HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.4 West Dublin BART Attch #13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FINAL
VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN
1';\,. .....,,: ',n'".~':':1
. ""Wi"" ;'-~'.':".l?r,t~";'"..q"",.
.'... 1. ,,,~\..,,., ,~,' ~"~"f.,' ~'*',,<),,: ~(
~:.'fJ~~' "'ilfi":~;':;.t,, . ,.~:: 1,'" ' "
J-EAD AGENCY
CITY OF DUBLIN
PREPARED BY
CITY OF DUBLIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
As adopted by the Dublin City Council on December 19, 2000
by Resolution Number 231-00
and as amended through January 1, 2006
t:-frrtlt!u mmr.#' 13
ut'iJFlTE.
I Z. I "f-oD
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CREDITS
City Council
Guy S Houston, Mayor
Lisbeth Howard
Janet Lockhart
Claudia McCormick
George Zika
Plannine Commission
Ralph D Hughes
Maxine Jennings
Don Johnson
Fred Musser
Tony Oravetz
City Staff
Richard C Ambrose, City Manager
Eddie Peabody, Jr., Community Development Director
Janet Harbin, Senior Planner
Andy Byde, -\ssociate Planner
Mana Carrasco, Secretary
Consultants
Jerry Haag, Urban Plmmer
EcononllC & Pla.llliing Systems (EPS)
Omm-Memls Engmeers
RRM DesIgn Group
Stevenson, Porto & Pierce
Villagc Parkway Specific Plml
Adoptcd by tbe Dnblin City Council
Resolution Number 231-00
December 19, 2000
J:h.i..~ Q..Ql;umcnt. undated to Januarv I 2006 includes the followine: amendments:
8/8/2003. cnD determinatiun relating to City Cvuncil Ordinarll,:e ] 1-02
4/2212003 Minor Technical Amendment to the Specific Plan authori%.l~d hy the Community Development Dirct:tor
6/1 Hl2n02: Planned Oevelopment Rezoning, City Council Ordimmcc II ~02
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction, l>urpose and Project Location ............................................10
I I Purposes of the Specific Plml...........................................__.__.____...___......_____....._.__.___.___10
1.2 Location .........................__.........____...._...____..__......10
1.3 Local and Rcgional Context....... ....................10
I 4 Project Goals and Objcetives ..10
1.5 Orgmlization of the Specifie Plan ..... 17
2.0 General N otes ..............................................................................................17
2.1 Relationship to General Plan ..................... ...........17
2.2 Relationship to Dublin Zoning Ordinance, Dublin Municipal Code, Standards and
Policies ............................................._______..___17
2.3 Definitions.......... ......................................................_.._.__......_......._........__..17
2.4 Severability ................................ 18
3.0
3 I
3.2
3.3
34
3.5
36
37
4.0
41
4.2
4.3
5.0
5 1
5.2
6.0
6 I
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
Existing Co n ditio ns .................................. .............................. ................. ...18
Ovcrview ......................................................... 18
Topography and Natural Features _._.___...__________.______.____._.............................................18
EXlstmg Land Use and ParcehzallOn _.____.__________._.__.._.............._............................_18
Land Use Regulatory Framework __..________...___._______.._......_......_.....__...._....._..._.._.._._._._.._20
T ransportalIon and Circulaholl ........ ... ... _.. .... _... _..... ... ... __ _. __ ___ __ _. ____. __ _ _.______ _. _ ____ __ _. _ __ __ 20
Ulihhes................ ....................._............. 24
Public Services .30
IJan d lJ se (;oncept.......................................................................................30
Concept Overview .............. 30
Permitted/Conditional Land Uses ..... 31
Development Standm.ds .......................................... 33
Traffic J m,provements and Parking ............... ................................................34
Traffic Improvements and Roadway A1temativcs .............................. .34
Pm-king mld Loading .... .38
IT rban Design Guidelines................ ...................... .............. .................... ...38
Purpose and Intent.. .._. ._. ___ _ _. _ _____ _ ___ ____... __ _ __. _ __. __ .__._. _ _._____..__.. .... ._.._ _.._.__ __..._ .._. ___ _ ._. ..___._ 3 8
Building Design, OnentatJon a.l1d Massmg..................................................................39
Plazas and Amemty Spaces. 47
Strcetscapc Standards....... _..... _. _ _ _..... _. _.... _. _ _. _ _..... _ _....................................................... 49
Signs and LighlIng ... _.. ._._........ .... _......._ ...... ...... ..__.____ .._..._. ....__.. _____ _..._..__.. ...... _____ __ __ ___ 54
Village Parkway ::'peeifie Plan
Paf!e 2
Village Parkway Specific Plan
7.0
7 I
7.2
7.3
74
7.5
8.0
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
S.5
8.6
87
!l.8
8.9
S 10
S.1l
8.12
8.13
8.14
Infrastructure and Maintenance..............................................................................57
Overview ..... ....... _____.. _____ __ __ ___ _ _ _ ___ ____ _..................... .............. ................_ _. __ __ __. 57
Water Faeilities ......._....._..._.._.._....._______............................ ..... ..._.57
Wastewater Facilities _____........._____..__..________....___......................... .._57
Stormwatcr Drainage .....__.....__._____.._______________..___...__.............. .....____..57
Maintenanee ..._............... _____..... ._. __ __ _ _ ______ _..... _. .... ___.... _ .___....58
Admi nistration and Implementation ........................................................ 58
Introduction.. _.__.____________.......___........ 58
Village Park--way Specifie Plan (VPSP) Zoning D1Stncl .59
Non-Confonmng Uses ............ ......._._.________.. 59
Review ufBuildmg Plans .... ........................._____________........ .....59
Conditional Use PermIts and Varimlees ............... ......_.____.._............59
Subdivision of Land .__._ ______.. __ __..... ............. ...................................... ....... _ _ ____... ... ... 59
Environmental Review ._.________________...._............................... __........59
Fees ......_____._______.__............................... __.__.......60
Sign Pennits ._.............................. ..................._.__._____________............ 60
Design Asslslance Progrmn ................._..._._________.__.................... 60
Capital Improvement Projects................ ........... ___.________.............60
Financing of ImpruvemenlslFinallcing Plan ..............______.__............61
Village Parkway Merchants Association ...__.._._____________..................62
Spccitlc Plan Amendments and Substmltial Conformity .......________.._.................... 62
Page 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENI>lCES
Ilem A Parcel Map and Property Owners in V ilIage Parkway Specific Plml Area
Ilem B List of Task Force Members (with Exhibit 10)
Ilem C Village Parkway Roadway Alternatives (With Exhibits lOA IOD)
Ilem D Ncgative Declaration and Initial Study
Item E. List of Resolutions and Ordinances adopting Specific PIM Amendments Md Rezonings
for the Downtown Core SpeeiIie Platl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXllIBrrs
Exhibit
Title
Exhibit I
Regional Context
Exhihlt 2
Loeal Context
Exhibit 3
Specific PIa.l1 Boundary
Exhibit 4
Existing Uses
Exhibit 5
General P!a.l1
Exhibit 6
Zomng Dlstncis
Exhibit 7
Existing Circulation Syslem
Exhibit 7 A
Existing CondItions
Exhihit 78
Village Parkway Roadway Improvements --
Altemative 3 Task Force Reeommendation
Improvements
Ex hihit R
E:xistmg 1 Ttility Plan
Exhihll q
Land Use Plan
Exhihll 10
Lncation of Task Force Members' Property/Business
Exhihlt lOA-lOD
Allemahve Parking Plans lor Village Parkway
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VILLAGE PAH.KWA Y SPECIFIC PLAN
Executive Summary
The Village Parkway Speciflc Plan is one of three speeific plan documents developed for the
eentral urbanized area of the City of Dublin whieh address the future development in the
downtown area of the City Two other specific plan docnments, the Downtown Core Specitlc
PlaIl and the West Dublin BART Spucifie Plan, have also been developed to address portions of
other seetions in the downtown area. The Speeifie Plans are intended to direct the use of land,
the design of public improvements, and the design aIld appearance of private aIld publi<;
development, including buildings, parking areas, signs aIld landscaping. Goals and objcetives
are ineluded in the pla.lUling document to assist in fulfilling the intent of the Plan. Design
GUIdelines are also established in the eontext of the Plan to assist in guiding the design quality of
the area's development. Additionallv, sections addressing Administration and hnplementation,
and possible Financmg mechalllsms for Plan implementation are contained in the document. The
adoptIOn ofthe Village Parkwav Specific Plan by the Dublin City Council on December 19,2000
required that portions of the previously adopted (1987) Downtown Specific Plan be repealed to
modify sections of that document relative to Development Zones 10 aIld II.
