaurant Row".
Area 2 offers the potential for a building and/or
plaza space linking the- main retail areas to the
cinema complex and the future "Dublin Restaurant Row" .
Uses accommodated in this area could draw effectively
upon customers from both the east and the west and
enhance the overall image not only of the Central
Block but also of Downtown Dublin as a whole.
Area 2 also offers the potential of public/private
agreements to jointly construct and utilize the
improvements. Exterior plazas could be used for
special retail events as well as downtown promotional
events and publicly-sponsored programs. Building
facilities, if constructed, could add additional retail
space as well as promotional and public events space.
R-1 40
0
i
OTEN AL EV LOPMENT
NTE vSIF C., „
♦ T EA
�j
, .
O
< ..
to�
CENTRAL BLOCK \
NEW EAST WEST CIRCULATION
IMPROVED VEHICULAR CIRCULATION
....... PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
OPROJECT ENTRIES
Central Block Potential Improvements Summary
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN U 100 zoo feet
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
41 Diagram 13
\ \
Q
- �.
lit
11I 1 Q
-
�
�-
� I
Central Block
Development Intensification Opportunity Areas
p pp y
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN FLAN o 10
i feet
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
42 Diagram 14
Diagram 15 is an Illustrative Plan showing one
potential -result of implementing a program of Central
Block Improvements. Diagram 16 illustrates one of many
potential concepts for infill improvements described
above for Opportunity Area 2.
6) IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW
The Central Block Improvement Plan is unique among the
proposals in this Specific Plan since all of the
improvements are on private property. Only through the
interest of the property owners will .it be possible to
bring any of these concepts to reality. Hopefully
through joint cooperation, these owners and the City
of Dublin will be able to work out a partnership which
will be attractive to both. An implementation strategy
is outlined more fully in the Implementation Plan
section.
R-1 43
< � �
. I
_ �' \
:;, � � '
.�
� �w., � �
.,
•::. ;; ..
� d '.•ark � ..,,
� ♦ �
��
\ , � M , , , w• �.
� � ��.t� �,�j'a'f�`,�'�pgsA���sw :1 � .f"�, �. .�' .rt•-
�•� =tb �.. •0�eat ::•'' � � ,.�
��/ � S",vim -_�
1�' ,��
I / ., v
+J ', • �� '
�� ' 1 \ r� - I'y
�' � •'�
4 �'� /.
'' �L ��� �
�`� ��"/ �
���' � ;
1 �� � �.
°� �\
� � �
� •
. : . . . . . . ., .. Y
. .
, . ,
1
• 0
� a -
p�EDtSTR�ati1 cowhaacTl
� CENTER A*+O
Ln
RES7AVRANT Ra'�l
G�1rIMER�.�Ai.. ,1N0 PVGuG U`,FS /
i
Q
IP
New Central Block Structure Conceptual Section
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
t Diagram 1&
5. Urban Design. Improvements Plan
5. URBAN DESIGN. IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
The aim of the urban design improvements is to create a
strong image and sense of unity throughout the downtown. A
major street tree planting program has already been
implemented and will in time,- as the trees grow, contribute
substantially to these urban design goals. They will,
however, not be sufficient by themselves to accomplish the
broader goal of enhancing the area as a major focal point
for the City of Dublin.
Implementation of additional urban design improvements is
limited by the lack of -public areas suitable for additional
beautification or theme elements. Public street rights-of-
way generally have only narrow sidewalk space at their edges
and relatively narrow medians in their centers. Acquisition
of additional right-of-way land for urban design
improvements would in most cases have a substantial impact
on adjacent developments and would be relatively expensive
compared to the likely effectiveness of the improvements.
Within these limited parameters, an Urban Design
Improvements Plan has been formulated to include four major
elements:
A) Center Median Theme
B) Downtown Entries
C) Project Entries
D) Restaurant Row
A summary of the Urban Design Public Improvements Concepts
are shown on Diagram 17.
A. CENTER MEDIAN THEME
Four major roadways bound and serve the downtown:
Dublin Boulevard, San Ramon Road, Amador Valley
Boulevard, and Village Parkway. Each of these streets
currently contain medians with street trees, public
signing, traffic signals and street lights. of all the
existing elements, the street lights create the
strongest , most continuous feature within the downtown
area. The Center Median Theme element of the Urban
Design Improvements Program builds upon these existing
street lights.
Theme banners will be added to each of the existing
street lights along- Dublin Boulevard, San Ramon Road,
Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway. Special
designs will be developed to express an image of .
Downtown Dublin. Two possible examples are shown on
Diagram 18. The banners would create a strong visual
continuity along the main streets. of downtown, would be
readily visible from the adjacent freeways, would be
effective both day and night, and would assist in tying
46
DO
LIZTI '
_ t
1
OENTRY STATEMENT
���.. CENTER MEDIAN. THEME TREATMENT
....... ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING
ttttttttttt PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS AND ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING
Urban Design Public Improvements Concept
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN 200 4o f
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
47 Diagram 17
FABRIC BANNERS
Example 1
FABRIC BANNERS
(CHANGEABLE FOR SEASONS OR EVENTS)
DUBLIN DUBLIN
L
Example 2
Center Median Theme Treatments
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN
.DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
Diagram 18
4 8.
together the two parts of the downtown area which are
currently separated by Interstate 680. In addition,
specially designed -banners can be used for seasonal and
other promotional events celebrations.
" Banners will need to be replaced periodically as they
are subject to wind and other weather damage.
Consideration during the final design stage for the
theme elements will also be given to porcelain enamel
signs as shown on Diagram 19. While these elements
would not require replacement they could require a
structural strengthening of the light standards in
order to accommodate additional wind loads. Flexible
connections would be considered to lessen those
impacts.
In addition consideration will also be given to
painting the light standards as shown on Diagram 19 to
reinforce the design continuity and distinctiveness of
this plan element.
B. DOWNTOWN ENTRIES
The City of Dublin has the opportunity to emphasize the
primary entry to the City and to the downtown area at
the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon
Road. In addition, three other intersections offer the
opportunity for improvements to mark the downtown area
as a distinctive part of the City of Dublin: Dublin
Boulevard and Village Parkway, Village Parkway and
Amador Valley Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard and
San Ramon Road.
Implementation of improvements at these intersections
is constrained because of limited public rights-of-way,
adjacent uses and the functional demands of the
intersections to accommodate traffic flows and
signalization.
Detailed studies will be conducted for the design and
location of suitable entry statements at each of the
four intersections. Designs will be compatible with
and supportive of the Center Median Theme. Most
improvements will need to be placed in center medians
or within the surface of the street itself.
Components which will be strongly considered for these
entry points are shown on Diagram 20 and include flags,
entry pylons and street medallions. Flags would be
highly visible from the freeway and should be
relatively large in size. They could be lighted at
night to provide a strong visual statement at all times
of the day and night. As with banners used for the
Center Median Theme, flags would need to be replaced
periodically as they become frayed by the wind.
49
DUBLI W0l-IIV ,
PORCELAIN ENAMEL SIGN (2 SIDED)
b o ,
1
Example 3 .
PAINT LICHT STANDARDS (POSSIBLY KELLY CREEN)
f
S
i
i�
Example 4 -
Other Center Median Theme Potentials
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN
. .DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
Diagram 19
50
O
J
m
Z
f
m
S
1g
• 1
f
•
f
,p� t
1D� ® � p
0
1
FLAGS SAN RAMON ROAD S PYLON
•' t 1
e�e�° �ne•O •
STREET MEDALLION EXAMPLE
NCO
D�
u
L
FLAGS EXAMPLE ENTRY PYLONS EXAMPLE
Downtown Entry Elements.
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN
.DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
Diagram 20
51
Entry pylons may take any number of forms and exact '
designs will be very much subject to the space
available at- specifically selected locations. In
additional to the examples shown, lower elements with a
Downtown Dublin sign and a trellis treatment could be
considered.
Street medallions, perhaps similar in concept to those
used in downtown Concord, could be placed in some or
all of the major downtown street intersections. While
effective in marking key points, they are subject to
substantial reconstruction whenever any excavation or
street repair work is required.
C. PROJECT ENTRIES `
Current City standards allow for shopping center
identification signs for complexes with at least 10
stores. Such signs, however, do not allow for any
advertising of individual tenants. Few such signs have
been constructed.
The Project Entries element of the Urban Design
Improvement Plan would allow the establishment a common
theme for entry identification signs for major projects
downtown. Ideally, the elements would each carry a
common logo or sign identifying the project as part of
Downtown Dublin. Two examples of possible design
approaches are shown on Diagram 21. Example No. 1,
whether implemented singularly or in pairs, offers the
potential to accommodate some tenant signing while
Example No. 2 is more oriented toward enhancing
Downtown Dublin' s character by trellis structures with
flowering vines.
All project entry signs would be located on private
property and would be funded entirely or largely with
private funds. Design parameters will need to be
developed in coordination with major shopping complex
owners and tenants.
An example of the utilization of this type of element
is shown on the Central Block Potential Improvements
Summary diagram on Page 53.
D. RESTAURANT ROW --_
The Dublin Restaurant Row concept is described in
earlier sections of this plan. Amador Plaza Road
currently serves a number of restaurants and a cinema
complex. It offers one of the few opportunities to
create a high quality pedestrian environment and a mix
of uses to add diversity to Downtown Dublin. Policies
and Development Standards within this Specific plan
52
f•�� 1bN� ` 'r iW�l
oUblin
ManMone7
rv�on5 w' '
S �..
Ge
F —
As
EN
vf
s
Example 1
L0 ri' F A9
Example 2
Project Entries
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN
.DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
Diagram 21
53
call for the encouragement of additional restaurants, '
specialty retail shops and entertainment uses along
Amador Plaza' Road.
To reinforce these policies and standards and to create
a supportive physical environment, the scale and
character of the street must be improved. Currently,
the street is wider than necessary to accommodate
present or future traffic requirements. A continuous
left turn lane runs the length of the street from
Dublin Boulevard to Amador Valley Boulevard.
The following improvements within the public right-of-
way will enhance both the viability of a pedestrian
oriented environment and the image of Downtown Dublin
as a whole:
1) Enhanced Landscaping
Since the current street width and a continuous
left turn lane down the center of the street are
unnecessary, the street will be narrowed and
additional landscaping added adjacent to the
current curbs. This will improve the character of
the street and will visually and physically narrow
the street to encourage the pedestrian movements
between the two sides which are so necessary to
comparative restaurant and retail shopping.
Existing curb to curb widths will be maintained at
Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard to
accommodate adequate traffic turning lanes. On-
street parking would continue.
2) Pedestrian Crossings
To further encourage a strong relationship between
the two sides of the street, distinctive
pedestrian crosswalks will be constructed at
several locations along the length of the street
at well as at its major intersections. Additional
landscaping, benches and other design elements
will be developed as part of the improvements as
illustrated conceptually on Diagram 22.
3) Pedestrian Lighting
In addition to the existing lighting standards,
new fixtures which will be compatible in scale
with a pedestrian area will be added. This
restaurant district would be active after sunset
and special lighting should be used to create a
pleasant environment.
54
4) Street Furniture
Wooden benches, trash receptacles and other
elements of street furniture such as planters will
be added to enhance the level of pedestrian
amenities along the street.
These improvements, along with future infill and
replacement development along the street can result in
a high-quality amenity and an area which can be
effectively promoted as a special attraction of
Downtown Dublin. Diagram 23 shows a conceptual section
through the street as it might appear in the future.
E. STREET FURNITURE
As with the other elements outlined in the Urban Design
Improvements Plan, a common family of street furniture
used throughout the downtown area can assist in
improving the overall visual quality of the area and
creating a greater sense of continuity. Primary street
furniture items which will occur in the downtown area
include bus shelters, benches, pedestrian-scale lights,
bollards, planters and waste receptacles. Most within
public rights-of-way will occur along Amador Plaza Road
and other locations identified as parts of the primary
circulation network. Private property owners will be
encouraged to utilize the same elements within their
projects to add a greater sense of design unity to the
downtown.
While selection of specific street furniture items and
manufacturers will require careful study and
consideration, standards for and examples of
appropriate elements are included in Item E of the
Appendix of this Plan.
55
0 1
1(yLy� ��''%r"":1'/�.� ` � :��.LrQ1�S','j/i`_`/.//✓i��'j � I%;- Q % �
f � t
0
2 LAN= 5:s'- lAN�1SG• L
i I
t
i
PAVE" -si' WIC T ii Si CIE,.vC.
Restaurant Row Conceptual Plan
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN 0 8 16 feet
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA �.i�■
56 Diagram 22
SPECIALTY RETAIL POTENTIAL
OUTDOOR DINING
aD
0
AAMA
BENCHES OLLARDS STREET TREES
PEDESTRIAN SCALE LIGHTING
BUILDING SETBACK SIDEWALK JZARKWAY PARKING AMADOR PLAZA ROAD PARKING J,PARKWAY SIDEWALK BUILDING SETBACK
On
Restaurant Row Conceptual Section
0 8 16 feet
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
Diagram 23
r
6. Implementation Plan
6. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
A. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
Implementation of the Downtown Dublin Improvement Plan will
require the active participation of many public and private
sector entities. Some elements such as street improvements
can be carried out by the City of Dublin but a great many of
the other components of the plan will rely on the active
interest and participation of land owners and merchants. In
the past, the participation and mutual cooperation of the
private sector parties in the general welfare of Downtown
Dublin has been limited. One of the major challenges of the
implementation plan f or Downtown Dublin will be to bring
those private sector interests together for the purpose of
improving the overall physical appearance of the downtown
area, enhancing the image of Downtown Dublin as a unique
shopping and business environment, and carrying out
coordinated promotional programs. The implementation
strategy is structured to allow the City to carry out normal
land use control and public improvement responsibilities while
also acting to stimulate and encourage private sector
improvements and cooperative action of benefit to Downtown
Dublin as a whole.
Implementation strategies have been organized in general to
correspond to the major components described earlier in this
plan:
1) CIRCULATION STRATEGIES
2) PARKING STRATEGIES
3) LAND USE STRATEGIES
4) CENTRAL BLOCK IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES
5) URBAN DESIGN IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES
6) RESTAURANT ROW STRATEGIES
7) SPECIAL PROGRAMS STRATEGIES
58
1) CIRCULATION STRATEGIES '
Early analyses lead to the conclusion that the quantity
of new development within Downtown Dublin will be
substantially limited by capacities of the street
intersections and the adjacent freeway interchange
configuration. Because the downtown area currently owes
much of its success to ease of access for retail
shoppers, it is essential to control traffic congestion
to reasonable levels to avoid forcing shoppers to
alternate shopping locations with less congested
traffic conditions.
The following strategies will be followed to insure the
continued economic vitality of Downtown Dublin:
a) Traffic Monitoring Program
The development standards established in this plan
were based upon an evaluation of probable
development scenarios in the downtown area which
could be reasonably accommodated by reasonable
circulation improvements. However, since other
development factors outside of the downtown area
will affect key intersections and freeway ramp
conditions, a traffic monitoring approach rather
than a finite downtown development limit will be
utilized to anticipate and mitigate congestion.
The City will periodically conduct traffic counts at
key locations and intersections within and leading
to the downtown area. Conditions will be monitored
to provide early warning assistance to identify
conditions which may lead to excessive future
congestion.
