HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.4 Dublin Downtown Specific Plan a`J
• a f
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 26, 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
7. May 15, 1987, Letter from William Bopf,
Bedford Properties
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. Introduction
This item was noticed for the City Council meeting of May 11, 1987, and
was continued from that meeting until May 26, 1987. The Staff recommends that
if the discussion of this item exceeds one (1) hour, it be continued until the
City Council meeting of June 8, 1987.
On May 19, 1987, William Bopf of Bedford Properties submitted written
comments on the Draft Plan.
II. 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 recommended approval of the Draft Plan as revised.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES (Agenda Statement Only) : DISC (10)
Dublin Chamber of Commerce
Planning Commissioners (5)
Planning Department
Larry Cannon - WBE
ITEM NO. Chris Kinzel - TJKM
!� 7
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.
III. 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-
r
The City Council should also address the written comments submitted by
Mr. Bopf of Bedford Properties:
1 - Whether the Bedford Properties area (currently used by Unisource)
should remain in Zone 3 Regional Transit Mixed Use area and
Interim Use Zone A.
2 - Whether, in Zone 3, the allowable floor area ratio should be
increased to 0.35.
3 - Whether, in Zone 3, the allowable height should be increased to 75
feet, and up to 150 feet with a Conditional Use Permit.
IV. 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
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-
CITY OF DUBLIN
Development Services Planning/Zoning 829-4916
P.O. Box 2340 Building & Safety 829-0822
Dublin, CA 94568 Engineering/Public Works 829-4927
t
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
nEs 21 ,
ATTACHM . rl' �
V.. C. -.4- -1 -
i
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'
TTACqw
MENT.-.,,3
T
1 ,
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
r
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
i
R-1
i
�,� ::�is -•'�
EXISTING
PARKWAY PARKING 2 TRAVEL LANES ENLARGED PARKWAY
EXISTING R.O.W. ea-
ALTERATION TO GOLDEN GATE DRIVE
PARKWAY 8' 2 TRAFFIC LANES d 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
00-
1
r
Irrrrrr
Development Zones Map
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN 2 f
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 will be developed for each zone to
allow current uses to continue and to encourage property
changes where appropriate to mitigate negative visual
impacts on adjacent properties.
Interim use Zone locations and general standard are
shown on Diagram 10.
Interim Use Zone A:
This area currently contains three warehouse structures
containing non-retail uses and a large vacant property.
The area is the potential location for a B.A.R.T. Park-
and-Ride facility initially and a later parking
R-1 30
h
7 ,
PROPERTY CHANGES SHALL INCI. \ J
INCREASED LANDSCAPING AN VI �iA Iop �NY ADDITIONAL
IMPROVEMENTS TO EXIS IN DVELOPMENT SHALL
STRUCTURES CONTINGENT UPON
CREENING SERVICE USES
\AND INCREASED
�� - �� ♦ LANDSCAPING
I TERIM USE LIMITED
1 ��� �� ��`� ♦ T AUTOMOBILE
EALER IP
CJ
1 ���- /moo ���� : :•
V
3O 1 c
1
D
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
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
R-1 31 Diagram 10
i
J f '
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
l
i
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.
i
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
a standards.
a
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
a 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
i
I
i
i
I
ELIMI14AT18 1I-Mo
CONNECTION Di ICI TION
1:
I
l.i.
............
............
.............
.............
..............
1
...........
..; �.::•:� /:.::}:: •.•::::. ;.�::�:.:.:.::::::. •:
CT
RA
wo
.........:;.. .
���y•. :.:::: ::<.:::::::: :...:::......... .rte
' 1';is<::•i:'�i$i:�.`�.�'::>::'..::: .i:�:i'i:C$:::}:C:}?i::S:}>}. ''?i:�:'.::::i.:: ..::i�:4:?yi7. •.i•i:4:i::i}:<:}:},
i
.. .<:.:::: ?: � .:::'�.::��;::.{:iii::.'•.��:i�i}`}i::<?:::t{�:�:::<:}i is `:;:<;: S::�::'J:<:i:�$:`•ii:{::?4:{:iiii::i:: � \
�7
Retail/Office .