The Village Parkway SpeCIfic Plan Area, West Dublin BART Speeific Plan Area, aIld the
Downtown Core Speeific PlaIl Area, to the west of Village Parkway, represent what remains of
the onginal "Downtown"commercial area ofthc City of Dublin. The Village Parkway Speciflc
Plan area IS generally located along the cast aIld west sides of Village Parkway between Dublin
Boulevard to the south and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north. The Village Parkway area
consists of approximately 31 a",es of <;ommer<;lal S("VICeS, retail, restaurant, office and
automotive service type land uses_ Under the Concept Plan for the area, these eXlstlllg uses would
not change, but would be stabhzed and enhanced_ A hIgher lIltenslty of development and a more
pedcstriaIl-orientcd <;nvironment are en<;ouraged by the PlaIl through lIlcreased flooHllea"ratios
(FAR), cstablishmunt of d<;H1IP' gUIdelines for development, md streetscape nnprovements. The
FAR of.35 for the Village Park"ay area IS mnslstent WIth the City's present General Plan, The
maximum aIllOunt of development in the Village Parkway area IS antI<;lpated to he 40R,1 OR
square fcet.
In February 2000, a task force for the Village Parkway Specifie PlaIl area was fOlTIled at the City
Council's diredlOn to diswss the issues aIld problems faeing businesses aIld propelty owners in
thc an;a, direct the future land uses along Village Parkway and to evaluate traffic aIld eireulation
issues relative to promotIng lIlcreased economic growth in the area. The Village Parkway
Specifk Plan Task Force consistcd of thirteen business owners, property own<;rs and reSIdents of
the City that have shown an interest in the futurc physical and economie development of the
Village Parkway SpecIfic PlaIl arca. Task Force memhers appointed by the City Coun<;ilto the
commIttee mcluded Rick Camacho, Cieorge Churchill, Charlotte Fernandez, DaVId Hess, StaIl
McClanahaIl, Connie Mack, Thomas Odam, Dan SCaImell, Redic Thomas, Jimmy aIld YVOl1llC
Tiu, and Wilma WhIte. The AppendIx of this document eontains a list of these members and a
map, Exhibit 10, whkh shows the general location of the busincsses or properties reprcs<;nted by
the participating memhers.
village Parkway Specific Pl"n
Page I
During the sIx-month period in which the Village Parkway SpecIfic Plan Task Force met to
disellss the plan, the Task Furee detennined that there is a need to revitalize businesses along the
segment of Village Parkl,\,ay hetween Amador Valley Boulevard to the north and Dublin
Boulevard to tbe south. To accomplish this and to achIeve the goals aIld objeehves of the
Specifie Plan and the City, the Task Force reviewed several options tor the alignment of Village
Parkway, induding some whICh would provide diagonal parkmg dose to businesses. Four
different options for the ultimate design of Village Parkway were evaluated dunng the specific
plan development process, along with the existing roadway eonfiguration. With Plan adophon,
the City Couneil detennined that the optimum roadway aligllll1ent for Village Parkway at this
time is the existing four-lane roadway with parallel parkmg. Streetseape and other parking
improvements, aIld the addition of improved and enhanced crosswalks, were also adopted with1l1
the context of the plan.
A Negative Declaration and Initial Study have been prepared for the Village Parkway Specifie
PlaIl, and consider the environmental affects of the maximum development potential 111 this area
of the City. These doeuments are contained in the Appendix. Background studies addressing
eeonomlc and traffic eonditiuns, along with the Urban DeSIgn Guidelines for the plan area that
are summarized in this plan, are eontallled in a separate Teehmcal Appendix.
~ i/lage Purkway Specific Plan
Puge 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I c:
0
0
N
:Ii
"
I "
!5
Jj
I '"
I
I
I
~
l.tvermore
Santa Clara
17
o
I
2
.
,
,
.
,
a 1Q mN68
. I
..
N.T.S.
DECEMBER 2000
REGIONAL CONTEXT
VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN
CITY
OF DUBLIN
EXHIBIT 1
--... -".,.....,.
Village Parkway Specific pia"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 4 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~~~1-
. ~W\'
:'1~~~'B2:
. ; '\/~~,.'"
.r1{rf-9~J~'
Exhibit 2
Downtown
Specific Plans
Local Context
Freeway
Dublin Lots
D Specific Plan Area
~ Streets
.,
.,
~
May 2004
NOTE. T....e ir1emal:s~ of
1ocQ:I&t.~ets:o:JO'#I1-jrothi'Sfig~-e
is iIlJstrWle ont,,'.
o 100200 400 600 800 1,000
, Feet
--
0 0.1 0.2
, Miles
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.0 Introduction, Purpose and Project Location
I 1 Purvoses ofthe SoecIfic Plan
The Village Parkway SpecIfic Plan has been prepared in coneert with local property owners
aIld busmesses to assure the highest and most produetive use of the laIld in this portion of
Dublin is achicved. This Speeifie Plan governs the use ofland, development standards,
design of public improvements, and the design and appearanee of private improvements
including buildings, signs and landseaping. The Specifie Plan also provIdes a hlueprint to
implement the overall vision and design requirements <;ontained in the Village Parkway
Specific Plan.
Land use standards, regulations, definitions and other criteria eontained in this document
shall govern all of the property within the Village Parkway Specifie PlaIl area.
1.2 Location
The Village Park-way plaIming area is sited within the City of Dublin, in south easterly
Alameda County, California. More speeifieally, th<; Specific Plan area indudes eommeTClal
and other non-residential properties between thc north aIld south sides of Amador Valley
Road to the north and Dublin Boulevard to the south. The 1-680 Freeway forms the
southwestern boundary of the area and lies adjacent to the rear property line of commercial
uses. A combination of rest auraI ItS, offices, rctail commereial, serviee commercial and other
non-residential uses front along Village Parkway
The plaIming area eontains approximately 31 acres of land. Exhihlt 1 shows the regIOnal
context ofthe planning area and Exhihlt 2 shows the locahon of the proJect boundaIY in
relation to the remainder ofthe City of Dubllll_ ExhibIt 3 dep'cts the Village Parkway
Specific Plan boundary in relation to other downtown SpecIfic Plans prepared In the
downtown Dublin area.