Major projects both within the downtown area and
outside of it, if deemed by City Staff to have the
potential for creating traffic volumes in excess of
those anticipated in the analyses conducted for this
plan, will be required to prepare traffic analyses
to determine their probable traffic impacts. Should
those impacts exceed acceptable intersection levels
of service or, in the opinion of the City, be
detrimental to the goal of maintaining downtown
retail vitality, the developers of those projects
may be required to modify their projects or fund
mitigation measures.
b) Regional Transit Control Program
Development of a transit station in the median of
Interstate Highway 580 by the Bay Area Rapid
Transit District (BART) is currently in the
planning stages. Plans are not yet firm as to the
59
exact nature of the station or its phasing.
However, BART is proceeding to seek acquisition of
properties for parking to support such a facility.
Interim use of BART-acquired properties, one of
which lies within Downtown Dublin, would be for
Park-and-Ride lots.
While regional transit facilities . provide a benefit
to the City as a whole, the location of parking
resources within Downtown Dublin to support such a
system will produce substantial traffic impacts upon
the area and could be detrimental to the economic
health of existing and future downtown commercial
uses unless carefully planned.
Because the traffic characteristics of a Park-and-
Ride facility will be different from a station
parking facility, the City will request traffic
analyses for both conditions at the appropriate
time. In addition, the City will work with BART to
establish a monitoring program to evaluate actual
conditions and traffic patterns. As appropriate,
the City will work with the transit district to
secure funding for local street transportation
improvements and other mitigation measures.
c) CALTRANS Improvement Monitoring Program
Over the coming years, the State and Federal
governments will fund substantial improvements to
the Interstate 580 and 680 interchange. While
some preliminary planning and cost estimating has
been done, no definitive plan or phasing schedule
yet exists. Improvements as part of this program
could have significant impacts upon the economic
vitality of Downtown Dublin by enhancing or
restricting access.
Because of the uncertainty of timing and realistic
planning options for these improvements, the
Downtown Improvement Study Committee chose not to
assume additional freeway access and egress ramps
into downtown from I-680 . However, the City will
continue to monitor CALTRANS plans for this inter-
change and adjacent ramp revisions. Implications
relative to the downtown area' s economic vitality
and physical environment will be examined.
Proposals determined to be detrimental to the
downtown area will be strongly resisted by the City.
d) Street Improvements Program
Improvements outlined in the Circulation Plan will
be designed and constructed by the City as needed
to insure reasonable levels of service. Such
60
improvements will contain a high level of urban
design quality including adequately sized street
trees and where appropriate pedestrian amenities.
In some areas where street improvements serve more
localized needs such as the street parallel to and
.south of Dublin Boulevard and any new streets
connecting to San Ramon Road, the City may
construct these improvements or establish
standards for construction by the benefited land
owners. In any event, landscaping and adequate
pedestrian areas shall be a part of the design
standards.
e) Pedestrian Circulation Enhancement
Downtown Dublin is clearly an automobile oriented
area. However, some areas have a greater
potential for the encouragement of' pedestrian
movement than currently exists. The benefits of
increased pedestrian circulation include a
reduction in required parking spaces, a greater
feeling of downtown identity and an enhanced
opportunity for increased business by smaller
shops along pedestrian ways.
The City shall as part of its development review
and approval process seek to improve pedestrian
movement and pedestrian amenities within projects
and seek to increase pedestrian movements among
adjacent projects.
2) PARKING STRATEGIES
A combination of the utilization of county parking
standards, outdated retail industry standards and a
lack of project planning which encouraged pedestrian
circulation has resulted in a general oversupply of
parking in many areas of Downtown Dublin. A by-product
of these factors is a downtown heavily characterized by
large expanses of asphalt paving with limited
landscaping to provide summer shade and visual quality.
The following strategies have been established to
address these problems:
a) Parking Standards Revisions
The City will revise their current parking
standards to bring them._more in line with other
communities within the region and to recognize
more realistic standards of utilization based upon
observation, recent industry studies, and the fact
that certain areas of downtown lend themselves to
61
parking reductions based upon the joint
utilization of parking spaces. Changes will occur
largely in the areas where a reduction based upon
a compatible mix of uses can be demonstrated.
b) Parking Lot Landscaping Standards
Many parking areas within the downtown area are
devoid of landscaping. Existing conditions include
paved parking areas contiguous with sidewalks
without any landscape buffering, parking lots which
have no relief from the hot summer sun and unsightly
parking areas which are visually inferior to newer
shopping areas which are competitive with Downtown
Dublin. To remedy this situation the city will
establish a minimum standard of twenty percent of
the total parking lot area to be reserved for.
landscape ammenities. In addition standards
establishing landscaped setbacks adjacent to public
rights-of-way and acceptable planting materials will
be established. Adequate landscape plans will be
necessary for project approvals.
c) Parking Areas Infill Program
In some areas of Downtown Dublin, the existing
parking supply far exceeds actual needs by virtue of
excessive past parking standards or a complementary
mix of uses. In such cases the City will consider
allowing property owners to construct additional
building area without increasing the parking supply.
Applications for such permits, however, must include
a thorough analysis of existing and projected future
conditions and a comparison with the revised City
Parking Standards. The City, in reviewing such a
request, will consider the relative permanency of
land uses and the likelihood of future changes which
might affect the parking supply adequacy. Any
approvals for development infill without additional
parking shall be contingent upon improved parking
lot landscaping to increase the visual quality of
the development.
3 . LAND USE STRATEGIES
Today, Downtown Dublin is a mix of land uses with a
preponderance of regional commercial stores and service
facilities although some warehousing and light
industrial uses have persisted from earlier county
zoning. The area is especially unique by virtue of a
development pattern which can be characterized as a
series of independent shopping centers and large
regional retail magnets often designed with little
62
regard to their relationship to a °"ent .projects: Th6 '
intent of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan is to
retain the strength of these retail foci while
enhancing their effectiveness and competitiveness
relative to new emerging retail centers through a
greater sense of cohesiveness, identification to
Downtown Dublin and an improved visual environment.
Increases in development intensity within the downtown
area are greatly constrained by limitations at key
street intersections and access points to the adjacent
freeway system. Development control strategies,
therefore, are necessary to guide allowable development
in ways which can best enhance the future vitality of
Downtown Dublin. The following strategies will be used
to preserve and enhance the retail prominence of
Downtown Dublin.
a) General Plan Modifications
The General Plan and Specific Plan will be
reconciled as described in the Development Plan
section.
b) Zoning Ordinance Modifications
All properties within Downtown Dublin will be
designated as a Planned Downtown Development
District as described in the Development Plan
section.
c) Automobile Dealership Retention
The City recognizes the importance of the existing
automobile dealerships in terms of their
attraction of regional shoppers to Dublin and
their contribution to the City' s revenues.
However, it is also recognized that as downtown
land values escalate over time some automobile
dealerships, may choose to sell their properties
to developers and relocate their facilities
elsewhere.
The City will encourage these dealerships to
remain in Dublin by adoption of interim use
standards to accommodate their needs and by
allowing or encouraging by land use designations
and controls adequate and acceptable relocation
sites within Dublin should they decide to move
from the downtown area. Periodic City contacts
with property owners will be made to remain
appraised of their future plans.
63
d) Development Continuity
In the past some adjacent projects were allowed to
develop with little consideration of vehicular
access, pedestrian connection or visual relationship
to each other. The result has been a downtown with
functional problems as well as little visual charm
or sense of identity.
Future project approvals will be subjected to
increased staff and Planning Commission Design
Review relative to the issues of site planning,
project entries clarity, internal vehicular and
pedestrian circulation, landscaping, connections to
adjacent projects and visual appearance. The City
may retain on an as-needed basis outside
professionals to assist staff in reviewing and
modifying developer proposals.
4. CENTRAL BLOCK IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES
The Central ,Block of downtown bounded by Dublin
Boulevard, Regional Street, Amador Valley Boulevard and
Amador Plaza Road consists of two large back-to-back
shopping centers and a series of smaller developments
adjacent to the boundary streets. Little relationship
exists among the elements and in fact even automobile
movement between the east and west halves of the block
is difficult. However, this area, by virtue of its
tenancy with major retail tenants, is the primary focus
of activity within Downtown Dublin.
While certain improvements could be made to the Central
Block to increase its functioning and physical
appearance, implementation of such changes is
essentially outside of the City' s jurisdiction to
achieve: The Central Block is held in several private
ownerships and while the number of owners is less than
ten, there is no significant history of past
cooperation among them. In addition, several major
tenants who are not land owners themselves occupy
prominent locations within the Central Block. These
conditions produce a cast of players with many
different interests and in some cases with decision-
making personnel far removed from Dublin.
However, the benefits of achieving a more efficient and
more economically attractive retail focus for downtown,
of enhancing the image and visual appearance of
Downtown Dublin and of potentially achieving a space
within the downtown as an element of civic focus
suggests that some effort on the part of the City is
justified in attempting to achieve improvements within
64
the Central Block . In fact, steps were begun early in
the Specific Plan process to prepare a conceptual
improvement plan, contact property owners and review
possible interest..
The following strategies will be pursued to work with
private property owners for improving conditions on the
Central Block:
a) Central Block Owner and Tenant Contacts
The City will prepare a packet of information
synopsizing the suggested approach and benefits
to Central Block Improvements and mail it to
each property owner and tenant. Follow up
telephone conservations will be made by the City
to determine interest and to discuss the best
method of bringing property owners and tenants
together. For specific key property owners and
tenants, the City will hold special meetings to
determine interest and define critical planning
and design parameters. Special attention will
be given to meetings with Montgomery Ward' s and
Dublin. Associates where the greatest potential
exists for some agreement to achieve a plaza or
structure suitable for joint public and private
use.
b) Preliminary Agreements and Schematic Plans
Should sufficient interest be expressed to proceed
with some Central Block improvements, the City may
consider assisting in the establishment of
agreements among the parties including the City
who has control over changes in existing parking
requirements and future development approaches.
If necessary to encourage cooperation, the City
may consider providing funds for a schematic
improvements plan for owners/tenants review and
approval.
c) Contractual Agreements
If mutually acceptable plans can be developed, the
City may consider assisting property owners in
establishing contractual agreements and, if
necessary, may enter into direct contractual
agreements with the property owners to accomplish
the improvements. Should the possibility of a
space for at least part-time public use become a
reality, the City will consider a special
contractual arrangement for that element and
evaluate the alternate methods available to share
in its funding.
65
5 . URBAN DESIGN IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES
Major goals of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan are
the improvement of the area' s visual image, the
development of a strong identity for the downtown as a
unique place and a stronger identity of the area with
the City of Dublin. Six elements from the core of
improvements to accomplish these goals. Strategies to
accomplish these elements are as follows:
a) Proiect Entries Program
The City will prepare designs and construct
improvements at four main intersections: San
Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard, San Ramon Road
and Amador Valley Boulevard, Village Parkway and
Amador Valley Boulevard, and Village Parkway and
Dublin Boulevard. The two San Ramon Road entries
will be emphasized because of their stronger .
orientation to arrivals from outside of the City
of Dublin. Improvements will generally consist of
specially designed flags on tall flag poles and
entry marker pylons located in street medians.
Consideration will be given to the development of
a common logo and type design to be utilized
throughout the downtown and on downtown
promotional materials.
b) Center Median Theme Treatment Program
The City will prepare final designs and install
improvements to existing street lights in the
medians of San Ramon Road, Amador Valley
Boulevard, Village Parkway and Dublin Boulevard.
Provisions for attaching specially designed fabric
banners will be emphasized. Initial funding may
include the provision of two sets of standard
banners and sets of special seasonal or events
banners (e.g. , Christmas) as may be determined to
be desirable and useful in promoting the unity and
uniqueness of Downtown Dublin. The painting of
the supporting street light poles a single
complimentary color will be considered as part of
the implementation program.
c) Project Entries Pylons Program
In the interest of providing a greater unity and
identification to the downtown area, the City will
work with property owners to develop a standard
pylon design to mark the main entries to retail
projects. Based upon discussions with major
retail project owners and managers, the City will
develop a prototype design. The pylon design will
be of high quality design and will carry logotype
66
or lettering identifying the project as part of
Downtown Dublin. As appropriate, the pylon design
may include additional signing to identify the
retail project and/or major tenants.
The City will retain approval of locations where
such pylon signs are appropriate and will give
initial priority to working with the Central
Block owners in identifying the major entries
to that shopping complex.
The City will consider sharing in the cost of
pylon installation in the interest of creating a
stronger design theme and sense of continuity
within the downtown area.
d) Street Furniture Program
The City will select a set of standard street
furniture elements including benches, planters and
waste receptacles. These elements will be
consistently used within any public right-of-ways
or areas controlled by the City. Individual
property owners will be strongly urged to utilize
the same elements within their projects.
In addition, the City will select or design
special bus stop shelters and work with the
Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority to
insure their installation and, if necessary, to
share in their cost.
e) Public Signing Program
The City will inventory all public signing within
the downtown area including information conveyed,
method of display and general appearance.
Unnecessary or redundant signing will be removed.
Consideration will be given to the design and
installation of a more unique and attractive
family of signs to assist in giving Downtown
Dublin a stronger sense of place and design
continuity.
f) San Ramon Road Frontage Enhancement Program
The recent development of the Town and Country
Center on the west side of San Ramon Road
demonstrated the strong potential for
strengthening the visual quality of this important
entry and edge to the downtown.
The City will strongly landscape the eastern
portion of the San Ramon Road public right-of-way
and encourage adjacent property owners to remove
67
fencing, increase landscaping and generally
improve their properties' orientation to San
Ramon Road.
6. RESTAURANT ROW STRATEGIES
The Dublin Restaurant Row concept has been developed to
build upon an existing positive trend, improve the
image of Downtown Dublin, enhance Downtown Dublin as a
special destination and encourage a greater mix of
downtown uses. It is a concept which relies upon
property owner interest and upon the City's strength in _
encouraging development compatible with the concept.
To be successful, the properties along Amador Plaza
Road must provide a high quality pedestrian-oriented
environment with restaurants and compatible retail
uses. Realization of the concept is likely to be long
term and implementation strategies are intended to
reflect a phased approach.
Major steps in implementing a Dublin Restaurant Row are
as follows:
a) Property Owner Involvement
The City will contact all affected property owners
with an explanation of the concept and general
diagrams outlining the potential of the area,
organize a meeting of all existing restaurant
owners/managers along Restaurant Row to further
discuss the ideas, suggest cooperative promotions
and urge the establishment .of a "Dublin Restaurant
Row Association" to include all property owners
along Amador Plaza Road. Immediate promotion of
the area as "Dublin' s Restaurant Row" will be
encouraged.
b) Public Improvement Plans
The City will prepare schematic level plans, cost
estimates and phasing alternatives for public
improvements along Amador Plaza Road to enhance
the visual quality of the area and increase its
pedestrian amenity level.
c) Development Incentives
The City will meet with representatives of the
owners of properties along Amador Plaza Road where
current parking provisions are substantially in
excess of demonstrated need. Potentials for the
development of new restaurants fronting on Amador
68
Plaza Road (Restaurant Row) without the '
requirement of additional parking will be explored
and agreements negotiated as appropriate.
d) City Approvals and Improvements
The City will encourage and, where appropriate,
limit changes in use along Amador Plaza Road to
restaurant, supportive retail, office and
entertainment uses. Public improvements outlined
in Step B above will be phased as appropriate
based upon the interest and participation of
property owners.
The City will exercise special design review care
for all uses along Amador Plaza Road to insure
that the scale, character, building design and
landscaping quality of projects are supportive of
a pedestrian environment.