Retail/Office & Automotive
1 1 Areas of Change
General Plan Changes
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN 200 f <
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
R-1 34 Diagram 11
'r
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
i 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 :
� e
5
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1 4
DOWNTOWN DUBLIN Table C 2 s
DEVELOPMENT ZONES
LAND USES 1 2 3 4 5 6 T 8 9 10 11
RETAIL STORES 0 0 0 0 0 0 ® 0 0 0 •
OFFICES •
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
RESTAURANTS (NON FAST FOOD)
HOTEL/MOTEL • • • no
SERVICE COMMERCIAL • O
COMMERCIAL RECREATION/ • • • • O • • • • • •
ENTERTAINMENT
RESIDENTIAL • • • • • • • •
AUTOMOBILE SALES/SERVICE - At
ch
DRIVE-IN BUSINESS no • • • •
AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION no • • no
MCN DISTRICT SHOPS& SERVICE
.AUTOMOBILE REPAIR FACILITIES -
M-1 DISTRICT USES -
REGIONAL TRANSIT FACILITIES • •
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 1 0.35 1 0.30 1 0.50 0.30 0.30
ALLOWABLE BLDG. HEIGHT (FEET) '45 45 45* 45'k 45**- 45 45 3.5 45 35 35
PERMITTED O CONDITIONAL USE
- PERMITTED ON AN INTERIM BASIS F,,;;�j 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
I '
i
i
VISUAL APPEARANCE FROM
( SAN RAMON ROAD IMPORTANT
r `
�• 00 DC. ENTRIES
BUILDING HEIG MITED\. �J Q
2 STORI S A ACE T -TO T
ORIENTED TO
PR RTY ES o'Inc, AMADOR PLAZA RD.
3
15' MIN. LANDSCAPED
i
h i 0 ETBACK REQ'D.
•! ` q ON PEDESTRIAN
�� . �� ��►� \ ��,),�,�:�� NMENT REQ'D.
SL�
fA
Jw
Al
1
�
a �
vp
t-A Y-�A
moo , � ,, Y,o • � �
h
.i BLIC AND DIT, L / ECIALTY
RETAIL USES E U �d
STRONG PEDESTRIAN C I`( CTION
SUBS-rANTIAL LAN SCAP1 C 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
S
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:
• 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
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
j 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
a space as well as promotional and public events space.
R-1 . 40
i
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.
:i
'S
C
1
l
V
i
i
i
R-1 43
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN
ESTIMATED IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
TABLE D
i
1. CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
" A. Dublin Boulevard $1,400 ,000 (Note 1)
• B. New Streets 1,400 ,000 (Note 2)
:r C. Traffic Signals_ 470,000 (Note 3)
D. San Ramon Road off-ramp
jimprovements 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
n F. Project Entries Pylons Program (Note 5)
$ 400 ,000 (Note 11)
a 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 100,000 (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
R-1
75
RFCOMMENDED _ .JDING MECHANISMS
TABLE F
MAJOR FUNDING SOURCES FOR CONSIDERATION
W ,
• W
W U.
s W z I
IMPLEMENTATION COSTS ESTIMATED < N O aaoc
r COSTS e: W u j JZ Z REMARKS
G;
CU vai < Lu < O>a U
1, DUBLIN BLVD. 1400,000 • �— • ADDITIONAL C. 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
<I
Y+ 5. SAN RAMON ROAD
LANDSCAPING 100,000 • FUNDS ALREADY ALLOCATED
II 6. DOWNTOWN ENTRIES 110,000 • • •
YI
7. CONTINUITY THEME • •
ELEMENTS 90,000
8. STREET FURNITURE 50,000 •
9. PUBLIC SIGNING PROGRAM 50,000 •
'r 10. PROJECT ENTRIES PYLONS UNKNOWN • •
t
11.CENTRAL BLOCK • A81693 FUNDS ONLY CONSIDERED
IMPROVEMENTS UNKNOWN • • FOR USE TO IMPROVE POTENTIAL
PUBLIC USE AREA
1I.RESTAURANT ROW • • •
IMPROVEMENTS 400,000 .
b
13. DOWNTOWN A81693 FUNDS ONLY CONSIDERED
PROMOTION PROGRAM 20,000 . • • FOR USE TO IMPROVE POTENTIAL
PUBLIC USE AREA
14. PARKING LOT _ GENERAL FUND AND PRIVATE
LANDSCAPING PROGRAM UNKNOWN • • OR INITIAL LE EDUCATION ANDPA TED
PROGRAM ADOPTION PERIOD
15. SIGNING AND GRAPHICS 110,000 • •
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
16. DOWNTOWN
BEAUTIFICATION AWARDS UNKNOWN • •
PROGRAM
i'NITIAL SIX MONTH COORDINATION PERIOD -ONLY
R-1 85 .