1.3 j..,oeal and Regional Context
The Village Parkway planlllng area IS SIted wIthin the Llvemlore-Amador Valley area, a
rapidly growing area 111 the East Bay ofthe San Francisco l3ay region. The City of Dublin has
a population of approxIIuately 32,500 and a geographic area of approximately 12.2 square
miks.
Major uses surroundmg the specIfic plan aI-ea mdude low density, single faIllily residcntial
housing to the north and east, eommercial uses to the south and the 1-680 frceway to the west
Wcst ofl-680, commercial development exists, which is includcd in the Downtown Core
Spccific Plan_
1 4 Proiect Goals and Obiectlves
Goals and objecti ves ofthe Village Parkway Specific Plan include:
Village PllrkwllV Specific Plan
Page 7
Land U,'e
Goal 1 Revitalize and upgrade the appearanee and functionality ofthe Village Parkway area
so that eXIsting busmesses Ca.l1 thnve and ne\\; husmesses that comply wIth the overall vIsion
ofthe SpecIfic PIa.l1 Ca.ll be attracted.
Objective 1 I Encourage a diverse mix of complementary land uscs along Village
Parkway.
Objeetive 1.2. Discourage additional drive-through facilities. Proposals for new or
expanded drive through operations shall be reviewed and detennined on a case-by-
case basis by the Plamling CommIssion.
OhJcchve 1.3 Create opportumtJes for mtegrating hve/work umts mto the Village
Parkway area.
Goal 2. Increase the amount ofretail sales and related economic activity within the projeet
area.
ObjectIve 2.1. Allow for mtenslficatlon of land uses wltbm the plannmg area, up to a
maxImum floor area rabo of 0.35 per parcel.
ObJective 2.2. Develop a.l1 on-gomg progranl of special events to encourage shopping
a.l1d overall visitation in the Village Parkway area.
Goal 3; Protect the quality oflife in residential areas adjaeent to the Village Parkway area
while encouraging residents to shop in the neighborhood.
Objeetive 3 I Extended business hours are encouraged for busincsscs within the
Village Parkway area, as long as noise and other negative intluences, including spill
ovcr of lighting, do not oecur that would disturb adjacent residents.
Goal4 Create public spaces within the Speed1c Plan area for people to enjoy while using
area shops and services.
Objectivc 4 t. A villagc square and/or plaza should be devcloped within the SpecIfic
Plan area.
Traffic, Circulation and Parking
Goal 5 Village Parkway shall continue to provide aceess to a.lld through the Specifie Plan
area.
Goal 6. Traffic volumes and vehieular spced on Village Parkway shall be eontrolled to all!""
for improved access to individual businesses and to encourage a more friendly envIronment
HI/age Parkway Spe.c(fk Plan
Page 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ObJechve 6 1 Maintain Village Parkway wIth two traUk lanes in each (hrection until
such tnne as It is detenmned that a reductIOn mlanes may he benefiCIal to the area.
Ohjectlve 6.2: Develop and implement measures to decrease vehicular speed using
Village Parkway Appropriate traffic calmmg measures to be Il1corporated into the
design of Village Parkway include bump-outs a.l1d raised erossmgs.
Goal 7: Crcate a more pedestriaIl friendly enviromnent for Village Parkway to attraet
shoppers.
Objective 7 I Reduec hazards in the roadway to provide for inereascd visibility for
pedesh.iaIls aIld motorists.
ObJective 7.2. The eXlstmg raIsed medlaIl in the center of Village Parkway should be
reduced m WldUl or eliminated if this can be achieved within the economic means of
the City
ObJectlve 7.3 The City shalllJwesbgate undergrounding of eXlstmg overhea(1 power
and telephone hJ1es along Village Parkway
OhJective 7 4' Improved pedestriaI1 connections should be considered between uses
on Village Parkway, mcluding new pedestrian crosswalks along Village Parkway
between Dublin Boulevard aIld Amador Valley Boulevard, improved signs warning
motorists of pedestria.l1 activity and improved sidewalks.
Goal 8. Create addihonal parking within the Village Parkway Specific Plan area.
Objective ~.I Provide additional public parking spaces close to businesses, including
consideration of possiblc public/private partnerships tu create additional parking
oppOltunities as businesses grow
Objcctivc 8.2. Review new developmcnt applieahons to ensure that ma>amum on-sIte
parking, CaIl be accommodated.
Objeetive~.4 Eneouragc use of shared parking amung ncarby land uses, as allowed
by the Dublin Zoning Ordinan<;e, to satIsfy parkmg demand for indivlduallal1d uses.
Visual Quality alld Desi!:1I
Goal 9' Enhance the visual quality of Village Parkway, ineluding publie streetscape
improvements, entryways, on-site landscapmg and the appearan<;e ofindivldual buildings.
Objective q 1 Develop a consIstent urban design theme to guide the developnwnt and
redevelopment of sites within the Specifie Plan area.
--."..',--.--..............-..--.'...
Village Parkway Spedjic PIa"
Pllge 9
Village Parkwav Specific Plan
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 1 U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
A-0. Cf~...~-t.
v f\ .
~~",.
;" O<;;~
. - --:.,J.'?-
'~>Q;i f9Y-o'
Exhibit 3
Village Parkway
Specific Plan
Boundary
Freeway
Dublin LoIs
D I Area
Specific P a Fl
~ Buildings
I . ..""., ets
. '.' ~.. .... .~... '..'. ..:_-'--.... ..,".--.- j Stre
:-:_-!{~(S:'c_!
~
May 2004
.,.,1."",
NOTE The i= il!l this Iigllre
"""'",,-
is.-ih:s1ratNe-of!::o'lj
o 100 2110
- -
600
, Feel
400
o
0.1
. Miles
0.G5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Objcetive 9.2. Individual buildings should reflect an overall high quality of
architeetural design, using materials, colors aIld exterior treatments to present a
pleasing appearaI1Ce to passing motorists and pcdestrian visitors. Where feasible,
building entries should be located facing Village Parkway aIld enhaIlccd to invite
visitors.
Objective 9.3 Landseapmg should enhance the appearanee ofbuildings and should he
inviting to pedestnans.
Objeetive 9 4 Private parking lots should be altraetively landscaped to mimmlze a
"sea of asphalt" appearanec.
Objeetive 9.5 Standards and guidelines arc to be dcveloped for signs and lighting
within the Speeific Plan area to provide lor a unified UrbaIl dcsign appearanee.
Goa.110' Enhance the visual quality of the plaIlliing area by encouraging appropriate projects
wIth major public access either visually from roadways and large outdoor aI.eas, or pedestrian
traffic, to incorporate public art into the design in aceordance with the City's Public Art
Policy
Implementation and Administration
Goal 11 New laIld uses, additions to existing land uses aIld remodeling of existing buildings
shall he revIewed by the City of Dublin to ensure eonsistency with the Village Parkway
SpecIfic Plan.
Goal 12. The City of Dublin shall work eooperatively with local property owners aIld
businesses to achIeve the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan.
Ohjectlve 12.1 The City of Dublin should take the lead in lunding public
Improvements called for within the Speci/ie Plan. assisted by local property oWnerS
and businesses to thc filllest extent feasible.