7. SPECIAL PROGRAMS
Physical improvements to the downtown area by the City
will not alone accomplish the goals of preserving
downtown economic vitality, increasing public
perceptions of the downtown area as a special place and
enhancing the visual quality of the downtown. The
following special programs are a part of the
implementation strategy:
a) Business License Program
The City of Dublin now has no way of determining
what uses exist in the many commercial
establishments within the City and no way to know
when changes of use occur. Most cities accomplish
this through a Business License Program which
requires a permit to operate a business within the
City' s boundaries. Dublin has no such program.
As a means of better monitoring land use changes
within the City and as a base for the downtown
promotional program outlined below, the City will
consider holding public hearings and adopting a
Business License Ordinance with fees maintained at
the lowest possible level to cover administrative
costs.
b) Downtown Promotion Program
Today, the promotion of Downtown Dublin is largely
carried out by the larger regional and national
retailers whose efforts focus upon their own
69
corporate strategies. The recent loss of the
GEMCO and HANDYMAN stores from Downtown Dublin
demonstrates the fact that a substantial amount of
downtown promotional advertising can disappear
almost overnight to the detriment of other
downtown merchants.
Two strategy elements of this plan are structured
to overcome this weakness and to strengthen
Downtown Dublin as an entity apart from any single
major use. These strategies are the adoption of a
promotional program under the authority of State
legislation known as AB 1693, and the hiring of a
downtown coordinator.
The AB 1693 program referenced above is also known
as the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law
of 1979. The law allows a City to assess
businesses within a designated area for the
following specific purposes:
o _The acquisition, construction or maintenance of
parking facilities for the benefit of the area;
o The decoration of any public place in the area;
o The promotion of public events which are to take
place on or in public places in the area;
o The furnishing of music in any public place in
the area; and
o The general promotion of business activities in
the area.
Taxes may be levied in a variety of ways but the
most common method is to levy an add-on assessment
to the Business License Fees for business located
only within a designated district. To date the
program and its less broad predecessor legislation
has been successfully utilized in well over 100
California communities.
If adopted, the program funds would allow downtown
owners and merchants to establish a common downtown
promotion program, hire a coordinator , provide for
replacement of theme banners, promote special
events and the Dublin Restaurant Row, and carry
out other improvements or activities as they may
feel to be in their common interests.
The City Council has the authority to create such
an improvement area. However, success is most
likely when promoted by the affected owners and
merchants. Since the creation of an AB 1693 area
70
can be blocked by a protest of businesses who
would pay a majority of the assessment, it is
essential that a broad base of support be obtained
among the business community.
The following strategy will be utilized:
1) The City will meet with the Dublin Chamber of
Commerce and key downtown owners and
merchants to discuss joint sponsorship of a
AB 1693 program. Salary funding, office space
and support services will be discussed to
cover an interim period of approximately 'six
months to implement an educational program `
within the downtown area concerning benefits
and responsibilities under the program. ' A
Steering Committee will be formulated and a
temporary coordinator designated or hired to
contact affected parties and explain the
program.
2) - A preliminary budget for promotion and other
activities will be developed by the Steering
Committee for discussion purposes with
downtown owners and merchants. In addition,
a fair and equitable assessment. formula will
be developed. For purposes of general
information, it should be noted that a
monthly assessment of only one cent for each*
square foot of existing development downtown
today would yield approximately $250 ,000 of
annual revenue for the program.
3) Public meetings will be held as necessary to
explain and discuss the plan.
4) When the Steering Committee feels that
sufficient interest and support exists for
the program, they will request the City
Council to hold hearings, adopt a "Resolution
of Intention" to establish an AB 1693
Ordinance. The AB 1693 area could include
properties outside of the precise boundaries
of this Specific Plan since adjacent
commercial areas could be expected to benefit
from such a plan.
5) The City will establish a Downtown Dublin
Business Association to administer the
program. The Association will be responsible
for establishing annual budgets, organizing
specific activities, hiring and supervising a
coordinator, hiring outside special
consultants (e.g. , advertising and graphics)
if necessary, and maintaining a close liaison
71
with downtown owners and merchants. . The
Association will be responsible _to the City
for the performance of the program and the
City will maintain approval rights over the
budgets for program funds allocated to the
Association for program activities.
c) Parking Lot Landscaping Program
A view of Downtown Dublin from the air reveals
vast amounts of paved parking lots with little or
no landscaping to provide shade or visual relief.
In many cases no landscaping buffers exist between
parking lots and adjacent City sidewalks. To
improve the visual environment of the downtown
area as a means to remain competitive with newer
shopping areas with a ,much higher level of visual
attractiveness and shopper amenities, the City
will consider the implementation of a limited
length program to encourage and financially
participate in the improvement of inadequately
landscaped parking areas. Elements of the program
could be as follows:
1) The City will conduct a survey* to determine
those areas which are substandard with
respect to their parking lot landscaping.
2) The City will determine the extent of their
financial commitment to the program and
establish a program time limit. Program
options include the provision 'of plant
materials by the City in return for the
owners funding of construction expenses,
a matching grant program up to specified
limits, a low-cost loan program or other
activities deemed suitable by the City.
3) The City will inform all downtown property
owners of the program and will directly
contact property owners with significant
parking lot landscaping deficiencies to
discuss the owners' interests in
participating in a mutual improvement
program. Where interest exists, agreements
may be signed and improvements implemented.
d) Signing and Graphics Improvement Program
The appearance of signing in a downtown commercial
area is a major determinant of the way the entire
area is perceived by shoppers and residents.
Competitive pressures often result in signs and
building graphics which are detrimental not only
to the area as a whole but often to the individual
72
business as well. In many cases the condition
results from the business owner' s lack of
competent sign design assistance. Local sign
ordinances can prevent major problems from
occurring but can do little to encourage a high
level of quality for signing and graphics.
This Signing and Graphics Improvement Program
consists of the following:
1) The City will retain a competent graphic
design consultant with demonstrated skills in
commercial signing. The consultant will be
charged with preparing an evaluation of
existing signing and the identification of
properties where significant improvements
could be made.
2) The City will inform all business owners of
the program and directly contact those
merchants with specifically identified
problems to offer limited signing and
graphics design assistance through the City' s
consultant. The City will also at this time
insure that all existing signs conform to the
City' s current Sign Ordinance. It will be
the merchant ' s responsibility to fund any
detailed signing designs and constructions.
3) The design assistance shall be offered only
for the limited time of the consultant' s
contract with the City.
4) The City shall consider requiring the
consultant to provide signing guidelines for
the downtown area.
e) Downtown Beautification Awards Program
Individual initiative is essential to improving
the overall visual quality of Downtown Dublin.
Improvements which can make a difference in the
way in which the downtown is perceived include new
buildings, building renovations, landscape
improvements and even high quality graphics and
signing.
The City will investigate the -establishment of an
Annual Awards Program to single out improvements
which are meritorious and supportive of enhancing
Downtown Dublin' s character and visual quality.
In evaluating and developing this program, the
City will work closely with other community groups
with special interests in beautification efforts.
73
B. FUNDING PLAN
1. IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
Some elements of the implementation strategy can
be determined with a relative degree of certainty.
Others are much more difficult to quantify or are
_subject to substantial variables. Implementation
costs and funding methods will need careful
monitoring over the course of the Downtown Plan
Implementation Program.
Estimates of implementation costs are outlined on
Table D with applicable notes relative to
assumptions and unknowns. `
74
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN
ESTIMATED IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
TABLE D
1. CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
A. Dublin Boulevard $1,400 ,000 (Note 1)
B. New Streets 1,400 ,000 (Note 2)
C. Traffic Signals_ 470 ,000 (Note 3)
D. San Ramon Road off-ramp
improvements 500 ,000
$3,770 ,000
2. URBAN DESIGN IMAGE IMPROVEMENTS
A. San Ramon Road Landscape $ 100 ,000 (Note 4)
B. Downtown Entries 110 ,000
C. Continuity Theme Elements 90,000
D. Street Furniture 50 ,000 (Note 12)
E. Public Signing Program 50 ,000
F. Project Entries Pylons Program (Note 5)
$ 400 ,000 (Note 11)
3. CENTRAL BLOCK IMPROVEMENTS (Note 6)"
4 . RESTAURANT ROW IMPROVEMENTS (Note 7)
A. Curbs and Gutters $ 60 ,000
B. Landscaping 70,000
C. Crosswalks 50 ,000
D. Pedestrian Lighting 120 ,000
E. Entry Pylons 85 ,000
F. Street Furniture 15 ,000
$ 400 ,000
5 . SPECIAL PROGRAMS
A. Business License Program $ 0 (Note 8)
B. Downtown Promotion Program 20 ,000 (Note 9)
C. Parking Lot Landscaping Program (Note 5)
D. Signing and Graphics --
Improvement Program 10,000 (Note 10)
E. Downtown Beautification
Awards Program (Note 5)
$ 30 ,000 (Note 11)
ESTIMATED KNOWN COSTS $4 ,600 ,000
Less Amount Currently Allocated
in the City' s Capital
Improvement Program $1 ,470 ,000
ESTIMATED FUNDS NEEDED $3 ,130 ,000 (Note 13)
R-1 75
ESTIMATED IMPLEMENTATION COSTS NOTES
1. $900 ,000 of this amount is currently allocated in the City's
Capital Improvement Program.
2. " New street south of and parallel to Dublin Blvd. All or
part of the cost of construction and/or right-of-way may be
born by adjacent property owners.
3. $470 ,000 (total cost) is currently allocated in the City's
Capital Improvement Program.
4 . $100 ,000 of this amount is currently allocated in the City' s
Capital Improvement Program.
5 . The cost of this program and the extent of public and
private participation cannot yet be determined.
6. The extent of costs for this program is unknown and can only
be estimated following meetings with property owners .and the
development of schematic plans and cost estimates. An
initial assumption is that the City of Dublin's
participation will be limited to coordination activities and
perhaps the funding of an initial schematic plan to assist
property owners in reaching agreement. Should the
possibility of a public plaza or joint-use structure within
the Central Block become a reality, the City would consider
participation in construction and maintenance costs.
7. Restaurant Row Improvements are very preliminary in nature
and are based upon conceptual plans. Estimate includes
contingency factors as well as engineering and
administration costs.
8 . The Business License Program would be self-supporting.
9. Downtown Promotion Program costs assume only costs for the
initial six month start up and ordinance adoption phase. It
assumes the cost of one employee and direct costs of
mailings and printing. Office space, secretarial help and
other support services are assumed to be provided by
elements of the Steering Committee.
Costs for the ongoing program would be self-supporting from
proceeds of the AB 1693 District revenues.
10. Cost assumes the services of a qualified graphics and
signing consultant for a six-month period. Amount of effort
is estimated to average one full day per week. Actual time
expenditures could be less depending upon business interest
in the program.
11 . Total known cost excluding programs for which extent of
public and private costs are unknown.
76
12. Covers only estimate to upgrade quality of bus shelters from
transit authority standards.
13. Other miscellaneous public sector costs will need to be
..,. covered but would normally fall within normal city budget
categories. Examples include the traffic monitoring
program, coordination with BART and the on-going dialogue
with CALTRANS.
77
2. POTENTIAL FUNDING MECHANISMS
Implementation costs for the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan will be covered by a variety of
public and private funding sources over a period
of several years. During the implementation
period, a variety of conditions or new funding
programs may offer special opportunities.
However, at present the following sources and
mechanisms appear to be the most appropriate for
consideration:
a) Capital Improvement Program
The City's Capital Improvement Program
("CIP") is already known to be a source of
funding for a portion of the plan. Of the
estimated capital improvement costs,
$1,470 ,000 is included in the current CIP.
Plan Improvements to be funded by the CIP
include the widening of Dublin Boulevard, new
traffic signals, and San Ramon Road
landscaping. City staff have indicated that
the CIP will not likely be able to fund
additional plan-related improvements until
after 1991 as a result of commitments to
other improvement projects throughout the
city. However, CIP funds may be available
after 1991 to fund additional improvements in
the downtown.
b) Special Assessments
Special Assessments can be levied where a
property owner ' s land in an identifiable area
is particularly benefited by a capital
improvement. An assessment act provides the
procedure for the formation of an assessment
district, the authorization for the
improvement, and the levying of an assessment
secured by liens on the land. If the
property owners cannot pay the full
assessments within a specified time period
(usually 30 days) , then assessment bonds can
be issued representing the unpaid
assessments.
The type of improvements for which
assessments can be levied include street
paving, sidewalks, collection sewers, water
services, street lighting, curbs, gutters,
landscaping , land and easements, off-street
parking, storm drainage systems, and local
gas and electrical services. Special
assessments are required to be levied against
78
property on the basis of the benefit each '
piece of property receives, per the
determination of an engineer.
Assessment districts and assessment bond
financing may only be established and issued
by cities, counties and some special
districts, usually at the request of the
property owners to be benefited by the
. improvement. Written protest from the
majority of landowners within the proposed
district, however, may force the governing
body to halt consideration of the project for
one year unless the protest is overruled for
reasons of public health and safety by a
four-fifths vote of the governing body' s
legislative members.
c) Exactions
Per the Subdivision Map Act of the Government
Code, jurisdictions may require developers to
participate in benefit assessment districts
for specified types of improvements. . Under
this Act, and additional sections of the
Government Code, municipalities have the
legal authority to require developers to
finance and construct public facilities in
order to obtain. project approval. Such
public facilities include storm drains, water
lines, sewer laterals, street lights,
collector streets, curb, gutters and
sidewalks.
d) Development Fees
Development fees are both similar and
dissimilar to exactions. Exactions require a
developer to finance and construct public
facilities while development fees require
them only to assist in financing the
facilities. Development fees for public
facilities are generally collected from
developers at the time the building permit is
issued and are typically used for water,
sewer and storm drains, land acquisition,
libraries, schools, parks, roads and street
lighting.
There are two forms of development fees for
public infrastructure: connection fees and
impact fees. Connection fees pay for the
connection of units in development projects
to public infrastructure. Impact fees ate
paid into a fund that finances infrastructure
79
throughout the district. Development fees '
can usually be levied or increased without a
two-thirds majority vote and are authorized
by municipal ordinances. Development fees
are a common mechanism for local
jurisdictions to raise funds to mitigate the
impact of development. Such fees are often
used to fund transportation improvements
necessitated by new development.
e) AB 1693
AB 1693, also known as the Parking and
Business Improvement Area Law of 1979, was
enacted by the California legislature. It `
allows a city to assess businesses within a
designated area for the specific purposes
outlined in the Implementation Strategies
section of this plan.
AB 1693 could be utilized to fund portions of
the urban design image improvements and the
implementation costs associated with the .
Plan. Specifically, the provision allowing
use of AB 1693 funds for "decoration of any
public place in the area" would permit the
funding, at least in part, of downtown
entries and theme elements such as banners.
In addition, the provision related to
"general promotion of business activities in
the area" would allow AB 1693 funds to be
used to pay for a downtown coordinator.
A city council has the authority to create
such an improvement area. However, the
stimulus for such an action is most likely to
come from the business community itself.
Since the creation of an AB 1693 area can be
blocked by a protest of businesses who would
pay a majority of the assessment, it is
essential that a broad base of support be
obtained among the downtown business
community.
A summary of these sources along with other
` pertinent information is shown on Table E.
f) Voluntary Private Contributions
For some programs such as Central Block
improvements or parking lot landscaping
improvements, voluntary contributions would
be expected to fund all or a significant
majority of the costs.
80
g) Special General Fund Allocations
For some programs of short duration, .the City
may consider funding them as part of normal
city department budgets.