J
RECEIVED
MAR 10 1987
DUBLIN PLANNING
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR: Dublin Downtown Specific Plan
(Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. )
i
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. -
I
i
PREPARATION: This Negative Declaration was prepared by the City
i of Dublin Planning Staff, (415) 829-4916
i
SIGNATURE: DATE:
Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director
i
DP 83-11
--- --_------------
1 L
i
PUBLIC HEARINGS
SUBJECT: ` ,. PA 87-034 Circuit City Stores Conditional
Use Permit request for a car stereo`
installation facility at 7450 Amador
j 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
!y approximately 1,320+ square feet in size and is proposednconjunction with
the proposed refurbishing of',the Handyman Store at 7450,, ador Valley
y 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
jDevelopment Review requests for Circuit City Stores, which the Commission
approved. Mr. Tong said the proposed"car stereo installation facility would
'.y be located at the southwest corner of the. 'I') -'000+ square foot Circuit City
;y 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 Res'olution?approving the Conditional Use
Permit request. 3
Herbert Horowitz, Applicant, indicated that he didtinot anticipate problems
ti 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
SUBJECT: Dublin Downtown Specific Plan and
1 Associated General Plan Amendment.
Cm. Raley opened the public hearing and called for the Staff report. He
1 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-
r 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
' ..,9TACHMENTv,,.5
I
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 dooporation
of those property owners. He indicated that it may be necessary to offer an
Regular Meeting PCM-7-50 March 16, 1987
incentive such as the approval of additional infill without the requirement of
additional parking, which would reduce the costs imposed on the property
i
owners.
l Mr. Cannon reviewed the Development Zones outlined in Table C of the Draft
Plan.
.ti
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
i 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.
i
Cm. Raley provided members of the audience with an opportunity to speak
regarding the Draft Dublin Downtown Specific Plan. There were no comments.
i
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.
i
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.
i
i
Regular Meeting PCM-7-51 March 16, 1987
I
I
I _
9 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
j 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.
y
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
a 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
c 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,
1 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
.y 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
i direction regarding "Restaurant Row", but stated that it was not evident to
'! him how people would be drawn together to accomplish the goals. Regarding
A 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
a
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-680 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.
i
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.
v
Regular Meeting PCM-7-53 March 16, 1987
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.
'i
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
e
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
j said this could include a fast-food restaurant, a vehicle service such as a
car wash, or other uses.
d
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.
1
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.
S
j Regular Meeting PCM-7-55 March 16, 1987
a
i
Z 'N
i
Adjourned Regular Meeting - March 19 1987
Vi
An Adjourned Regular Meeting ,of the City of Dublin.Planning 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 "Cm,>,Raley, Chairperson.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes,,_;Buinham, Petty, Mack; and Raley, and Laurence
L. Tong, Planning Director.
I`)s
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
I provision in the Draft Plan which would allow for additional height for uses
that may warrant the additional height.
i Mr. Cannon indicated that Laventhol & Horwath h -estimated a first story height
i 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
i building would be- approximately 150 feet high.
i
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.
i
I
Regular Meeting PCM-7-57
. §ATTACHMENI
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.
i
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.
j 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
a
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
i
i
a .
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.
s
i 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.
i
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
i
' 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
i indicated that if the City wants to pursue a specific type of architectural
' theme, it may be 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
i 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
i 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
j encourage higher quality developments.
I
Mr. Cannon advised that a study would need to be done to determine at what
' level bonuses should be given.
{
v
I
i
i Regular Meeting PCM-7-61
i
i
"
r ,
a ,
Cm. Burnham expressed concern related to negotiating with trade-offs.
,a
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.
A
,T It was the consensus of the Commission not to establish a design review
a committee.
a
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.
:i
t 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
!i
through the use of a center median theme.
There was discussion regarding the possible use of banners, street medalions,
s flags, or pylons as ways of emphasizing the Downtown Area.
a
s Cm. Mack asked if it would be possible to paint the light standards until
banners were installed. .
c
Regular Meeting PCM-7-62
i
? Mr. Cannon indicated that banners are relatively inexpensive, .running .beteen
'.f $60 and $70 per banner. He advised, however, that the banners must be
a replaced approximately every 4 to 8 months, but that their visual impact would .
offset the costs.
s
i
Cm. Barnes expressed positive feelings about the possible use of fabric
banners.
t
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. ,
i 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.
s
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 Tevised 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.
I,
Regular Meeting PCM-7-63
c
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 in 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
<33J
ADJOURNMENT
y There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9.:10.
�f
Respectfully submitted,
3
"a
Planning Commission Chairpe son
'a
i
Laurence L. Tong
Planning Director
;a
y
.1
a
a
7
J
5
r
a
1
i
i
i
1
`i
6
Regular Meeting PCM-7-65
0
i
'r
' 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.
i
b) Special provisions for adding an Interstate 680
interchange at or near Amador Valley Boulevard have
uS-e da55'ttC tO1A not been made given the uncertainty of workable
r bc�s��eSS� solutions with respect to the likely complexity of
oo the I-680/I-580 interchange improvements. The
��� r
Specific Plan has been�
U k�`�a I , P prepared to not depend on a
a�,�C2 �- new interchange but to remain flexible in
accommodating new ramps which can be located to
Vr !u (KS },Q enhance rather than harm downtown circulation and
, 4 '!ys its visual environment. (Note: Traffic modeling
studies indicated some benefits to I-680 ramps but
did not suggest that additional development within
+kP ��P,f tSfi�G���!�^ ' 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:
I
.