Objective 12.2. A Village Parkway Merchants Association and/or a Busmess
Jmprovement District should be formed lor the purposes of organizing special events
and coordinating other area~wide improvements.
Objective 12.3 Area properly owners aIld merchants should lllvesligate the feasihilIty
of forming a parking distnct or all assessment dlstnct to develop common parking lots
within the specific plan area.
Objective 12.4. The City of Dublin should eonsider undertaking a Design AssistaIlee
Program for busmesses within the Speeilie Plan area to help in implemcnting design
glLldehnes for building enhaIlCClllents.
Village Parkway Specific Plan
Page 13
Page 14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.5 Organization of the Specific Plan
The Speeific Plan provides a framework (or development and redevelopment wlthm the
planning area. Development staIulards are provIded for the vanous land uses comprising the
planmng area as well as for the other eomponents necessary to make a successful retail and
service area. These inelude transportation and circulation, infrastructure requirements, public
services and faeilities, streetscape, a.ll1enities, and implementation aIld administration of the
Specific PlaIl.
2.0 General Notes
2.1 Relationshw to General Plan
ImplementatIOn of the Village Parkway Speclfic Plan furthers the goals of the Dublin General
Plan. The Specific Plan also allows the eommu1l1ty to adopt more detailed guidance for the
Village Parkway area, and to tailor regulatory standards to the umque needs and
charaeteristics ofthe planning area. It also allows the opportumty to establish stmdards aIld
implemCllt programs to meet the needs of both loeal property owners and the remainder of
Dublin.
2.2 Relationship to Dublin Zoning Ordinance, Dublin Munieipal Code, Standards and
Polieies
The City of Dub 1m Zomng Ordinance will be aIuended as an Implementation measure of the
Village Parkway SpeCIfic Plan to create a specIal Village Parkway Specific Plan Overlay
Zoning Dlstnct to replace existmg zoning standards for the Specific Plan area. LaIld uses,
development standards aIId interim uses will be outlined in the Development Standards
section ofthe SpeCIfic Plan and supporting diagrams outlimng special requirements
Any development standards or land use requirements not speCIfically covered by this Sped lIe
Plan are suhJect to the regulatiOns of the City of Dublin Loning Ordinanee and Standard
SpeclficatlOns and Drawings of the City of Dublin. Unless otherwise specitlcally approved 111
this SpeCIfic Plan, all off-site improvement drawings are subjcct to City of Duhlin pohcles
and standards in effect at the time of submittal of improvemcnt plaI1S.
All constlllction within the Village Parkway SpecifIC Plan shall be in compliance WIth tbe
Uniforn, Building Code, Uniform Fire Code aIld all other ordinanees adopted by the City
pertaimng to construction aIld safety issues. All other City standards and policies shall apply
at the I1me ofsubnllttal of individual subdivision maps and/or site development plans,
2.3 Defini!iQ_~
For the purpose of carrying out the mtent ofthls SpeCIfic Plan, words, plll'ases and terms shall
be deemed to have the mean111g ascrihed to them as follows. In construing the provisions of
thIS text, specifie provlslOns shall supersede general provisions relating to the same project.
All other definitIOns shall be as per the Dublin Zoning Ordinanee. Terms not dellned 111 the
Dublin Zomng Ordll1aIlee shall have the meaning ascribed in Webster's CollegIate
Dichomuy
Village Parkway Specific Plan
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The word "City" shall refer to the City of Dublin.
The words "City Council" shall mean tbe City Council of the City of Dublin.
The words "Plalmmg Commission" shall mean tbe Planning Commission of the City of
Dublin.
The words "Specific PlaIl" shall refer to this document, The Village Parkway Specific Plan,
as adopted hy the Dublin City Couneil.
The word "shall" is mandatOlY; "may" or "should" is permiSSive.
The word "pennitted" meaI1S pennitted without the reqUIrement for further discretionary
permits, hut subJect to all other applicable regulations.
The words "acres" or "acreage" shall mean approximate acres.
The word "applicaIlt" shall mean a person or entlty makmg applieation for Site Dcvelopment
Revie"" subdivision map or other land use approval pursu<mt to this Specific Plan.
The word "suhdlvlSlOn" shall mc1ude tentative and final tract maps, tentative aIld final pareel
maps, parce/map waivers and ]otline adjustments.
2.4 Severabihtv
If aIlY tenn, provision, conditIOn or reqUIrement of thIS SpeC] fie Plan shall be held invalid or
unenforceable, the remainder of the Specific Plan or the apphcation of such tenIl, prOVISHl11,
condition or requirement to circumstances other than those in which it IS held invahd or
unenforceable shall not be affected thereby; and each tenIl, proVISion, condlhon or
requirement of the Specific FlaIl shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitkd
b.." law
3.0 Existing Conditions
3 I Overview
This section of the Spec] fic Plan Identi lies physical and other envirolUnental eonditions on
the project site at thc timc thIS Specific Plan was prepared.
3.2 J~ography and Natural Features
The site is generally t1at with a gradual slope to the south. There are no unique or unusual
geographic or topographic eonditions present on the site, since all ofthe properties are
developed and the Speci lie Plan area hes 111 an urbani;ced portion of Dublin.
3.3 EXIsting LaIl~LWse and Parcclization
The project site has been developed with a range of retail commercial aIld offiee buildings
providing goods and services primarily to local residents. One regional use within the area is
the main Dublin Post Ofllce, located on the east side of Village Parkway near Lewis Avenue.
Exhibit 4 shows the general distribution of land uses within the projeet area. Typieally,
Village Parkwav Specific Plan
Page 15
,
, ,
\ '
\ '
,
"
,
..- '
-' \ \
I I
I '
I
---,_.' -_.,~-~'-\
\
\
I,
"
"
I'.
\ y-
_A , "'"
-- \.
-----~'- \\ \\
-"""/\J~ \\."
- ,,~..- \
._--- ~_,r-\ "
,
sQ-, .' /
,,'U0."', '1
/.:.,~ ,
',.,,- ""'0 ",
I , ,
, )/ ~
<. {I
...... ~.....)" ,....... ~
" f -..... ...."
/ / l, .......
" ~y ('~ ,/
rI ,- *,'
, .,;' /"r,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\ rj"'1
i \ I
I L.._
.---1...-"~
I \
, ,
----- r-",--
I ~
, .
1 f-.' \ \
'I L_-"\
\_.r j \
~ -----' L '1
\~~ I
~' . .........~
I
DUBUN BOULI'oV~~_.
r-'7~~~-',
\ 1:-' 1
\ \ l______
\ \
\ \
,
LEGEND
- ~ - - SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY
~ RETAlL/AESTAURANT
1\",- .\.'':'<''1 OFFICE/SERVICE COMMERCiAl
(l=,!:y""1:::..'V"'.:NI PUBUC rNSTlTUTlONAL
I VAC/Wr
k"o "~ >''1 AlITO SERVICE
~ I I
l ' \ I
'"", ':-\' I,
.. ___ ~ \ \ I
-~ ,-'
~,c.-"'.,c.:. '\ \
'.,1 ,
.."'""- "'-~
--. "
,
.......--....
j.
.......:::-::-
.
EXISTING LAND USES
VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN
N,T.S.