81
i
a
TABLE E
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FINANCING ALTERNATIVES
1 DUBLIN DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT STUDY
'i FUNDING MECHANISM LEGAL STATUE ISSUER/AUTHORITY PURPOSE APPROVAL PROCESS
)
i Special Assesments Streets and Highway City County, Special Capital improvements to Imposed by public entity,
-Improvement Act of Sections 5000,10000, District land that benefit subject to a majority
1911 and 8500. specific and protest of landowners.
-Municipal Improvement identifiable properties.
Act of 1913
-Improvement Bond Act
of 1915
Development Fees Subdivision Map Act, City, County Assist in funding Discretion of legislation
Government Code public facilities by a body.
Sections 66410, 65974 fee based upon the
scale of new
development.
Exavations Subdivision Map Act, City, County Public improvements to Discretion of legislation
Government Code (developer makes body.
Section 66410 . improvements) .
Business License Fee City General Fund-type City Council
expenditures (capital
and operational) .
AB 1693 California Statutes, City Parking facilities, City council approves
Parking and Business decoration of public formation, a protest by
Improvement Area Law areas, promotion of businesses which will
i of 1979. public events and of pay a majority of the
business activities. assessments can aereat
the creation of a parKing
and business improvement
district pursuant to this
a law.
Sources: "Guide to Public Debt Financing in California," Viginia L. Horler, C.C.M.I. , Rauscher Pierce Refsnes, Inc.;
"Financing Capital Improvements for Redevelopment in California," Goldfarb & Lipman, December 1982;
California Government Code; California Downtown Association; and Laventhol and Horwath.
N
I
3 . FUNDING STRATEGY
The funding strategy for the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan focuses on three sources which are
most likely to provide the necessary resources:
a) The City's Capital Improvement Program
b) Land owners/developers development (or
traffic mitigation) fees and exactions
c) Business assessments through an AB 1693
Program
With regard to circulation improvements, the CIP
and development fees are the most applicable
funding mechanisms. As noted previously,
$1 ,470 ,000 has already been earmarked in the CIP
for downtown improvements. Additional
improvements to Dublin Boulevard and to the San
Ramon Road off-ramp from Interstate 580 will have
to wait until after 1991 for additional CIP
funding or rely upon development (traffic
mitigation) fees which would be assessed upon new
development. Funding for the new street proposed
in the Plan for the area south of Dublin Boulevard
could be funded via a combination of development
fees and exactions from property owners who will
benefit, including those properties adjacent to
the new street and BART.
The timing for the Restaurant Row improvements
appears to be post 1990 in light of higher
priorities for other plan elements. At that time,
appropriate sources of funding would include the
CIP, a special assessment district development
fees or exactions. For example, at such time as
the use of one or both of the automobile
dealerships should change, the City could require
the redeveloper to either construct certain street
and urban design improvements or contribute to a
fund that would finance such improvements.
The concept of creating downtown entries and theme
elements is consistent with the objectives of AB
1693. It should, therefore, be possible to
utilize AB 1693 funds to finance these urban
design improvements, although the city may choose
to limit use of these funds to such activities as
the retention of a downtown coordinator,
implementation of a downtown promotion program,
conduct of special downtown events or activities
and maintenance activities such as the replacement
of theme banners. In summary, AB 1693 is an
83
appropriate source of funding for activities
directed toward promoting the downtown as a
business center.
It should be noted that special assessments are
not recommended as a potential funding mechanism
for this plan except in the case of urban design
image, Restaurant Row, and Central Block
improvements. The reason is that it would be very
difficult, in practice, to delineate the
properties that would benefit from such
improvements as street widening and off-ramp
upgrading. Improvements of this type would be
expected to have benefits extending beyond the
downtown area. It is, therefore, recommended that
the CIP and development fees be used to fund such
improvements.
Table F summarizes the potential funding
mechanisms for each of the major implementation
elements.
84
RECOMMENDED FUNDING MECHANISMS `
TABLE F
MAJOR FUNDING SOURCES FOR CONSIDERATION
V1
• W
W
ZN W nz
lu Z
c<
IMPLEMENTATION COSTS ESTIMATED < 1/1 O
COSTS °- W ,;; < > m O W REMARKS
V to C W < >a V
1, DUBLIN BLVD. 1,400,000 • �— . ADDITIONAL C.I. FUNDS ONLY
LIKELY AFTER 1991
2. NEW STREETS. 1,400,000 S • INCLUDES BART PARTICIPATION
3. TRAFFIC SIGNALS 470,000 • FUNDS ALREADY ALLOCATED
4. SAN RAMON ROAD 5001000 ADDITIONAL C.I.P.FUNDS ONLY
OFF-RAMP IMPROVEMENTS • • LIKELY AFTER 1991
5. SAN RAMON ROAD 100,000 • FUNDS ALREADY ALLOCATED
LANDSCAPING
6. DOWNTOWN ENTRIES 110,000 • •
7. CONTINUITY THEME 90,000 • •
ELEMENTS
8. STREET FURNITURE 50,000 •
9. PUBLIC SIGNING PROGRAM 50,000 . •
10. PROJECT ENTRIES PYLONS UNKNOWN • •
11.CENTRAL BLOCK A81693 FUNDS ONLY CONSIDERED
IMPROVEMENTS UNKNOWN • • • FOR USE TO IMPROVE POTENTIAL
FU IC USE AREA
12.RESTAURANT ROW • . •
IMPROVEMENTS 400,000
13. DOWNTOWN 7 A81693 FUNDS ONLY CONSIDERED
PROMOTION PROGRAM 20,000 • • • FOR USE TO IMPROVE POTENTIAL
PUBLIC USE AREA
GENERAL FUND AND PRIVATE
14. PARKING LOT UNKNOWN • • CONTRIBUTIONS ONLY ANTICIPATED
LANDSCAPING PROGRAM FOR INITIAL EDUCATION AND
PROGRAM ADOPTION PERIOD
15. SIGNING AND GRAPHICS 10,000 • •
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
16. DOWNTOWN • • •
BEAUTIFICATION AWARDS UNKNOWN
PROGRAM
MITIAL SIX MONTH COORDINATION PERIOD ONLY
R-1 g 5
J
7. Appendix
7. APPENDIX
Item A: Current Development Conditions
Item B: Existing Zoning Map
Item C: Largest Landholding Property Owners
Item D: Preliminary Intersections Improvements Plan
Item E:, Street Furniture Standards/Examples
Item F: Summary of Estimated Market Demand
"% ��y�r^ �•�'�� to \\ d Q
1
I l
REFER TO THE EXISTING CONDITIONS TABLE
Current Development Conditions
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN o zoa 40� feet
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
ITEM A
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT PLAN
EXISTING CONDITIONS
November 5 , -1986
DEVELOPMENT ZONES TOTAL
PARCEL PARCEL BUILDING PARKING DEVELOPED
AREA AREA AREA PARKING RATIO AREA
ZONE # (ACRES) (Sq.FT. ) (SQ.FT. ) F .A.R. (SPACES) (1 PER SF. ) F .A.R. *
1 36 .21 1 ,577 ,300 455 ,500 0 .29 1 ,781 256 0 .30
2 13 . 60 592 ,400 206 ,700 0 .35 100 2 ,067 0 .35
3 35 .02 1 ,525 ,500 236 ,100 0 .15 803 294 0.28
4 13 .01 566 ,700 120 ,000 0 .21 483 248 0 .25
5 19 .32 841 ,600 218 ,800 0 .26 1 ,000 219 0 .26
6 34 .25 1 , 491 ,900 442 ,600 0 .30 2 ,415 183 0 .30
7 22 . 93 998 ,800 131 ,500 0 .13 488 269 0 .13
8 29 .96 1 ,305 ,100 370 ,000 0 .28 1 ,275 290 0 .28
9 11 .60 505 ,300 87 ,600 0 .17 471 186 0.22
10 5 .92 257 ,900 64 ,700 0 .25 457 142 0 .25
TOTAL 221 . 82 9 ,662 ,500 2 ,333 ,550 0 .24 9 ,273 252 0 . 26
*Vacant parcels within the development zones have been excluded in this calculation.
. iji�lslilll�.
I'� I��IIIIrr
' ►I �Illlli
II ,lli,l
. • a Ii IIIII; Illtll �� I11 II � � � ���,>
011ul f� •II� 1 � �'�� �� it �; E,. ��II�!•II� � , ���� ►:'�\< �►,
! IIIII. , : +I � , , � ��Is•''' i I �! i I!i,1'�uull � I►, �y�0�►► � ���►
I,IIII;., ,,I I � ��! .III=.1 ���i I 1 � � 1 ,Ill ��b II r�'-e�'�, � ! �►
n 1�1 I II I I II .
Il.Ill III ► 1 , 1 / , b ,• . /� ��
�(`� nI I` li !;III 1 1 III►, ��� � �/;,
.:..fill (j,! il. 111I� 1 III I � I � � I 1 ►il �`, .�, �C_ .�`' II
II111 �uui� � 11,.• � I II 1 I � = I � .-� �
IE'�jllillliklll �II III I1�� I1 �Il.••" Ii I III �' a
��II,� i � � �,I�II IIIIII1•,j1'I! III III! � : ����� Its � �ll! �� � , ��j' ���v�(i'
ii !i i,�!li�. ;i3i�El,l.., , II. it 1 ► 1►11.111311 �� � � .
i I !
,-
111111111111�III1 11 �� ! � •• I I � � Illll�l \ �•
. .. Ij i III II �• � .
I IIIII! �ii IhEI i a 1�
ill
ICI �� ►lil,ill I !II �I 1
• ��I';I, IIIII►I II�'� I l,�II,I'I' III
lII�� II i
I� I, ►IIr1�•� � 'iljll�l�I
' !lIII iii ,I I Ili IgI! -•
/// ,1i11,131I�,I �� ill Ilil �
lallilcl_!�1
IIIIIIIIIIIIIiII • - . - � • � • . - . � _ - . . -
so
ous-
.. \ i �• oisrncr
` 6
2 AA ,
� � -f it ,•`\
2 I.D. NO. FOR LARGEST PROPERTY OWNERS
(refer to the Largest Landholding Property Owners list)
Largest Landholding Property Owners
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN 0
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
ITEM C
LARGEST LANDHOLDING PROPERTY OWNERS
Property Owner Acreage
1) Gertrude Dibble 4.59 acres
2) Wildis North American Corporation 5.92 acres*
3) Don and Kathryn Hucke 3 .89 acres*
4) James Woulfe 5.94 acres
5) Lloydes Bank of California
(Payless Drug Store) 5 .41 acres
6) Regional Street Joint Venture 9.00 acres*
7) Dublin Associates 23 .72 acres
8) Montgomery Ward Development Corporation 9.37 acres
9) Edibrook Corporation 7.00 acres
10) Andrew Berwick & Amos Kraus 2.92 acres
11) Robert and Betty Woolverton 4.99 acres
12) Great Western Savings & Loan Associates 3 .14 acres
13) Motor Lodge Associates 4.69 acres
14) Dublin Land Company 3.73 acres
15) Travelers Income Properties 3 .73 acres
16) Enea Plaza 21.74 acres
17) Peter Bedford 29 .64 acres*
18) Regional Street Plaza 4.50 acres
* approximate acreage
o � h
E
4 p\ (q v
so
............ ...........:•;:::..::.:.
,................... ......
�� 1T
EXISTING FUTURE
CONFIGURATION CONFIGURATION
Preliminary Intersection Improvements Plan
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN o 200 400
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
ITEM D
ITEM E
Street Furniture Standards/Examples
Overview
The .purpose of these guidelines is to establish criterion
from which the City of Dublin can choose a single vocabulary
of street furniture for use on both public and private
projects within the downtown area. Street furnishings are
elements such as benches, trash containers, and street
lights which add scale and character to an urban
environment. While private developers should be encouraged
to use these furnishings the city should maintain
flexibility to allow special furniture in conjunction with
stylized architectural projects.
,Each element which is chosen shall:
o meet a functional need
o be aesthetically pleasing and fit into a total visual
package
o be durable enough to resist the effects of vandals,
weather, and time
o create a visual impact when seen from a distance or when
passing in an automobile
o compliment the variety of architectural styles used in
private projects within the study area
o be compact enough to fit on tight sights within the public
right-of-way
o be visually attractive and pedestrian oriented to work in
small scale projects
ITEM E
(CONTINUED)
Street Furniture Standards/Examples
A. Bus Shelters
1) STANDARDS
1) Bus shelters shall provide protection from wind
and weather.
2) The pedestrian or waiting passenger shall be
visible from outside. There should be no place
for vandals to hide.
3) The base of the shelter shall be free of
obstructions where dirt and litter might
accumulate.
4) Shelters shall be a compatible depth to fit on
city sidewalks.
5) The shelter shall have a distinct form to help
create a special image for downtown.
6) The City shall consider providing light and/or
heat in shelters for the comfort of users.
2) E`CANIPLE
0
MH
i
i
I - i
ITEM E
(CONTINUED)
Street Furniture Stan dards/Examp I es
-B- Benches
1) STANDARDS
a) Benches shall be, compact enough to fit along most
sidewalk areas with out impeding pedestrian
circulation.
b) Benches shall be of contemporary-slated wood
design to compliment the majority of projects
within the downtown area.
d Benches shall not be of continuous material such
as plastic in order to discourage graffiti.
2) EXAMPLE
ITEM E
(CONTINUED)
_ Street Furniture Standards/Examp les _
C. _.Planters _.
1) STANDARDS
a) The planters shall have a textured surface to
discourage the placement of posters and banners.
b) Planters shall be chosen with the limited sidewalk
width in mind.
2) EXAM IPLE
ITEM E
(CONTINUED)
Street Furniture Stan dards/E x- am p p I es --
D. Waste Receptacles
1) STANDARDS
a) Waste receptacles shall be textured to discourage
the placement of posters or flyers.
b) The opening shall be sufficiently covered to keep
litter from blowing free.
c) The containers shall be compact enough not to
interfere with pedestrian traffic on sidewalks.
2) EXANWLE
i
ITEM F.
DOWNTOWN DUBLIN
SUMMARY OF MARKET ANALYSIS
FEBRUARY 1986
Retail Office Hotel
Development Focus :
Eating and drinking Support services Full service
places, apparel and for local mer- facility for com
specialty stores chants, resid- mercial market
ents and busi- that will continue
nesses to dominate demand
Competitive Markets :
Dublin, Livermore Dublin, Pleasonton Dublin, Livermore
Pleasanton and San and San Ramon and Pleasanton
Ramon retail centers office projects hotel facilities
Projected Demand :
a
1986 - 1990 :
Comparison 84 ,000 to None None
goods 110 ,880 square feet
Eating and 33 ,250 to
drinking .39 , 900 square feet
Total retail 117 ,250 to 150 ,780 square feet
1991 - 1995 :
Comparison 114 ,000 to 125,000 to One additional
goods 150 ,480 square feet 165 ,000 square feet facility (size :
Eating and 25 ,500 to undetermined)
drinking 30 ,600 square feet
Total retail 139 ,500 to 181 ,080 square feet
Range of lease/
room rates: $ .81 (NNN) to $1 .25 $ .70 (NNN) to $1.25 $54 to $85/night
(NNN)/month (full-service) /
month
Source : Laventhol & Horwath.