33
y BLDFORD PROPER", .LES
. �.; I V E D
J0.
May 15, 1987 Hand Delivered
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Dublin City Council
Post Office Box 2340
Dublin, California 94568
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
I was in attendance at your council meeting of May 11, 1987, which was was
adjourned to May 26, as a result of the power failure. I had intended to
make some comments relative to the draft Dublin Downtown Specific Plan, and
now I find I may be out of town on the evening of May 26th. Please accept
this written communication in lieu of my attendance.
First of all, let me state that Bedford Properties, Inc. , is supportive of
your downtown specific plan and generally supports the objectives contained
therein. I have just a few comments that relate to a small portion of the
property owned by Bedford Properties. I have provided these comments as
follows:
1. Reference is made to Bedford owned property that is located in the
area you have designated as Zone 3 on Diagram 9. Portions of this
property is further depicted on Diagram 11. On Diagram 11 there is a
nomenclature "regional transit mixed use." A portion of that property
designated in regional transit area mixed use area has recently been
sold by Bedford Properties to BART. This transaction involved 7.29
acres, and the escrow closed on April 10, 1987. As a point of
clarification, the outline on Diagram 11 may not follow exact property
lines; hence, the remainder of Bedford property should not be included
in the regional transit mixed use. This point is made even more
important by virtue of the statements that are made under interim use,
Zone A, Pages 30 and 32, Paragraph A, with (1) , "prohibit development
that would preclude the economic development of transit parking."
The implementation of that policy might inhibit the right of Bedford
Properties to develop the remainder of their property in interim Zone
A. It is suggested that the depiction entitled Regional Transit Mix
Use, Diagram 11, be redrawn to exclude the remaining portion of the
Bedford Properties,Inc. Mailing Address
A Diversified Real Estate P.O.Box 1267
D
MM
evelopment and Lafayette,California
Management Company 94549 .
4. A
y
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Page 2
May 19, 1987
Bedford Properties' property. At least, the record should show that
Bedford Properties does not agree with any policy that would prohibit
development of its property so that it might be reserved for transit
parking.
2. With reference to the same Bedford property, noted in Zone 3, Diagram
9, and again in your Development Standards, Table C: It is suggested
that two revisions be considered; they are as follows:
(a) The allowable floor area ratio in Zone 3 be revised to .35.
This is a floor area ration consistent with many other
communities in light of the parking ratio indicated in your draft
plan, the amount of landscaping that will be required (20% of the
parking lot will be landscaped) , and the infrastructure cost
(possible construction of a major portion of a new street) .
(b) With respect to allowable building height, we respectfully
request that this standard be revised to an allowable 75 foot
height with a conditional use permit required for any height in
excess of 75 feet up to 150 feet. The original draft provided
for 150 foot height maximum. Support for this request is as
follows:
(1) It is anticipated that the freeway interchange will have a
height of between 60 and 70 feet. A building of 45 to 75
feet will appear to be somewhat out of character in light of
the neighboring freeway.
(2) One of the uses contemplated in this development zone
provides for the possibility of a hotel. We agree with your
consultant that, with a maximum height of 75 feet, it is
unlikely that the hotel would be built at any greater .height
than five stories. Again, with respect to the costs
involved as previously noted, that limitation may preclude
the possibility of a hotel as a viable use.
1
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Page 3
May 19, 1987
(3) If a lack of a development incentive appears because of the*
height limitation and the infrastructure investment (i.e. ,
the new street recommended in your study) , the property
owner may just continue with the existing use. This
possibility might delay the construction of the new street
and preclude the possibility of a focal point or identity
that could assist in the implementation of your downtown
plan. For these reasons, it is suggested that the minimum
height be established as 75 feet with the possibility of a
maximum height of up to 150 feet with a conditional use
approval.
In conclusion, we respectfully request the following:
1. Diagram 11 be revised so that it does not include the remaining
portion of the Bedford property;
2. That the floor area ratio in Development Zone 3, on Table C, be
revised to .35; and
3. That the height allowed in Zone 3 be revised to show
a 75 foot allowable height with a notation of up to 150 feet with a
conditional use permit.
As indicated, Bedford Properties support the proposed downtown specific
plan and believes that revisions that have been suggested in this letter
will further encourage the property owners to work closely with the City
and its agencies to implement some of those objectives at a greater pace.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters. I hope to be able to be
able to attend the meeting; but if not, our suggestions have been noted.
Respectfully submitted,
BEDFORD P OPERTIES, INC.
William L. Bopf
Vice President
WLB:cp