DECEMBER 2000
CITY
OF
DUBLIN
EXHIBIT 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
huildings are onented toward Village Parkway or Amador Valley Boulevard. VehIcular
parklllg IS typIcally pnlVlded hehmd or adjacent to buildings, although a number of uses do
provide parking in front of buildings. Landscape and streetscape improvements vary from lot
to lot, although the overall aInount oflandscapmg is generally minimal.
Exhibit 4 also indicates existing pareelization within the project area. A summary of current
pareelization, including lot sizes and ownership (as taken from the most reeent County
Assessor records) IS contained in the Appendix of this document.
34 Land Use Regulatory Fra.ll1ework
Land use regulation for the projeet area is provIded hy the City of Dublin through the General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The General PIa.l1 Land Use designation lor the Village Parkway
site is a eombination of "Retail/Office and Automohve," on the west side of Village Parkway
which allows retail/office uses such as shopping centers, retail shops, eating establishn1ents,
business and professional offices, auto dealershIps, auto body shops and similar uses aIld
"Retail/Office" on the east sIde of Village Parkway, which pemlits shopping eenters, retail
shops, eating establishments, busmess and professional oJTIees, motels, serviee stations and
sale of auto parts.
The project has been zoned a comhination ofC-2 (General Commereial), C-I (Retail
Commercial), C-N (Neighborhood CommercIal) and PD (Planned Development) by the City
Each ofthese zoning districts allows a ra.l1ge of retail commercIal, oJ11ce, restaurant and
similar laIld uses.
Exhibit 5 depicts existing General Plan designations wlthm the project area and Exhibit 6
shows current zoning designations.
3.5 TraI1SDortatlon and CirculatIOn
Major principal streets serving the Specific PlaIl sIte mdude Village Parkv.ay, Duhhn
Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard. These arc described more fullv he low;
.
Village Parkway extends from Dublin Boulevard nOlth to Alcosta Boulevard. A major
arterial roadway, VilIagc Parkway has lour travellalles with raised center landscaped and
hardscaped mediaIls. Between Dublin Boulevard aIld Amador Valley Boulevard, Village
PaI.kway provides access to eommercialland uses. Continulllg northward, th" roadv.ay
provides primary aeeess to residential areas off of Tamarack J)nve, Bnghton Dnve and
Davona Drive. A new northbound on-raInp to l-uHO from Village Parkway recently
opened.
.
Dublm Boulevard is a major east-west roadway through the south part ofthe Village
Parkway planning area. Dublin Boulevard has six travellanes and raised mediaIls from
San Ramon Road to Just east of RegIOnal Street. As Duhlin Boulevard approaches Golden
Gate Dnve, the roadway narrows to four travel lanes and mamtams thIs configurahon east
to Dougherty Road. Dublin Boulevard is designated as a route ofreglOnal slgnJficant m
the AlanlCda County Congestion Management Agcncy's Congestion MaIlagement PlaIl.
hllage Parkway Specitic Plan
Page ]7
CITY OF DUBLIN
EXHIBIT 5
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEGEND
__ RErAlljOFFICE
m:....;ft.~
.,......."'" RErAllJOFFICE & AlJTDMOTIVE
_'W
.
EXISTING GENERAL PlAN
VILlAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PlAN
N.T.S.
DECEMBER 2000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cf'
J:l'.' ~.
1~<2)~ "
,r;-1ijFQ~~V-'
Exhibit 6
Village Parkway
Specific Plan
Zoning Districts
Freeway
Dublin Lots
.. Buildings
[" ''-j Streets
'--". '""'-'. _~ I
D Specific Pian Area
D Planned Development Areas
Former Zoning Districts
~C-l
I~nmnm C-2
~C-N
~
May 2004
NOTE The lfJt&mal S'I'Stem of
IocaJstr&et:s-shCl'M'"lin'l!lisftlLlre
iSJllJS'I:ca1NeO"'lIy.
o 100 200 400
- -
600
. Feet
o 0.05
0.1
, Miles
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
Amador Valley Boulevard extends Jrom Cromn Circle east to Dougherty Road. A major
east-west arterial strcet, Amador Valley Boulevard has four travel lanes wlthm the
Specific Plan area and provides access to commercial and retail areas.
Regional Clrculal10n linkage is proVIded hy I-IiRO, a north-south freeway and 1-580, all east-
west freeway
The LivemlOre Amador Valley Transit Authority ("WHEELS") provides bus transit service
through the Dublin area. Bus routes serving the downtown Dublin area include Routes 3, 4,
!O and 201/202
RegIOnal traIlsit to aIld from the Dublin area is provided by the Bay Area Rapid TranSIt
DIstrict (BART). BART opened a Dublin/PleasaIlton station in the late 1990's, located
approximately one mile southeast of the projcct site. A recent proposal has been suhmll(ed hy
HART to constmct a Downtown Dublin station approximately one-half mile south of the
Village Parkway Specific Plan area at the terminus of Golden Gate Avenue.
Bikeways exist or are propos<;d on Village Parkway, Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin
Boulevard. Village Parkway is d<;signated as a Class IT Bikeway Route, which pnlVldes for
shared use of a bikeway with cither pedestrians on a SIdewalk or motor vehicles on a street.
Amador Valley Boulcvard is eurrently an existing Class TT Bikeway lane, whIch IS designed
with a one-way striped lane (or bicycle travel on the roadway
Public sidewalks have heen constructed on both SIdes ofViUage Parkway through thc
Specific Plan area as weU as adjaeent to Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard.
The Sldewalk nght-of-way is eight feet.
Exhibit 7 shows exlStmg clrcula!1on features within aIld adjacent to the Village Parkway
Specific Plan area. ExhibIt 7 A dep'cts eXJstmg roadwav location and dimensions in the
plaIlliing arca.
3.5 .lJ.!ilities
The project site is presently served hy a WIde range of utilities and infrastrueture, including:
Water Duhlin San Ramon Services Distriet (DSRSD) currently providcs retail water
services to the City ofDubhn, lllcludmg the Downtown Core area. Currently, 100 percent
of the DSRSD potable water supply JS provHled by Alameda County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District (Zone 7). Water enters DSRSD's dIstribution system from
Zone 7 Cross Valley Aqueduct through four turnouts. The turnouts are equipped with
chlonnation aIld fluoridationlacilihes whIch can disinfect and fluoridate water delivcr
fi-om Zone 7 prior to entering DSRSD's system.
DSRSD currently has four pipeline interties, two with East Bay Mumclpal Water District
and two wllh the City of Pleasant on for rapid emergeney response. The interties are
strictly Jor emergency conditions, such as a major pipeline break, supply contammatlOn,
Village Parkway Specifie Plan
Page 2/
....... ARTERIAL STREET
- . . _ RESIDENTIAL STREET
_~_ BIKEWAY-CLASSII(LANE)
..~.. PROPOSED BIKEWAY - CLASS II (LANE)
. .<:!H0.. PROPOSED BIKEWAY - CLASS III (ROUTE)
CIRCULATION SYSTEM
VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN
--~
'/" ._~-("
N,T.S.
DECEMBER 2000
CITY OF
DUBLIN
EXHIBIT 7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"-
,
'"
<fv ,~- \
,'~ .'
v: ~ ,
"
~o.
~o"
'-"
'''2 '
"\''''0.-
,.~
,
\
'. \
\ ,
. ,
" \
,\ ,
" l-; ;\\~")r
\ J~__
, \
, i
\ ,
\ \
, ,
) I ~,.r
- -'3~dV'V\. - /
G --.