F
CITY OF DUBLIN
Replacement Pages to March 16, 1987
Draft Dublin Downtown Specific Plan
Remove: Insert:
1) LIST OF DIAGRAMS Revised LIST OF DIAGRAMS,
which includes Page 20A
2) None New Page 20A which indicates
Proposed Street Sections
(Diagram 5A)
3) Page 28, Development Zones Map Revised Page 28, Development
(Diagram 9) Zones Map (Diagram 9) , which
indicates revised Zone 3
4) Page 30 Revised Page 30, which revises
Interim Use Zone A
5) Page 31, Interim Use Zones and Revised Page 31, Interim Use
Standards (Diagram 10) Zones and Standards (Diagram
10) , which indicates Revised
Zone A
6) Page 32 Retyped' Page 32
7) Page 33 Revised Page 33 with BART
reference removed and with
Village Parkway/Dublin
Boulevard change referenced
8) Page 34, General Plan Changes Revised Page 34, General Plan
(Diagram 11) Changes (Diagram 11) , with
BART unchanged
9) Page 35 Revised Page 35, with revised
Zoning Ordinance modifications
10) Page 36, Development Standards Revised Page 6, Development
(Table C) Standards (Table C) , with
revisions to Land Uses and
Building Heights
11) Page 37 Special Site Development Revised Page 37, Special Site
Requirements (Diagram 12) Development Requirements
(Diagram 12) , with revised
Transit Area
EW
1, TA
KET x3
r�..,5
Replacement Pages to March 16, 1987
Draft Dublin Downtown Specific Plan
Page 2
12) Page 38 Retyped Page 38
13) Page 39 Retyped Page 39
14) Page 40 Retyped Page 40
15) Page 43 Retyped Page 43
16) Page 75, Estimated Implementation Page 75, Estimated
Costs (Table D) Implementation Costs
(Table D) , with the reworded
Estimated Known Costs and
Estimated Funds Needed
17) Page 85, Recommended Funding Revised Page 85, Recommended
Mechanisms (Table F) Funding Mechanisms (Table F)
with revisions to Downtown
Promotion Program and Parking
Lot Landscaping Program
t
_= 1
t
LIST OF DIAGRAMS
PAGE
1. Location Map: Downtown Specific Plan Area 2
2. Specific Plan Area Boundaries 3
.3. Study Intersections and Traffic/Parking Zones 15
4. Circulation Improvements 18
5. Pedestrian Circulation Plan 20
5A. Proposed Street -Sections 20A
6. Peak Off'Street Parking Utilization Summary 22
7. Existing Land Use Plan 25
8. Land Use Objectives 26
9. Development Zones Map 28
10. Interim Use, Zones and Standards 31
11. General Plan Changes 34
12. Special Site Development Standards 37
13. Central Block Potential Improvements Summary 41
14. Central Block Development Intensification
Opportunity Areas 42
15. Central Block Illustrative Plan 44
16. Conceptual* Section - New Central Block Structure 45
17. Urban Design Public Improvements Concept 47
18. Center Median Theme Treatment 48
19. Other Center Median Theme Potentials 50
20. Downtown Entries Elements 51
21. Project Entries 53
22. Restaurant Row Conceptual Plan 56
23 . Restaurant Row Conceptual Section 57
LIST OF TABLES
A. Existing Intersections Levels of Service 16
B. Downtown Parking Requirements 23
C. Downtown Dublin Development Standards 36
D. Estimated Implementation Costs 75
E. Capital Improvements Financing Alternatives 82
F. Recommended Funding Mechanisms 85
R-1 -
EXISTING
PARKWAY PARKING 2 TRAVEL LANES ENLARGED PARKWAY
EXISTING R.O.W. 88'
ALTERATION TO GOLDEN GATE DRIVE
•is
N
PARKWAY a. 2 TRAFFIC LANES a TURN LANE 44'
PARKWAY 16'
PROPOSED R.O.W. 85•
STREET SOUTH OF DUBLIN BLVD.
Proposed Street Sections
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
R_1 20A - Diagram 5A
t
-3Z it CO
Q o 1�/ ;,� � 1•. I I � V
. 1 � �
I /
_ r
Development Zones Map
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN zoo 400 feet
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA =
R-1 28 Diagram 9
Zone 8: Restaurant and Specialty Retail
Located between I-680 and the proposed "Dublin Restaurant
Row" this zone will be encouraged over time to increase
its pedestrian orientation for restaurant, specialty
retail and entertainment uses.
Zone 9: Amador Valley Boulevard Commercial
Strategically situated in a good location_ relative to
traffic access within the downtown area, this zone will
be encouraged to intensify its development in the future.
A mix of uses with some two or three story structures is
desired. Design cohesiveness among portions of the area
will be strongly encouraged. Proposals providing direct
access to San Ramon Road will be considered.
Zone 10: Village Parkway Mixed Use
Currently occupied by a wide mix of commercial uses, this
zone will continue to serve a variety of needs in the
future. Visual landscape and building design improve-
ments will be sought to compliment the City's substantial
investment in public improvements along Village Parkway.
Zone 11: Retail/Office
Located on two streets which serve the nearby residential
population, this area will continue as a mix of commer-
cial uses'. Small scale resident-serving offices such as
medical or dental offices will be encouraged along with
retail uses oriented to the nearby residential areas.
Proposals which incorporate residential uses will be
considered.
3) INTERIM USE ZONES
Four areas of Downtown Dublin have been identified as
Interim Use Zones. These are areas which will likely
remain in their current use for the foreseeable future
but for which substantial later change is possible.
Interim use standards Pill be developed for each zone to
allow current uses to continue and to encourage property
changes where appropriate to mitigate negative visual
impacts on adjacent properties.
Interim use Zone locations and general standard are
shown on Diagram 10.
Interim Use Zone A:
This area currently contains three warehouse structures
containing non-retail uses and a large vacant property.
The area is the potential location for a B.A.R.T. Park-
and-Ride facility initially and a later parking
R-1 30.
F
PROPERTY CHANGES SHALL INCL &w, U'INCREASED LANDSCAPING AN VI . ,� o .�NY ADDITIONAL
IMPROVEMENTS TO EXIS INkELOPMENT SHALL
STRUCTURES \\ � oo�, CONTINGENT UPON
o REENING SERVICE USES
ND INCREASED
♦ LANDSCAPING
I TERIM USE LIMITED
T AvTOMOBILE
EALER IP
J V
LT IM ✓ �° �� ®o
CO
ANY PARKING L DE OPMENT
SHALL BE ADEQUA U ANDSCAPED
PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS SHALL
REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW STRUCTURES SHALL BE LIMITED TO
ROADWAY EXISTING BUILDINGS OR THOSE RELATED
TO REGIONAL TRANSIT. ACTIVITIES .
Interim Use Zones and Standards
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN 200 400 fee
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA t
R-1 31 Diagram j O
t
resource for a B.A.R.T. Station or other regional
transit facility. The need to accommodate these
potentials in the future combined with the property's
current relative isolation from Dublin Boulevard
requires a different set of development standards than
would be desirable for a future commercial mixed use
project related to a regional transit facility.
Interim standards should:
a) Prohibit development which would preclude the _
economical development of transit parking.
b) Require recognition that the property is highly
visible from Interstate 580 and does much to
establish the image of Downtown Dublin.
c) Allow for a new street connecting Regional Street
and Golden Gate Drive.
d) Recognize the limited retail potential of the
property until roadway and transit improvements are
implemented.
e) Require an overall master plan emphasizing a mix of
commercial uses for long term change for the area
prior to the approval of any additional structures
or uses.
Interim Use Zone B:
Currently occupied largely by older industrial type
structures, this area is in marked contrast to other
development in the downtown area. While the area will
eventually change, current ownerships patterns and the
relatively sound condition of the structures suggest that
some time may pass before substantial change will occur.
Interim standards are needed to improve the appearance of
this area and should:
a) Require substantial additional landscaping along
the Village Parkway frontage as a condition of any
future property improvements.
b) Encourage improvements to the visual character of
existing structures.
c) Encourage additional landscape improvements to all
' parking areas.
Interim Use Zone C:
Auto dealership uses contained in this zone are felt to
be an' asset to Downtown Dublin and will be encouraged to
remain. However, it is realized that in the longer term,
increased land values may eventually precipitate a change
R-1 32
s
in land use. Development standards for this zone will be
formulated to enhance a pedestrian-oriented environment
with restaurants, specialty retail shops, small offices
and entertainment uses.
Interim use standards should focus upon fostering a
retention of current uses while controlling modifications
to insure their compatibility with the future changes
along Amador Plaza Road. Interim standards should:
a) Encourage additional landscaping along Amador Plaza
Road.
b) Provide for the screening of service and non-display
autos areas.
Interim Use Zone D:
As in Interim Use Zone C. the existing auto dealership
use will be strongly encouraged to remain. Interim use
standards will support the existing use while insuring
that any changes to the property do not adversely affect
adjacent commercial projects or the overall visual
quality of the downtown area.
4) GENERAL PLAN CHANGES
Elements of this Specific Plan are in conformance with
the City' s General Plan adopted in 1985 with the
following minor exceptions:
a) Retail/Office and Automotive use categories west
of interstate 680 have been changed to a
retail/office classification in the Specific Plan.
Existing automotive uses will be encouraged to
remain and accommodated through interim, use
standards.
b) Special provisions for adding an Interstate 680
interchange at or near Amador Valley Boulevard have
not been made given the uncertainty of workable
solutions with respect to the likely complexity of
the I-680/I-580 interchange improvements. The
Specific Plan has been prepared to not depend on a
new interchange but to remain flexible in
accommodating new ramps which can be located to
enhance rather than harm downtown circulation and
its visual environment. (Note: Traffic modeling
studies indicated some benefits to I-680 ramps but
did not suggest that additional development within
the downtown would be possible with them. )
In recognition of the goals of this Specific Plan
the General Plan and Specific Plan will be
reconciled as shown on Diagram 11:
R-1 33
s
\� \
ELIMINATIO O IrF'6•80 � � ����•':::: ::-
\
CONNECTION DESIGN TION � I,� :�: �;':•:�":�::.�.
NZ.
................
gt'v
...........
r%
41S
0
'•r'i
11' :
.: ..
i:, �......•.:T•f: ..:.::•. ..•�Y:•}:ii.iii}:{{4i:C•:+ :::..
lot
OPP
RE
MIXE
::.".:»::is•i�
i.::::-: ::i�'i' r� .. ti's.:.: >i::::;:-. :.:•:::::�?-.,>•: Y'�:.;:;:;yic� :i %s�: ', �'
::i: r::..�: .. ::i:•:i:•::•::iii iii::: :. �' �''
.cv 1:<: ;� <>;:::..:: :•::;:::>'::«: '::,;::<:::>:<�;<:::: :::: - it ..�
t
Retail/Office .
Retail/Office & Automotive
1 1 Areas of Change
General Plan Changes =
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN 0 200 400 feet
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
R-1 34 Diagram � �
a
5) ZONING ORDINANCE MODIFICATIONS
The Zoning Ordinance will be amended to allow properties
within Downtown Dublin to be designated as part of a
Downtown Overlay Zoning District to supplement the
current zoning designations. Land uses, development
standards and interim uses will be as outlined in the
Development Standards for each Downtown Development Zone
and the supporting diagrams outlining special
requirements. The Zoning Ordinance and Map will be
�- changed to implement the purposes of the Downtown
Specific Plan.
To the extent that such changes are adopted as part of
the Specific Plan, they will be reviewed and approved as
part of the regular procedures for amendment of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Permits for new construction and other property
improvements will be subject to conformance with the
Specific Plan, and to the requirements of both the
underlying district and the overlay zone, or the more
restrictive of the two.
Where a subject is not addressed by the overlay zone, the
existing provisions of the Zoning Ordinance will remain
in effect.
6) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
In order to tailor land uses and development
characteristics more closely to the goals and needs of
Downtown Dublin, special Development Standards will
govern future change within the downtown area. Table C
contains land use, development intensity, and building
height standards.
For the purposes of these standards, "Service Commercial"
uses which are to be located on the ground floor of
structures are to be interpreted as businesses which are
compatible with and strongly supportive of the primary
downtown retail character. Uses which would be
substantially disruptive to retail continuity or which
are inappropriate to the goals and policies of this
Specific Plan will not be allowed.
The following standards shall apply to all areas of the
downtown:
a) Parking lots shall be screened by low walls and/or
landscaping from adjacent streets.
b) Parking lots shall contain a minimum of 20% of
their surface area in landscaping.
R-1 35
1
7
� 8
a 10
�• 5
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS a
DOWNTOWN DUBLIN Table C 2 3
DEVELOPMENT ZONES
LAND USES 1 2 3 4 5 6 T 8 9 10 11
RETAIL STORES
OFFICES 0 • •
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS 0
RESTAURANTS (NON FAST FOOD) 0
HOTEL/MOTEL • • • •
SERVICE COMMERCIAL • • • • •
COMMERCIAL RECREATION/ • • • • O • • • • • •
ENTERTAINMENT
RESIDENTIAL • • • • • • • •
AUTOMOBILE SALES/SERVICE - -
♦DRIVE-IN BUSINESS • • • • •
AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION • • • •
MCN DISTRICT SHOPS& SERVICE
.AUTOMOBILE REPAIR FACILITIES - - -
M-1 DISTRICT USES -
REGIONAL TRANSIT FACILITIES • no
OTHER C-1 DISTRICT USES
MOTHER C-2 DISTRICT USES
OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO 0.45 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.30 1 0.50 1 0.30 0.30
ALLOWABLE BLDG. HEIGHT (FEET) '45 45 45'k 45* 45 45 45 35 45 35 35
S PERMITTED O CONDITIONAL USE
- PERMITTED ON AN INTERIM BASIS [771 SUBJECT TO PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND
APPROVAL AS SUPPORTAIVE OF DOWNTOWN GOALS
O LIMITED TO SECOND FLOOR OR ABOVE SPACE ONLY * 45' MAX. WITH UP TO 75' WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
■ PERMITTED LAND USES WILL BE DEFINED AS THE ZONING APPROVAL OF ANY PROPOSAL IN EXCESS OF THIS LIMIT SHALL REQUIRE
ORDINACE IS AMENDED AN AMENDMENT TO THIS PLAN.
♦ INCLUDING FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS
s
VISUAL APPEARANCE FROM
SAN RAMON ROAD IMPORTANT
\ �Q CDC. ENTRIES
BUILDING HEIG MITED\. �J Q
2 STORI S A ACE T TO Tp{ `ORIENTED TO
PR RTY ES
\ AMADOR PLAZA RD.
15' MIN. LANDSCAPED
ETBACK REQ'D.
ON PEDESTRIAN
�� �► ������,�`�� NMENT REQ'D.
A . � iQ
X.
r �� � •f� � � Y"
+ a ,A ♦ 4-_
Soso
-
CT
t-A` �� y
BLIC AND DI L ECIALTY
RETAIL USES E U Ed
STRONG PEDESTRIAN C 1 1�CTION
SU-3'rANT1AL LAN SCAPINW'G ENCOURAGED
REQUIRED
IMPROVEMENTS TO INTERNAL CIRCULATION
NEW ROADWAY AND LANDSCAPED AND PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING ENCOURAGED
PEDESTRIAN WAY REQUIRED INTEGRATED PROJECT WITH PUBLIC FOCAL POINT
COMMERCIAL USES AND REGIONAL TRANSIT PARKING
DESIRED
Special Site Development Requirements
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN 0 200 400 feet
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA _
R-1 37 -- Diagram 12
a
c) Roof top equipment which can be seen from the
downtown area, adjacent freeways, off-ramps and
overpasses shall be screened from view.
In addition , the Specific Site Development Requirements
described on Diagram 12 will be applied to each affected
properties.
Development standards not identified in this Specific
Plan will generally be as required for C-1 Districts
in the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. However, each`--
new development "or property change will be subject to
Site Development Review as prescribed by Sections 8-
95.0 through 8-95 .8 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
unless exempted from such review by the Planning
Director on the basis of being of minor impact.
Special review shall be given to those properties
adjoining residentially-zoned property and more
stringent site development and architectural design
requirements may be imposed to mitigate impacts upon
those residential properties. Where potential
mitigation measures to eliminate undesirable impacts
on adjacent residential properties are felt by the
City to be insufficient, additional landscaped
setbacks and lower height restrictions may be imposed.
B. CENTRAL BLOCK IMPROVEMENT PLAN
1) EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bounded by Dublin Boulevard, Amador Plaza Road, Amador
Valley Boulevard and Regional Street the Central Block
is the hub of downtown. Located within this
superblock are a number of separate properties and
large anchor stores which have established the retail
image of Dublin. The major buildings on the site are
grouped into two shopping centers facing opposite
directions. This arrangement has left a service
corridor running north and south through the center of
the block. The other uses within the block have been
pushed to the perimeter and separated from the retail
center by parking. These uses include the City' s
Public Library, a service station, several
restaurants, and a movie theater complex.
The following existing conditions are noteworthy:
9
a) A poor circulation route links the stores and
parking in the Central Block
b) A surplus of parking resources exists
c) Little or no concern has been shown for pedestrian
circulation and amenities
R-1 38
F
d) A multitude of individual poorly signed automobile
entries serve the Central Block
To overcome the negative aspects of the existing
conditions and to enhance the Central Block as the
major focus of Downtown Dublin's retail activity, a
Conceptual Plan ,for the Central Block has been
prepared. Major elements of that plan are described
below.
2) CIRCULATION PLAN
The uncoordinated development that occurred under the
County's jurisdiction has resulted in poor circulation
networks both for pedestrians and automobiles within
the Central Block. This plan aims to improve the
existing conditions through the following projects:
o Enhanced East West Access: The current parking
arrangement provides for only limited east-west
automobile circulation across the site. This plan
proposes connections at each end of the shopping
centers in order to simplify access for the users.
• Simplified Circulation and Access: The existing
circulation route around the center is awkward and
confusing. This plan smoothes out some of the
difficult intersections and articulates a clear route
through roadway modifications and increased
landscaping.
• Improved Pedestrian Circulation: A strong axis for
pedestrian movement has been created through the site
connecting both major shopping complexes and linking
them to the cinema and restaurants on Amador Plaza
Road. Special attention should be given to
landscaping and creating a high level of pedestrian
amenities along this route.
3) PARKING PLAN
The Central Block contains 3415 parking spaces. As
shown by the parking survey summarized earlier in this
plan, the parking supply is more than adequate. In
fact on the eastern half of the site only 65% of the
spaces were being utilized at the peak shopping season
of the year. This abundance allows for the potential
to incorporate circulation improvements, increased
landscaping amenities, and some new development without
requiring additional parking resources.
R-1 39
s
4) IMPROVED PROJECT ENTRIES
Currently twenty-two separate driveways give access to
the Central Block. In order to create a more uniform
project image, the identification of eight major
entries is proposed. These are existing entry points
which could be articulated more strongly using the
following techniques.
o Master shopping center signs of uniform design to
signal the key project entries.
o New improved circulation corridors linking the
entries so that a clear circulation network will be
formed.
o Special landscape improvements to enhance the Central
Block' s image.
The above components are summarized on Diagram 13.
5) DEVELOPMENT INTENSIFICATION
Although there is no vacant land within the Central
Block, the excess of parking may permit some new
development.
Additional development could most easily be
accommodated on the eastern portion of the Central
Block within Development Zone 7 where the greatest
oversupply of parking exists and where the presence of
cinemas and restaurants offer a high potential for the
joint use of parking resources. Examples of specific
opportunity areas are shown on Diagram 14.
Areas 1 and 2 perhaps offer the greatest benefits
relative the goals and policies of this Specific Plan.
Area 1 could be used to construct an additional
restaurant which would enhance the potential of Amador
Plaza Road becoming a strong "Dublin Restaurant Row".
Area 2 offers the potential for a building and/or
plaza space linking the- main retail areas to the
cinema complex and the future "Dublin Restaurant Row" .
Uses accommodated in this area could draw effectively
upon customers from both the east and the west and
enhance the overall image not only of the Central
Block but also of Downtown Dublin as a whole.
Area 2 also offers the potential of public/private
agreements to jointly construct and utilize the
improvements. Exterior plazas could be used for
special retail events as well as downtown promotional
events and publicly-sponsored programs. Building
facilities, if constructed, could add additional retail
space as well as promotional and public events space.
R-1 40
a
Diagram .15 is an Illustrative Plan showing one
potential -result of implementing a program of Central
Block Improvements. Diagram 16 illustrates one of many
potential concepts for infill improvements described
above for Opportunity Area 2.
6) IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW
The Central Block Improvement Plan is unique among the
proposals in this Specific Plan since all of the
_ improvements are on private property. Only through the
interest of the property owners will it be possible to
bring any of these concepts to reality. Hopefully
through joint cooperation, these owners and the City
of Dublin will be able to work out a partnership which
will be attractive to both. An implementation strategy
is outlined more fully in the Implementation Plan
section.
R-1 4 3
s
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN
ESTIMATED IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
i
TABLE D
1. CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
A. Dublin Boulevard $1,400 ,000 (Note 1)
B. New Streets 1,400 ,000 (Note 2)
C. Traffic Signals 470,000 (Note 3)
D. San Ramon Road off-ramp
improvements 500 ,000
$3 ,770 ,000
2. URBAN DESIGN IMAGE IMPROVEMENTS
A. San Ramon Road Landscape 5 100 ,000 (Note 4)
B. Downtown Entries 110,000
C. Continuity Theme Elements 90 ,000
D. Street Furniture 50 ,000 (Note 12)
E. Public Signing Program 50 ,000
F. Project Entries Pylons Program (Note 5)
$ 400 ,000 (Note 11)
3. CENTRAL BLOCK IMPROVEMENTS (Note 6)
4 . RESTAURANT ROW IMPROVEMENTS (Note 7)
A. Curbs and Gutters $ 60 ,000
B. Landscaping 70,000
C. Crosswalks 50 ,000
D. Pedestrian Lighting 120 ,000
E. Entry Pylons 85 ,000
F. Street Furniture 15 ,000
$ 400 ,000
5 . SPECIAL PROGRAMS
A. Business License Program $ 0 (Note 8)
B. Downtown Promotion Program 20 ,000 (Note 9)
C. Parking Lot Landscaping Program (Note 5)
D. Signing and Graphics --
Improvement Program 10,000 (Note 10).
E. Downtown Beautification
Awards Program (Note 5)
$ 30 ,000 (Note 11)
ESTIMATED KNOWN COSTS $4 ,600 ,000
Less Amount Currently Allocated
in the City's Capital
Improvement Program $1,470 ,000
ESTIMATED FUNDS NEEDED $3 ,130 ,000 (Note 13)
R-1 75
RECOMMENDED FL, .DING MECHANISMS TABLE F
MAJOR FUNDING SOURCES FOR CONSIDERATION
W
U
Z N W
ESTIMATED e N O
IMPLEMENTATION COSTS COSTS d u W v W 'O "'
u, %A < > •- -'�Z Z REMARKS
Lu < >a V
1, DUBLIN BLVD. 10400,000 • "� • ADDITIONAL C.I.P.FUNDS ONLY
LIKELY AFTER 1991
2. NEW STREETS. 1,400,000 • • INCLUDES BART PARTICIPATION
3. TRAFFIC SIGNALS 470,000 • FUNDS ALREADY ALLOCATED
4. SAN RAMON ROAD 000 ADDITIONAL C.I.P.FUNDS ONLY
500,
OFF-RAMP IMPROVEMENTS • • LIKELY AFTER 1991
S. SAN RAMON ROAD 100,000 • FUNDS ALREADY ALLOCATED
LANDSCAPING
6. DOWNTOWN ENTRIES 110,000 • • •
7. CONTINUITY THEME 90,000 • •
ELEMENTS
8. STREET FURNITURE 50,000 •
9. PUBLIC SIGNING PROGRAM 50,000 •
10. PROJECT ENTRIES PYLONS UNKNOWN • 1,
11.CENTRAL BLOCK A81693 FUNDS ONLY CONSIDERED
IMPROVEMENTS UNKNOWN • , • • FOR USE TO IMPROVE POTENTIAL
PUBLIC USE AREA
12.RESTAURANT ROW • • •
IMPROVEMENTS 400,000.y�
13. DOWNTOWN 7[' A91693 FUNDS ONLY CONSIDERED
PROMOTION PROGRAM 20,000 • • • FOR USE TO IMPROVE POTENTIAL
PUBLIC USE AREA
GENERAL FUND AND PRIVATE
14. PARKING LOT UNKNOWN CONTRIBUTIONS ONLY ANTICIPATED
LANDSCAPING PROGRAM • • FOR INITIAL EDUCATION AND
PROGRAM ADOPTION PERIOD
15. SIGNING AND GRAPHICS 10,000 • •
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
16. DOWNTOWN • • • _
BEAUTIFICATION AWARDS UNKNOWN
PROGRAM
1'NITIAL SIX MONTH COORDINATION PERIOD -ONLY
R-1 3 5
• RECEIYED
- MAR 181987 T
DUBLIN PLANNING
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR: Dublin Downtown Specific Plan
(Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. )
LOCATION AND
PROPONENT: The project area is located in the City of Dublin, close
to the junction of Interstate 580 and 680.
The project proponent is the City of Dublin.
DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is the designation and implementation of
a Specific Plan for the downtown area of Dublin.
FINDINGS: The project will not have a significant effect on the
environment.
INITIAL STUDY: The Initial Study is attached with a brief "iscussion
of the following environmental components: Public Services,
Transportation, energy, air quality, noise', seismology, and liquifaction.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required.
PREPARATION: This Negative Declaration was prepared by the City
of Dublin Planning Staff, (415) 829-4916
SIGNATURE: DATE:
Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director
DP 83-11 — �---- j -
L. -
71\.
"ul s
PUBLIC HEARINGS
SUBJECT: PA 87-034 Circuit City Stores Conditional
Use Permit request for a car stereo*_.`,-
^' installation facility at 7450 Amador
Valley Boulevard. .�
Cm. Raley opened the public hearing .and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Tong
advised that the subject request is for a car stereo installation facility
approximately 1,320+ square feet in size and is proposed,iri conjunction with
the proposed refurbishing of the Handyman Store at 7450 Amador Valley
Boulevard. He indicated that the-Applicant is Herbert;.-Horowitz and the
Property Owner is Circuit City Stores. He reviewed 'the action taken at the
last Planning Commission meeting related to Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review requests for Circuit City Stores, which the Commission
approved. Mr. Tong said the proposed car stereo installation facility would
be located at the southwest corner of the' 32;000+ square foot Circuit City
tenant space. He reviewed the means of access to the facility, the proposed
hours of operation, and the proposed parking"arrangement. He stated that
Staff recommended the adoption of a Re's olution,,approving the Conditional Use
Permit request.
Herbert Horowitz, Applicant, indicated that he did not anticipate problems
related to complying with the.-Conditions of Approval"as outlined in the draft
Resolution.
Cm. Raley closed the public hearing. Without further discussion, on motion by
Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution was
adopted approving PA •87-034 Conditional Use Permit request. .::,
RESOLUTION NO. 87 - 017
APPROVING PA .87-034 CIRCUIT CITY STORES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-REQUEST
FOR A CAR STEREO INSTALLATION FACILITY PROPOSED IN CONJUNCTION_
.;WITH THE PROPOSED CIRCUIT CITY STORE REFURBISHMENT
OF THE VACANT HANDYMAN STORE - 7450 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD
i'
SUBJECT: Dublin Downtown Specific Plan and
Associated General Plan Amendment
Cm. Raley opened the public hearing and called for the Staff report. He
advised that -the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Draft Dublin
Downtown Specific Plan and that action by the Commission would not be taken on
the Draft Plan until the Adjourned Regular Meeting on Thursday, March 19,
1987.
Mr. Tong gave a brief background of the charge given to the Downtown Improve-
ment Study Committee (DISC) by the City Council, the membership of the
Committee, and the five major sections covered by the Draft Plan as outlined
in the March 16, 1987, Staff Report, including: 1) Specific Plan Policies,
2) Circulation/Parking, 3) the Development Plan, including Land Use and
Central Block Improvements, 4) Urban Design Improvements, and
5) Implementation of the Plan.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-49 elm
"rim T
AT�AC.51
Larry Cannon, Consultant with Wurster, Bernardi & Emmons, gave a brief history
of the development of the Draft Plan since the original draft was prepared on
March 20, 1986. He indicated that two very basic constraints were taken into
consideration when developing the Plan. 1) He advised that although the
downtown area is visible from two major freeways, it is difficult to enter and
exit the downtown area. In addition, he indicated that the State is making
substantial plans for a new interchange between the freeways which will impact
the City. 2) He advised that during the first three months of the study, most
of the attention was given to traffic issues, particularly related to San
Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard. Mr. Cannon discussed the evaluation process
utilized by the consultants and indicated that it was concluded that there
could not be unlimited development in the downtown area as a result of the
traffic constraints. He reviewed the contents of the Draft Dublin Downtown
Specific Plan dated March 6, 1987.
Chris Kinzel, TJKM Traffic Consultant, advised that a considerable. amount of
time was devoted to traffic and circulation issues. He said the approach
taken by TJKM was to attempt to identify the existing problems, to determine
the amount of traffic generated by various growth scenarios in the future, as
well as the ability to mitigate or expand the existing system. He indicated
that there are 11 intersections within the City, that 9 of those have been
signalized, and that the 2 which have not been signalized are recommended to
be in the future.
Mr. Kinzel discussed the specfic future improvements which are being
recommended for San Ramon Road, for Dublin Boulevard, for realignment and
signalization of the I-580 off-ramps at San Ramon Road, for the development of
a new street south of Dublin Boulevard which would connect Regional Street to
Amador Plaza Road, and the installation of new traffic signals at the Amador
Valley Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road and the Village Parkway/Lewis Avenue
intersections.
Mr. Cannon indicated that the possibility of locating on- and off-ramps from
680 was considered, but the concern was that those ramps could prohibit
additional downtown development, would only serve to relocate congestion, and
would have negative impacts on the area being considered for a restaurant row.
Elliot Stein, Laventhol & Horwath, indicated that his firm was concerned with
the market analysis aspect of the Draft Plan. He summarized the primary con-
clusions reached as a result of the initial analysis. He said he believed the
future development potential largely lies- in the retail/restaurant category,
and that the office market is significantly overbuilt. He advised that
although there would not be a need for additional office space at least for
the short term, the next four or five year period, office uses have been
incorporated into the plan. Mr. Stein also indicated that there would not be
a demand for additional hotel space until 1990 or 1991, but that it would be a
desirable use. He recommended that the implementation recommendations
relating to hotel uses be seriously considered. Mr. Stein reviewed the
mechanisms outlined in the Draft Plan and summarized the opportunites which
exist within the Draft Plan.