,
,
,
"
\
\
,
\
\
\
'- \
j
~_.-
. )
\ ,
, ,
, I
1...:
,(),
i~i
/0'
""
.,_" I
t
, /6J:'?--'~
'-- ~". ~ ~
\
<'
,
,
\
.'
" \\.
.,
'--.X.,} :;
'X~ '
'''''''t> ,
~'t:-~ "
......41
'~,
,
\, ''\,
" '\
\ \
liJ.....- _,.
'--~/<il
, ,
~ ,
I",i
101
1\ i
I)-I 10:
\zl ,eI:.
\w\ I i
';I:, I'wl
j<;l\ (!II
1"-1'1 '"",'
-' ~1-1
'I~~ Ia::j
I \ !1[:
! \ ! I
1 \ I.
\ '-._. __J '.
',__ ___. r
--~~---
. -- .~-
,
;~~J.."."-r
!~~~"Jl'lI~
.~ _.""!'~-- .
_ .L__
"
.- .,'"J,.J:)
.(;'
"
,
\
,
,
,
\ ,
,
"
- ,
,
/
/ -
, ,
, '
\ '
, !
, '
,
J .tY-J}fJ~~
, / _.'
.' '
i
/
"
"
J-0'~
\~ r'-
. ,
\ \
I "
. I
,
,
__. ,,(if]~_31
--..,.-.
'--
ti
'\'~
""c"<\;o
~"
'"1
l.. .1.'--.'.
,
\ \ \._..._ ..J
.
, ,
1"'1 ,..
l..c i L;
',~ I ~-1,., ~._.J
,",' .
\~\ ,_.,.,.
, ,.
~ I \
I I.
\; I
: I ! .~,
1\ I, i
:i Ii ..
~ li.J l '. -
~o::r-.'-\ II~'\
",,"~r~ : :::l ...-. _.
..~) .--. 15
'. ;: .--- -. '''Slr"/h
OQ-p. ~_,r ( J ~!'V2
'. -o~ \, "
"'" 0& ~
"
.~
:#~
--."".'U
'.
'.
~~:
~a'-""
,..
,
,
I
'~':"'~'~(~':..i!
! I P
J =1
'i
: I
I
---.,)
~..._.,;_.;
--
.. "I
, .
[
L
~
. \~b
i/q! i b ~
, ~r
,
/( I ' ( I .. 0.' l-
I z "
, ~ z"" lJJ
, U~~~
, I
I, luL I I ><
,
, UJ
I !:I 8>+
i I I i I 8i 0<
~~ ~~ 8
I U BPoI f'.l
, :1 '"
, ~~
I I
I ~u
,
! >0:>
'"
,
,
Ii
.1 ~'..-.. .
I ____
II O&V";7'no'- ;:-'. ::....
~--...,-~. e
, -. "-'-. . NI7f1(
I __ _.
;
,
,
,
""--I
: I
,
,
--,---..., ' I
I
i
i
/,
i'
, 'I
\;;.;;;1,
.<>
,
-I: I
.jll
.-----;1 I
i'l
"
,.
;1 I
~- I I
.m I I'
i ,
. ,
'. e \ ! !T I
Cb17fi i 'I
_ -13771'" '.'" ' 'I I
_'.. &OOVIy~ -':~"I .
<6't.-\ (' . ______..
~'%. "
I.iNIr";)\,: ,- -_-
I '{' .'.,,; 'I
I /""_ _J; ,
J / I .
, ',. . I
;' "" , I, I
' ff,' i' .
/ l/ J - Ni':'-::I i '11 ij
, ~, ' 1,,,1
r ~'I 181
"'-J I I II-I ilL -r
~f/ " I i ~ I L..L....rt'"
f."- -
, i
,.,
<:!ti':).::I
~l::lr'l'''~~
I '
,
I'
i
I
--.I
:tI~ki'Jt,
.-...-1
~
.~: . i
" :1
-g.
!
>
, i;::
~
"" ~~
-; :~13
I.; I
J ._""
i--
'-'''fui
i glji
:....i\....'
,
,
J
~-._---
,
,
r. - . -_. _ Q&V"37no
. '--.""_. fI
.~.
~}"~
.,
,
''\
,
,
\
,
\ /<i/,~,
, L_
,
"
~..
,
, '" 'o/f-.'>
'\.. - ~ OJ/
,
(, <'
"-
'.... '\
"
"
,
,
~'
.f): ,
'%7-'\
,
'\'\,
,
, ,
,
,
,
,
,
"
.'\
~'~S:-6- ~
~y~... ~
U'" 'l:> ~ ~
+'-f>- "
"N
Vi<
'li;'i>
-0,
, \
\ '
, '
\ \ J"-~ \
~ 1-5 3\~3 i
\ --"_.
, \
, \
\ ,
\ "
, ,
\ \ -'~
J ~--
"-'"d'4l'\ -/
o_"~ "--
.\
\
\
\ \
\
,
.J
~_.........-~-~
,- )
\ ,
, '
, I
10-:
,u.
'<>0'
f'!!l
'0'
,,,,,
--' I
-.-) ,
: {
i J
,
'- '\
'. '
\ \
I '
, '
'....-",
,It"::!:!'
/ .-
\
-~ '\
.. '\. ~ -'\
J.i-......"}/
; \-') ,'-
,'" ,'- \
--- " \ \
.lD\~ I I
, ----!~ic// : :
, , .
, ,
, ,
i",\
~o:
1)--1
'z'
1\..1.1 ~
'i3'
\wl
:::II
:4: ~
\
,
\
,
I
10:
,,,,.
[wI
I""
.,.,
'>-1
'",
10
'0..'
: l
__J ,
, --
- -~--~-""-
---~-
i ~_. 1
...____1.... ."
i5.1l11'r'<1 l
~~ll/'~!I!
"--"i-~__,"
J
,
! I
~.. _.t~_.
11..._,._
i....
/ / ti I ./
./1<411
!i j I;
! I i-. I !
! I I '/
, I
-oj I,
r I r- "--~<J~--<<:- _..
I ;-- - lo:nn08
; -- -"-- _ Ivl7ar
,
,
,
,
"
\ h ___
I __no
, ,
i~l ;
~~ ~ '-t.u._
\~\-
10-1 ;
\ 1 1 \
,\ \ ___on
! I ,.~,..
\ 1 \ \ L,._~~'~}
'\'!,
y: I'-"'! I,..::'
'..... %" ".-1\
-oJ. : ,_j 1-1 _u
f" 1:5 - ;
...... \ '-'-"-"IS~
O.J.' ,1' Wm
'~~7~ \ i-:,"
is> ',-_
.~~~ '1" ::: ,;.~78~;
~ "rl~ :" I
___'", I I j , I
ff.1- __.._ : :1 I S.Ol"tNOG"I~
!-';;!; b: /1,.--001
~?,ln__'__'._.__n.' 0: II J L_J
, ,
1 : I :ll I n. -"-'--"'1
.. I I . ._.._......_..J
/--) iT! 1'---- ----- ---I .
i __ : I ' , ,i '--cc-".cc.='y:.'-.::,! I
\ .-"...-.--.,. j
,~.~_. '\
\
,
,l-J
?
-,
"
,.
,
"
"
\
,- "
) "'
"
r~~ ~_~ ';
__.___._._1
i
t
. ....._..1 :
I
I W !