Mr. Stein advised that because of the large ownerships of land in the central
block area, in order to implement some of the improvements outlined in the
Draft Plan, a very intent effort would have to be made to gain the cooporation
of those property owners. He indicated that it may be necessary to offer an
Regular Meeting PCM-7-50 March 16, 1987
t
incentive such as the approval of additional infill without the requirement of
additional parking, which would reduce the costs imposed on the property
owners.
Mr. Cannon reviewed the Development Zones outlined in Table C of the Draft
Plan.
Tom McCormick, member of the Downtown Improvement Study Committee, said there
was a great deal of unity amoung the Committee members. He said they focused
on utilizing the AB 1693 concept for implementation of the Plan.
Mr. McCormick urged the Commission to support the AB 1693 concept and to
recommend adoption of the Draft Plan. Mr. McCormick referred to his involve-
ment with Dublin/Shamrock Days, Inc. and indicated that he thought this is the
perfect time for pursuing the use of AB 1693 funds.
In response to an inquiry by Cm. Burnham, Mr. Cannon verified that all of the
major property owners had been contacted either by letter or by telephone and
were informed of the development of the Draft Dublin Downtown Specific Plan.
He advised that the responses of those property owners indicated that they
were interested in cooperating and knowing more about the proposed Plan, but
that there did not appear to be a sense of unity among the owners.
In response to an inquiry by Cm. Mack concerning item 9) on page 13 of the
Draft Plan, Mr. Cannon explained that the intent of a Downtown Business
Association would be to bring more of a cohesiveness to the downtown business
owners, to work toward common goals, and to provide an organization represent-
ing downtown business people and providing a means for administering the
program. He said such an organization could be responsible for utilizing
AB 1693 funds and for the promotion of the improvements, and thus eliminating
the need for someone not directly related to administer the program.
Mr. McCormick indicated his desire to work with an organization such as the
Downtown Business Association recommended in the Draft Plan.
In response to an inquiry by Cm. Burnham, Mr. Cannon stated that he thought it
would not be appropriate for the Dublin Chamber of Commerce to assume this
responsibility instead of the proposed organization as conflicts may arise.
He advised that for the organization to be most effective, it should consist
of those people most impacted by it.
Cm. Raley provided members of the audience with an opportunity to speak
regarding the Draft Dublin Downtown Specific Plan. There were no comments.
In response to an inquiry by Cm. Mack, Mr. Cannon referred to Diagram 4 and
said the exact alignment of a proposed street south of Dublin Boulevard,
connecting Regional Street and Amador Plaza Road, would have to be worked out.
Cm. Raley referred to Table A on page 16 of the Draft Plan, Existing Inter-
sections Level of Service, and asked for comments as to what should be done
when a Level of Service was at maximum capacity. Mr. Cannon advised that at
such a time it would be necessary for the City to make a decision related to
whether or not the additional congestion was merited by the benefits to the
downtown area.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-51 March 16, 1987
�...:�;�".uyw�$�ie:.a;:Jw1�L.�6s+:2rrc.�_iN:.-^s.�.�:GS,�..�"iL»'..:iNF�c.T_�,dsY "3"."�xa�.'�SN'�°s` `«.�.�.`"'�'�.v�:�'��d.'L,��ti�'�kxnuFCy'�°Pi:v....:.7eSw�.e"1..nt c.,,.�nJ3ai. aGa..4r....:t.�.ta._._:;�....__..._...._.�`_,..,v..v✓.._.�.,.._,.,._..._..... ,...
Mr. Kinzel indicated that the LOS at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and
San Ramon Road is between E and F, and that it is the constraining point when
consideration is made related to further downtown development. He advised
that cities typically establish a Level of Service from a mid-level C to a
mid-level E, and that they tend to hone in on mid-level D, which is a volume
of 85% to 90% capacity. He cited Walnut Creek, with a Level of Service
Standard D, which is at 85% capacity, and Pleasanton, also with a Level of
Service D, which is now at 90% capacity. He stated that the Dublin
Boulevard/San Ramon Road intersection is now.at 99% capacity. He said when
the improvements have been completed, it will be at 85% capacity. Mr. Kinzel
advised that a Level•of Service D or low Level of Service E would be an
acceptable range.
Cm. Raley inquired about long-term solutions to alleviate the traffic problem.
Mr. Kinzel responded that TJKM is working in conjunction with the City and is
looking at all of the projects as a whole. He advised that solutions such as
adding a triple turn lane at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and San
Ramon Road was being considered, as well as double right turn lanes. He said
in the distant future some relief may be gained if a good connection to I-680
is developed, but that there is no simple solution.
In response to an inquiry by Cm. Mack related to services provided by one-way
streets, Mr. Kinzel said typically a one-way street will provide additional
capacity by eliminating left turn conflicts, but that those are most effective
when there are parallel couplets.
Mr. Tong stated that a review of new proposals in the downtown area would be
made to see what their overall impacts would be, and that the goal is to
increase vitality and regional competitiveness even though there may be some
adverse traffic impacts. He advised that at the time proposals are submitted,
the City would have to make a determination as to whether or not the benefits
achieved would be worthwhile, or whether the traffic impacts would be so
severe that the proposed projects would either have to be mitigated or denied.
Mr. Cannon reviewed the Pedestrian Circulation Plan as shown in Diagram 5 of
the Draft Plan. He noted that the area defined as "Restaurant Row" is an
extremely wide roadway and reviewed potential changes which encourage
pedestrian usage.
In response to an inquiry by Cm. Raley, Mr. Cannon stated that he did not
anticipate that the specific mechanisms which woud be used to develop the
Pedestrian Circulation Plan would be incorporated into the Daft Plan. He said
the specifics would evolve as the City's development standards and plan lines
are negotiated with the property owners who are involved with the development.
Cm. Raley expressed that the theme for Dublin is apparent, as well as future
direction regarding "Restaurant Row", but stated that it was not evident to
him how people would be drawn together to accomplish the goals. Regarding
landscaping, he advised that he would prefer to have the specific requirements
outlined in the Plan from its inception, rather than waiting for the
requirements to evolve. .
Regular Meeting PCM-7-52_ March 16, 1987
c
Cm. Petty referred to the City of Fresno, which utilizes a pedestrian mall,
and inquired about the feasibility of using one in an area such as the
northern half of Amador Plaza Road.
Mr. Cannon advised that most of the older malls have not worked effectively.
He said it was thought that such a mall would not be necessary within the
proposed plan, particularly with the elimination of the left turn lane and
developing increased pedestrian crossings.
In response to an inquiry by Cm. Raley, Mr. Kinzel stated that one of the
reasons the Committee did not pursue development of an I 7680 conection was
because of the conflict which could arise in that area. He said there are a
number of possible connections to I-680, and that Caltrans is continuing to
explore different alternatives. He said one of the very preliminary proposals
is for access to 680 south of Dublin Boulevard. He indicated that that would
assist in bringing traffic into the downtown area but would not directly
interfer with circulation. Mr. Kinzel reviewed some of the alternatives
Caltrans is in the process of considering.
Mr. Cannon reviewed the Downtown Parking Requirements as outlined in Table B,
page 23. He encouraged consideration of joint use of parking and suggested
that if a development has a mix of uses that are compatible and which tend to
reduce the uses of parking spaces, consideration could be given to reducing
the parking requirements.
In response to Cm. Raley's inquiry about the feasibility of reducing parking
requirements on a more regional basis, Mr. Cannon advised that it would be
very difficult to do this because of the nature of the downtown area.
Mr. Kinzel stated that the multiple ownership of the downtown area would make
it difficult for joint use. He said by reducing the requirement for-parking
spaces additional development would be encouraged and the supply and demand of
parking would be brought into a better balance.
Following a break from 8:50 to 9:05 p.m. , the Commission indicated a consensus
to adjourn the meeting by 10:00 p.m.
Mr. Cannon advised that an attempt was made within the Development Plan
section to define some of the objectives of the overall Plan. He reviewed the
11 Land Use Zones. He indicated that he has spoken with property owners
within Interim Use Zone B and they have agreed to make some landscaping
changes. He stated that he wanted the City to have some leverage over a
period of time time related to landscape and use of buildings.
Mr. Tong advised that he will be preparing some revisions related to Section
5) on page 35, Zoning Ordinance Modifications, and will make those revisions
available at the Adjourned Regular Meeting on Thursday, March 19, 1987.
Cm. Mack inquired if a supermarket or grocery store would be considered
acceptable in Zone 11. Mr. Cannon responded that it would be an unlikely
location for a supermarket, and Mr. Elliott said this may occur through the
redevelopment of a property.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-53 March 16, 1987
c
In response to an inquiry by Cm. Burnham, Mr. Kinzel said it may be possible
to develop an access to San Ramon Road through Zone 9, or wherever development
or redevelopment occurs in that area. He advised that it is anticipated that
such a road would be limited to a right-turn only.
Mr. Cannon referred to the Allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on Table C, page
36) and indicated that it is possible that the 150 foot height in Zones 3 and
4 can be reduced. Mr. Stein indicated that he would review the height with
his staff to see if it can be reduced to 120 feet.. He indicated that the
issue is whether or not the City wants to permit extra height to accommodate
the proposed use.
Cm. Raley and Cm. Mack indicated their opposition to the heights recommended
for Zones 3 and 4.
Cm. Petty indicated that he thought the height should be permitted, but should
be reduced as feasible for a 10 or 12 story building.
Mr. Stein called attention to the possibility of a freeway interconnection
which may be as high as 60 or 70 feet, and would impact the level at which a
building would be viewed in Zones 3 and 4.
Cm. Burnham said the impact of the height would be dependent upon the design
of the building.
Mr. Kinzel confirmed Mr. Stein's statement that it is possible the interchange
would be 60 to 70 feet high and may consist of four levels.
Mr. Tong indicated that Pleasanton has a height limit of approximately 65
feet.
Mr. Cannon stated that he would investigate the accuracy of the Floor Area
Ratio as it relates to hotels and would provide additional information at the
meeting of March 19, 1987.
Arnold Durrer, a member of the Downtown Improvement Study Committee, advised
that it was the Committee's intent to prevent buildings from being of a height
that would not be visible to or tower over homeowners. He said he thought a
maximum of five stories would be adequate.
Cm. Raley indicated his desire to discuss this further at the next meeting.
He asked Mr. Cannon to provide, at Thursday's meeting, an example which would
include the amount of land necessary to building a structure 150 feet in
height.
Mr. Cannon described the Enea plan which he had reviewed and utilized in
determining the Floor Area Ratio. He agreed to provide an example at the
Adjourned Regular Meeting on Thursday evening of-the amount of land which
would be required for a building 150 feet high. He indicated that the
conceptual plan submitted for the Enea property, which included a hotel as one
of the proposed uses, was considered in determining Floor Area Ratios.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-54 March 16, 1987
In response to an inquiry by Cm. Raley, Mr. Tong advised that a "Drive-in
Business" is one for which the primary use is done via a drive-up window. He
said this could include a fast-food restaurant, a vehicle service such as a
car wash, or other uses.
Cm. Raley expressed concern regarding combining residential uses with
commercial/retail uses. He said because Dublin is primarly a suburban
community, unlike San Francisco, and because the combined use of residenital
within other districts is highly intensive, it may not be appropriate for
Dublin.
Mr. Stein referred to similar uses in Mt. View and Pleasanton, and advised
that such uses were tyically housed in two- to three-story buildings. He
indicated that one of the uses discussed during the DISC meeting was related
to establishing housing for the elderly, who may find being in the vicinity of
the shopping areas very desirable. He said the use would be a congregate
care/living facility, which would not consist of an intensive health care
service.
Mr. Kinzel advised that parking needs in conjunction with an elderly care
facility would be compatible with parking needs for commercial/retail type
uses. He indicated that a congregate care facility has an extremely low
parking demand. He said he thought the residential use as a mixed use fits in
well with other suggested uses, particularly those geared to day-time use.
Mr. Durrer said that one factor taken into consideration when proposing the
mixed residential-commercial-retail use was the softening impact it would have
on the transition from commercial to residential uses.
Mr. Tong suggested that this issue be discussed further at the Adjourned
Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Stein reviewed the Implementation Costs and Funding Mechanisms as outlined
on pages 75 through 85 of the Draft Plan.
In response to an inquiry by Cm. Raley, Mr. Cannon verifed that Item -14 of
Table F, Recommended Funding Mechanisms (page 85) , should be revised to show
the General Fund as a second source of funding (Voluntary Private Contribu-
tions being the first) , instead of the C.I.P. , as currently shown. Mr. Tong
referred to the text on page 72 of the Draft Plan for a description of this
item (Parking Lot Landscaping Program) . _
As a result of a question by Cm. Raley, Mr. Stein advised that he thought the
Downtown Promotion Program would require a full-time employee. He said there
were a number of communities which have implemented similar programs and that
a network of staff throughout the State has been created to assist in the
implementation of the AB 1693 program. He suggested that it may be feasible
to schedule a meeting with one of those people for an overview of what other
communities have specificaly done with the AB 1693 program.
Mr. Cannon indicated that the funds for a person to implement the Downtown
Promotion Program was for a six-month period, and that if the program did
progress, it may be feasible to hire more than one staff person.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-55 March 16, 1987
Adjourned Regular Meeting - March 19, 1987
An Adjourned Regular Meetingof the City of Dublin,Plainning Commission was
held on March 16, 1987, in the`?Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was
called to order at 7:05 p.m. by''
dli,, Raley, Chairperson.
ROLL CALL h !
PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, .,Burnham, Pet Raley, and Laurence
L. Tong, Planning Director.
PUBLIC HEARINGS I
SUBJECT: Dublin Downtown Specific Plan and
Associated General Plan Amendment.
Cm. Raley re-opened the public hearing.
Mr. Cannon advised that he had spoken with Elliot Stein regarding the
mechanism used for arriving at an Allowable Floor Area Ratio of 0.30 for
development standards in several of the Development Zones listed on Table C of
the Draft Dublin Downtown Specific Plan. He said Laventhol & Horwath had
provided data that coincided with the average amount of space which whould be.
needed for a hotel; i.e. , four to five and one-half acres. Mr. Cannon
circulated a copy of the Hotel Planning and Design book by Walter A. Rutes,
F.A.I.A. , which contained illustrated copies of hotels of varying heights. He
referred to the Dillingham building in Walnut Creek as another example.
Mr. Cannon suggested .that it may be feasible to leave the designated zones
with Allowable Floor Area Ratio of 0.30 at that standard, but to incorporate a
provision in the Draft Plan which would allow for additional height for uses
that may warrant the additional height.
Mr. Cannon indicated that Laventhol & Horwath -estimated a first story height
of between 15 and 18 feet for hotels, and 10 feet for each story thereafter,
and said office buildings average about 15 feet for each story. He stated that
an 8-story office building would be approximately 120 feet high and a 10-story
building would be- approximately 150 feet high.
Cm. Petty said he believed the City of Dublin needs to be compared with other
cities and consideration must be given to its development 10 to 15 years
downroad. He said he thought Development Zones 3 and 4 would probably be
developed for office uses. He referred to an area in Irvine where mixed uses
exist, and said that the some of the buildings in that area are 8 to 10
stories high.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-57
AT81r am C H mma E I
: c
To give the Commission a sense of the scale being referred to, Mr. Cannon
circulated a brochure from the City of Pleasant Hill which contained an
illustration of the Doubletree Hotel which had been proposed as a 10- or 12-
story building with approximately 300 rooms.
Cm. Mack stated that she did not think the City of Dublin needed to pattern
itself after other cities. She indicated that she could not envision a 10- to
15- story building in Development Zones 3 or 4.
Cm. Burnham said he had received several telephone calls from citizens
expressing concern over the possible height of future buildings. He advised
that he agreed with Mr. Cannon, that language should be incorporated into the
Draft Plan providing the Commission with flexibility in regards to height
limitations.
Mr. Tong referred to the height limitation in zone C-1, Retail Business
District, of the existing Zoning Ordinance, which sets a maximum of 45 feet
and which is lower when the property is adjacent to a Residential District.
He advised that language could be added to the Draft Plan which would require
approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed height which may exceed
the established limit.
Mr. Cannon said he thought that the only negative aspect related to
establishing the lower height limit, and requiring an approval process for
buildings which may exceed that height, would be the length of time it may
take to go through the approval process.
Cm. Barnes said that taking into consideration development 10 or '15 years
downroad, she did not want to see the buildings to exceed 45 feet in height.
She indicated that she did not think that was intended for the City of Dublin.
Manfred Billik, Dublin resident, said he was in agreement with Cm. Barnes. He
also said he was concerned about future traffic impacts within the City.
Cm. Barnes stated that she did not think a hotel of the size permitted within
the Draft Plan would be necessary within the permitted areas.
Cm. Raley expressed his desire to have a height limitation established during
the meeting, and said he would be comfortable with a five-story building
limitation.
Mr. Cannon indicated that a five-story building would be approximately 75 feet
high.
There was discussion regarding possible configurations for development on the
Enea property. Mr. Cannon explained the configuration used to arrive at the
Floor Area Ratios.
Cm. Raley proposed that the height limit be established at 45 feet, and that a
variation in that height be required to be approved by a Specific Plan
Amendment. He said he did not want proposed deviations from this limit
processed through a Conditional Use Permit.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-58
. c
Mr. Tong clarified that the Downtown Plan is a Specific Plan which will not
necessarily revise the zoning. He asked whether Cm. Raley meant that the
process for obtaining approval for a height in excess of 45 feet should be a
PD, Planned Development Rezoning, or whether it should be an amendment to .the
Specific Plan. He said the Downtown overlay zoning will supplement the
existing zoning. He reviewed the procedures for processing a PD, Planned
Development Rezoning process.
Cm. Petty indicated his desire to permit a height limit in excess of that
permitted in the other zones in Development Zones 3 and 4. Mr. Cannon
suggested that 75 feet would be a feasible limit.
Cm. Burnham indicated that he did not want the City to be locked into a 45
foot height limit which would require Planning Commission approval of anything
above that 45 foot height.
Cm. Petty said he would agree to a 75 foot limit.
Mr. Tong suggested that language could be incorporated which would require
that any development proposed to exceed 45 feet but under 75 feet in height
could be processed by a Conditional Use Permit or a Planned Development
application, and that anything over 75 feet could require a Specific Plan
Amendment.
As a result of previous discussion, Cm. Raley inquired about the necessity of
constructing a building at a height exceeding that of a potential freeway
interconnection. Mr. Cannon said if a hotel were constructed it would be
desirable to have it visible from the freeway and the height may be necessary
for that purpose.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the Draft Plan be
modified to establish the height limit in Development Zones 3 and 4 at 45
feet, but to make provision for a height limit of 75 feet upon approval by the
Planning Commission through the Conditional Use Permit process. It was also
the consensus of the Commission to require a Specific Plan Amendment for
approval of a development in excess of 75 feet high.
Cm. Barnes expressed her concern about mixing residential uses with retail or
office uses. She said she had driven through several areas in San Leandro,
San Lorenzo and Hayward and had located some areas where there were two-story
buildings, with the second story serving residential uses. She advised that
she did not think that type of use would be appropriate in Dublin.
Mr. Cannon referred to the existing General Plan which calls for some
residential use in the Downtown area.
Mr. Tong advised that Development Zones 9 and 11 would meet the General Plan
policy.
Cm. Raley said he would not object to residential uses within Development
Zones 9 and 11. He asked for a consensus regarding eliminating residential
uses in the core area; i.e. , Zones 1 through 5 and Zone 8.
Cm. Burnham said he objected to eliminating residential uses in the core area,
and referred to the appropriateness of Enea Plaza for such a use.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-59
• t
Cm. Raley referred to the possibility that by permitting residential uses to
be combined with commercial/retail uses the effect could be to minimize the
abandonment of certain areas in the evening.
Cm. Barnes stated that she preferred to have those areas abandoned at night.
Cm. Raley, Cm. Mack, Cm. Petty and Cm. Burnham advised that they were satis-
fied with the Residential Development Zones as proposed, and indicated that a
Conditional Use Permit process would be an appropriate mechanism for
processing related developments.
Cm. Barnes advised that she thought an approval process more restrictive than
the Conditional Use Permit process should be required.
Mr. Tong clarified that fast food, drive-in restaurants would not be
considered the same as the "Restaurant" use permitted in Development Zones 1
through 11. He indicated that if the Planning Commission concurs with the
Development Standards specified in Table C of the Draft Plan, the Zoning
Ordinance would be adjusted to encompass those standards and would be brought
to the Planning Commission for review and action.
Mr. Tong referred to Section 5) , Zoning Ordinance Modifications, page 35 of
the Draft Plan, and advised that a revision proposed for that Section had been
prepared and distributed to the Commission at the commencement of the meeting.
He read the proposed revision and indicated that the revision specified that
the properties within the Downtown Area would be designated as part of a
Downtown Overlay Zoning District. He referred to Item B of the Appendix and
stated that it specifies existing zoning.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the language presented in
the Suggested Revision to the March 6, 1987, Draft Dublin Downtown Specific
Plan was acceptable.
Mr. Billik said that the height of the buildings proposed within the Draft
Plan, as well as traffic impacts, were the only concerns he had related to the
Plan. He referred to the City of Carmel, which has established height
restrictions as well as restrictions on the types of roofs, to insure
conformity within the City.
Mr. Cannon discussed the original direction given to him regarding the tasks
related to the Downtown Plan. He said the City Council and Planning
Commission did not express a strong desire to establish a specific design
review process. He indicated that the Draft Plan did stress that a policy be
adopted which would establish greater continuity between projects which did
not exist when the County was responsible for them.
Cm. Raley asked the Planning Commission for a consensus as to whether or not
they thought it would be desirable to for the City to establish a design
review committee.
Cm. Petty said he thought a design review committee would be a good idea as an
adjunct to the Planning Commission.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-60
Mr. Tong advised that on the Staff level every effort is made to negotiate
with the Applicants to meet the desires and goals of the community. He said
the Applicants have always had an opportunity to appeal conditions established
by Staff to the Planning Commission. He said the Draft Plan does not present
a single architectural theme which developers would be required to follow. He
indicated that if the City wants to pursue a specific type of architectural
theme, it may adviseable to establish a professional design review board
for that to develop that theme and to do architectural review.
Mr. Cannon indicated that design review boards are usually most effective when
vacant land is available or within a new community. He said he thought many
of the buildings within Dublin's Downtown Area are relatively new and won't
change in the near future, which would make it difficult to implement changes
and establish a theme. He stated that it may be more feasible to continue to
pursue improvement through landscaping.
Cm. Burnham agreed with Mr. Cannon.
Cm. Raley stated that he agreed with Mr. Cannon, but indicated that if plans
were currently being made for the distant future, it would be feasible to have
a theme in place prior to that time and that this issue should be addressed
currently. He said Zone 3 is essentially undeveloped and that the majority of
the downtown area is not intensely developed.
Commissioners Petty, Mack, Burnham and Barnes indicated they do not want to
establish a design review committee and complimented Staff on its effort in
this regard.
Cm. Barnes said she would like to see some direction established for the City
of Dublin without establishing an additional committee. She stated that she
is in support of the landscaping requirements, and indicated that she did not
think the buildings which exist should be considered "temporary" in nature.
Cm. Burnham referred to the Hacienda Business Park, in which each building is
unique. He said .the City of Dublin should not be compared to Danville, which
established an architectural theme prior to major development, and which has
also done extensive remodeling along Main Street.
Cm. Petty indicated. he thought uniformity should existing in Area 4, but that
this could be handled through the Site Development Review process. He stated
a theme was not preferable.
Mr. Tong advised that there were trade-offs which could be presented to the
developers in order to encourage them to install additional enhancements such
as increased floral areas and pedestrian amenities.
Cm. Raley indicated that such trade-offs should be pursued in an effort to
encourage higher quality developments.
Mr. Cannon advised that a study would need to be done to determine at what
level bonuses should be given.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-61
z
Cm. Burnham expressed concern related to negotiating with trade-offs.
Mr. Durrer said that the Committee had attempted to incorporate a theme which
would set the tone for the entire City in regards to the use of landscaping,
but that it was not its intent that the buildings be changed.
It was the consensus of the Commission not to establish a design review
committee.
Regarding the area referred to as the Central Block Area on Diagram 13,
Mr. Cannon said the Potential Improvements Summary is a concept which should
be explored with property owners, that one incentive may be to permit
additional infill without requiring additional parking, and that an attempt,
through a negotiation process, should be made to encourage a joint use
location where public events could occur.
Mr. Durrer referred to the Special Site Development Requirements in Diagram
12, page 37. He said a desire of the Committee was to, over a period of time,
have the buildings located on San Ramon Road actually face San Ramon Road.
Mr. Tong indicated that the Draft Plan suggests possible locations for
establishing a right-turn-in and right-turn-out lane on to or off from San
Ramon Road. Mr. Cannon advised that at one time this suggestion was part of
the Circulation Plan, but that Mr. Kinzel had indicated that these entrances
and exits off San Ramon Road were not an immedite need or a major benefit to
the City, and did not warrant being incorporated into the Circulation Plan or
being made part of the public policy at this time. He said that property
owners should be encouraged to install those lanes at the time of development
of property where they are proposed to be located.
Mr. Tong referred to the three General Plan Changes summarized on pages 33 and
35 of the Draft Plan. He advised that these would be required to establish
consistency between the General Plan and the Specific Plan.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to accept the proposed General
Plan Changes as outlined in the Draft Dublin Downtown Specific Plan. Mr. Tong
will prepare the appropriate Resolutions recommending City Council adoption of
these .General Plan Changes and will present them for action at the Planning
Commission Meeting of April 6, 1987.
Mr. Cannon gave a brief overview of the conclusions arrived at by the
Committee in regards to the Urban Design Improvements. He said there were a
number of limitations because of circulation difficulties. He advised that
the City has already begun an extensive street landscaping plan which will
bring unity to the Downtown Area in the future. He said the Committee had
examined ways to provide additional unity and to make a physical connection to
the downtown area, and had concluded the most feasible way to do this would be
through the use of a center median theme.
There was discussion regarding the possible use of banners, street medalions,
flags, or pylons as ways of emphasizing the Downtown Area.
Cm. Mack asked if it would be possible to paint the light standards until
banners were installed.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-62
Mr. Cannon indicated that banners are relatively inexpensive, running beteen
$60 and $70 per banner. He advised, however, that the banners must be
replaced approximately every 4 to 8 months, but that their visual impact would
offset the costs.
Cm. Barnes expressed positive feelings about the possible use of fabric
banners.
Cm. Burnham said he liked the concept, and that he also thought the poles
should be painted. He said he was opposed to using the same banner during the
entire year, but would like to have them oriented to the seasons.
Cm. Petty stated that he is satisfied with the entire Urban Design concept.
Cm. Raley indicated that he thought the banners were a good idea, but suggsted
that different types of banners be flown at different times of the year; i.e. ,
when the wind is excessive, banners which are less permanent in nature be
used, and at other times, more permanent fixtures or banners be used.
There was discussion related to the Project Entries illustrated in Diagram 21,
page 53. Mr. Cannon said if project entries are utilized they should be
fairly simply in nature so as not to be overpowering. In addition, he said
property owners should be contacted to determine what they think would be
appropriate and affordable.
Cm. Raley asked for comments related to the Implementation Plan.
Cm. Petty said he thought the most important aspect was to keep the traffic
Level of Service between C and D or D and E.
Mr. Cannon indicated that.Mr. Kinzel had resisted specifying figures within
the Plan, as Levels of Service, circulation patterns, and other related items,
would be reviewed either on an annual basis or at the time new developments
are proposed. He said a mechanism could be established to alert Staff to
increased Levels of Service.
Cm. Raley asked about the feasibility of mandating a traffic study when a
specified Level of Service had been reached.
Mr. Cannon referred to previous comments by Mr. Kinzel which indicated that it
would be extremely difficult to mandate such a study, as setting a standard
would not deter traffic resulting from sources other than those generated by
the City. He advised that the Specific Plan currently does not require a
developer in the downtown area to secure such a study as long as the proposed
development is in accordance with the Plan.
In response to an inquiry by Cm. Petty, Mr. Tong advised that the City Council
will be reviewing the Zevised Negative Declaration for the Dublin BART Park &
Ride project at the City Council Meeting on Monday, March 23, 1987. He said
Staff was making a recommendation to incorporate specific items into the
proposal which would assist in maintaiing an acceptable Level of Service and
which would also require BART to make equitable contributions to the funding
for improvements to roads and property impacted by the project. _
Regular Meeting PCM-7-63
Mr. Tong discussed the designated uses of the funds provided by Measure B,
which was passed in November, 1986, in response to a question raised by
Cm. Raley.
Mr. Tong referred to an inquiry made previously by Cm. Petty related to
monitoring Levels of Service, and said the concern was addressed within
items 3) and 4) of the Implementation and Funding section, pages 12 and 13 of
the Draft Plan.
Cm. Petty asked how it would be possible to widen Dublin Boulevard to six
lanes. Mr. Tong said that in some places adequate right-of-way is currently
available for this purpose, but not for the full length of Dublin Boulevard.
He said when the BART Park & Ride Project commences it will be necessary to
relocate the existing bus stop on Dublin Boulevard, which will make it
possible to widen the road in certain locations.
Mr. Tong indicated that if it is the consensus of the Commissioners to make a
recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Draft Dublin Downtown Specific
Plan with the suggested modifications, he will prepare the necessary Resolu-
tions and a Negative Declaration for action at the next Planning Commission
meeting. He advised that the Planning Commission's recommendation would then
be presented to the Councilmembers at its April 13, 1987, meeting.
Mr. Cannon advised that at the previous meeting Commissioners requested
information related to establishing standards for pedestrian circulation on
the proposed new road south of Dublin Boulevard and on Golden Gate Drive. He
distributed illustrations of those streets, but noted that minor revisions
would need to be made and corrected copies of the illustrations will be
forwarded to Mr. Tong.
Cm. Raley encouraged Staff to insure that the proposed road be similar to the
proposal for "Restaurant Row. " Mr. Tong indicated that TJKM recommended it be
very similar to Amador Plaza Road as it exists currently. Cm. Raley closed
the public hearing.
In response to a question by Cm. Burnham, Mr. Cannon referred to item 4) on
page 71, which outlines the procedures for the adoption of an AB 1693
Ordinance.
In answer to a statement made by Cm. Burnham, Mr. Cannon said the intent of
the Committee was to encourage the Chamber of Commerce to participate to
whatever degree they are interested in the implementation of the Draft Plan,
and that it was hoped they would encourage the participation of local business
people. He said it is possible the Chamber of Concern may contribute office
space or secretarial assistance.
The matter was continued to the next Planning Commission meeting for
consideration of Resolutions regarding the Specific Plan.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-64
r •
~ t
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Commission Chairpe son
Laurence L. Tong
Planning Director
Regular Meeting PCM-7-65