1_.=00--_; ~! : ! CS? i . i
un. 'I': !l::! 11
, ",;.> il
~~ I \ j
<21, : lj i II
~ :)1 L..__."j
-L:.:-; ! I i~' ;::-:-:~ i'~\! I
f'- .-'''-1: . I ,i ~ ! /1 I
:n. _.~ I : : '! "_."._...; __..._.:~
~:::-.: i iiI' [-,- -;:11
.): I I
~'-J.14 ;: I'~ ~".I II
~-~- ..,)~~ I A~ 1 \ i,'
-~--~... :::!. ':i', , i!
- i> j I [J I
1JJ\7a -'__ i: I '
_ '\ ~]77vl\ <JO~V~/ -~J I
'":1i1", , r'-' -.----"---_ I
~ :ro. 1 __
> ! I.H"'r,:)~A. C._ '1
I / r!~ '. -.ut
/ i .~--.'! I
' .' ',," I
,I A 'i I
'Y.) /ff!
~,Jb--~~~ k r -
',h II Q:' / ,"-'~ N"7--', I I
/ 4..."V" / I I .,-..... ~ I I _,
, f:f,' ,j' 1,,\ ! I
~ I I ~~I
, -.J I ,."'! I
I~!' S?'/ / 'IUtI,
1"
__:)~~jl!A}tL~ .
I ~ __________
, '" '
!-:c
\.''0.::
1-'
, '
- .,
.,
I
I
I', '
L,
Ii
,
C~0.:!
.~~O~iT~H~
o
j~
I ;~~
~~ ~~
~fi Cl"
Q~ re;...
~. ~~
~o t1~g
ti~ P:1<o
:1 ~o.@
~ I!
Q
" .-"
,i
JR-{a~~ i
I , -_..~
I , ji
, '____! ",
, 1,:0,
r " ~
, I -~.
I
I ___.__00_._.-
I I "
I . ~ , -
I I I~ a~
I "' )~~
,,,
I
.'--!
1__,1
r
i-.-wml
i ~~i
,._-~--,
OIiVIo,17n08
..........._.~
'or -
;~),
\
,
~--------~ "
1 -------~
I
III
"'-
f-
III
I
X
UJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
mterruption of deliveries due to a.l1 earthquake, flood, or other disaster These eonnections
would allo.... eIther agency to obtain water froUl the other agency during a.l1 emergency.
DSRSD is currently revISIng their Water Supply Master PlaIl, which should be completed
and adopted before the end of2000 Based upon conversation with DSRSD Staff,
adequate water capaeity currently eXists within the Village Parkway area, and any
deficlencies in the system will be addressed through the update of the Water Supply
Master Plan. Individual development proposals will be rcviewed on a case-by-case basis
by DSRSD staff. If individual development exceeds water demand, DSRSD will require
either a "looped system" or an increase in water pipe dia.ll1eter to supply the project.
Exhibit 8, Existing Utility PlaIl, shows the primary elements of the existing water system.
Wastewater DSRSO prOVIdes wastewater collecl1on aIld treatment, as well as water
distribution serviees for the City of Dublin. The DSRSD wastewater collection system
includes overl07 miles of sanitary sewers from 6 to 42 Inches in diaIneter, with a range in
age fi.om 5 to 40 years old.
Wastewater Capacity
T ,and use data forms the basis for estimating wastewater flows m the collection system.
La.l1d use projections for OSRSD serviee area are based on the General Plans of the
service area. The eXlstmg General Plan land use deSignation was utilized for wastewater
flows ealculations m thIS area. Based upon the Wastewater Collection S:vstem Master
J>lan Update, completed May 4, 2000, it was assumed that the ultimate build out for the
Village Parkway area would be an increase from approximately 24 percent net floor area
ratio (F.A.R.), to 30 percent net F.A.R.. Consequently, the land use program proposed by
this spccillc plan IS Within the capaeity of the DSRSD wastcwater system.
Table 1. Wastewater Capacity Currently Utilized
for Existing Uses
Commercial S . ~'t
Re,id ential Units
Total
Specific Plan Development
Intensit S. Ft.
308,474
o
0.1
32,409
o
Table 2. Wastewater Capacity Required for Proposed Uses
Commercial S . PI
Residential Units
Total
Specific Plan Development
Intensit S. Fl.
40~, 1O~
o
40,511
o
Vil/a!!e Parkwav '\I,edfic Plan
Page 25
r- _ I
~----\\ 7/t:J'1 i
\ ' 1
.-.- \-------,
-~, -I I
\ i . I
)-...-] ,--1/-
.--f--1 !L-_j i I
, \~-T' -' {--If
r/- \ \ 7 N g
\ \ '. .- -I ---'-- '---l'
\ \ \__-- I ~;- I.
\ \ \ \ / ."y 1 \\~(;WrD)
\\'v \ ..'
\ \ -,.. I
, , '
~ \ \ D
I \ \ Cf:I
\ \ \ 0,-
" \ \
, \ ,
I
\ \\
i'
,
,
,-
--- \.
\
,
...,
,--
---~
~-
. '. \
'. ,;- (12'W)
SPECIFle PLAN BOUNDARY \ " \ (18' S)
I I ~.~-......;
SEWER MAIN (SIZE AS NOTED) I, \ \1\ DUBLIN \ '
WATER MAIN (SIZE AS NOTED) ,\ ' ... \ '
STORM DRAIN MAIN (SIZE AS NOTED) , .
\
\
\
LEGEND
(X" Sl
_(X:"WL.-
__2'~I2l__
EXISTING UTI LIlY PLAN
VIUAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN
N.T.S.
DECEMBER 2000
CITY
OF DUBLIN
EXHIBIT 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Exhibit 8 shows the approximate location of existing wastewater faeilities in the proJect
area,
Drainage. Stonn Water Drainage is provHled hy the City ofDuhhn Public Works
Department aIld all n1noff in the Vicllllty IS {lIrecled to regIOnal storm drain facilities
owned and maintamed hy Zone 7 of the AIa.ll1eda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District. The regional drainage facilities ultimately now to Arroyo de la
Laguna which flows in a westerly direetion through Niles Canyon until itulhmately
discharges to the San Francisco Bay
Culvert deficIencIes exist at the south west corner of the Village Parkway SpecIfic PlaIl
Area and contJibute to flooding within this area A drainage stndy master plan should be
completed 111 the future to identifY necessary improvements to the storm "'ater drainage
system to prevent flooding within the area.
Exhibit 8 shows the approximate loeation of eXlst11lg stonn drain within faeilitics the
proJect aI-ea.
3 6 Public Services
EXISt11lg servIce provIders include:
. Police:
. Fire and EITIergeney Servlces:
. Roadway MaintenaI1Ce
. LihralY
. Recreation aIld
Cultural Services:
. Water and Sewer
. Sohd Waste Disposal.
4.0 Land Use Concept
City ofDuhlin
City of Dublin
(contracted with AlaIneda County Fire Department)
CIty of Duhlin
Alameda County Library (Dublin Braneh)
City of Dublin
Duhhn San Ra.ll1on Services District
[',ty ofDubhn
(Livermore Duhhn Dlsposal (LDD))
4 I Concept Overvi-"LY
The Village Parkway area is envIsIOned as an attractive retai\Jserviee commercial area in the
heart ofDnhlin. Dublin residents and visitors from the Tri-Valley area ean obtain basic and
specialized goods and serviees here in an accessible and pedestrian friendly cnvironment.
Interest in the Village Parkway area is heIghtened through an on-going progra.ll1 of special
rclail promotions, strcet fairs and other well-publicized activities intended to draw people to
Village Parkway Spedfic Plan
Page ]7
the area. Higher density residential dwellings in the form of multi-family complexes and
live/work reSIdential units are encouraged to provide a mix of laIld uses. The Lmd Use
Concept Plm for the Village Parkway Speei fic Plan area is shown in ExhibIt 9
Entrances to the Village Parkway area are enhaIlced WIth customIzed SIgnS within attractive
planter areas. Village Parkway is eharacterized by attractive buildings wIth uniform
landscaping along the street and in front of buildings. Buildings are lllodern and well-
desIgned, mcorporating awnings, trellises, attractive exterior matenals, ennched entrmces
and other features to add visual interest. Typically, buildings are one to two-story
construction. Pedestnan and bicyele eirculation to and within the area is encouraged by
speed-controlled streets, WIde sidewalks and ample crosswalks to ensure safety
Business signs are modest, but adequately eommunicate the location and type of business
located on the site. Vehiele parking is provIded hoth on individual lots or in eommon parking
lots centrally sited within the planning area. The existing raised mediaIl down the eenter of
Village Parkway has heen reduced and lowered and travcllanes narrowed through the
additIOn of diagonal parkmg spaces along most ofthc street. Central focal points consisting
of plazas and other open spaces are provIded throughout the Village Parkway area for use of
visitors aIld area workers.
The existing F.A.R. within the Village Parkway area IS currently 0.24, equivalent to 308,474
square reel. The maximum total amOlUlt of development in the Village Parkway area IS
anticipated to be approximately 408,108 square feet or 0.35 F.A.R..
The Speeific Plan vision is to be aehieved through a public/private partnerslnp Involvmg the
City of Dublin aIld local property owners aIId business owners. SpeCial financlllg
mechaIlisms are established to aid in the fuuding improvements and to provIde common areas
for organizing speeial events.
4.2 PemllltedlComhtional Land Uses
The followmg pemlltted, condihonal and temporary permitted uses shall be allowed within
the Village Park"ay SpeciIie Plan area.
4.2.1 Permitted Uses
Thc fullowing land uses are permitted, subject to compliaIlCe with all development
standards and design guidelines.
Residential uses, including mu1ti-fanlily residences, caretaker units
Civic uses, including community facilities, reeycling colleetion faeilitics
Commercial and Servhx uses, iucluding pet stores aIld grooming establislm1ents,
automobile/vehicle rental, banks aIld financial institutions, eating establislm1ents, lodging
faeilities, laboraturies, mini~storage, offiees (professional and business, but excluding
medical and dental offices), personal services, repair shops (excluding outdoor uses),
general retail, md service retail.
~iIlagc Parkway Sl'ecific Plan
Page 28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"'- I
--, Y "'-.-\..."^' - '_____..
/.. 'I ! \ '" 1-- :
'--L-J.~ I I
~::r i\._\ F=l
--J\U1'_~-;{~ H1-j ·
\---- '\ -t~--: .
I . ' \\\--~';;~-&r) cJ
L_L~\=-\\ \ \ \ _ ).T~\--------r\
--r \\ \ \. ,/ \ ' I
i V'I \\ \ \\ pJO)
\ '\ ; '\ \
~-~~---\ \ '\\
1\ \ \ *
; ---------~- ;---, \\'~ \ \ \'.
\-----' \\ ~ \.), \
\ \\\\\\ \q \
. ' \\' \' \(i'!. \'
\ \j,I\\ \~ 'I'
\ , 1'\' \~\.\\
I I, ---""' \\' \ If"\. \~
, \ / ..-- ':" ' "\ ' 19};, \
_---" \\ I \ \',11 \0" \'
}, I I .'" I, I. ~
_~jL1f'.., _..l-- - \\.1 \ \ \
---' ~'-~ ----\ . , \ \ .
\ '.'--- .,,-~ 1\\' \
\' ~I ,--\1,''. \ \ '\
~ :oV I \ \.-\, I . I \'
_._~.\ '\-~- --C-I.-) '. \ _1 \ "; \
\.-0\ \ .......=-\ . \ \ , \
.,~., ------.-...- ',\'\ \ '. \
. -- \, \ \' \
--"-'\ \;..--- '";"~----} \\"\ \ \ \
t L\ '. c.-' \ __---\\ \ \ " \\.\
\ \:p1 _-- \ '. I \
\ i\ 0' ..__--< \ " \ '
. , \"---- ,I ,\ \ \ \
'--' 0', \ \ \ \ \ \ \
, ,-"'"1
, \
,
'I, r"~,
I. ,
. \ :
\ " I
I ~.
LEGEND
1lIl OPPORlUNrTY SrrE
. POTENTIAL PlAZA LOCATION WI DEVaOPMENT
(RIO) REfAllJOFFlCE
(00&1\) REf A1IJOFFICE AND AUTO SERVICE
LAND USE PLAN
VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN
--~
N.T.S.
DECEMBER 2000
CITY 0 F
DUBLIN
EXHIBIT9
4.2.2 Conditional Uses
The following uses must obtain a eonditional use permit prior to ope1l1ng_ The
designation "PC" denotes that the Duhlin Plannmg CommIssion must act upon the
conditional use permit, the desIgnation "ZA" denotes that the Zonmg Administrator must
act upon the condltJonal use permIt.
Civic uses, mcluding hospItals aIld medical centers (PC)
Commercial, service and mixed uses, including ambulance services (PC), automobile and
vehicle repair (ZA), ear washing and detailing (ZA), day care facihtles (15+ OCCUPaIlt
load) (ZA), drive through/drive-in businesses (PC), drinking establishments (ZA), eating
establishments with outdoor seating (ZA), fortunetellmg (PC), hve/work residential uses
(PC), mediealldental oHlces and elinics (ZA), mIXed uses (PC), outdoor mobile vendor
(ZA), outdoor uses (ZA), recreationallaeilities, indoor (ZA), serviee stahons (PC).
4.2.3 Temporary Uses
The following temporary uses are allowed wIth the lssuance of a Temporary Use Permit
by the Dublin Zonmg Adml1l1strator
Christmas Tree sales lots, carnivals, street falfs, fanner's markets, pumpkin sales,
temporary construction trailers, similar temporary IIses
4.2.4 Busmesses Occupying EXIsting Buildings
Permltted aIld conditionally permitted uscs of existing buildings shall reference
former zoning district (C-I or C-2) and shall COnflJrm to Section 8 12 of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance "Zoning Districts and PermItted Uses." Refer to Exhibit 6 to
detemline former zoning district (C-I or C-2) lor the suhject property_
New construction and development m the Village Parkway Specific Plan arca shall
conform with the adopted land use categones in Section 4.2.1, 4.2.2, aIId 4.2.3 of the
Specific Plan and shall not refer to the fomler z01l1ng distncts (C-1, and C .2).
4.3 Development Standards
a. Minimum lot size
(I) resIdential lots: 1.5 acres (excluding Planned Developments)
t Ii) non-residential lots: 10,000 square feet
b. Mirumum lot dimensions (residentJallots only, Planned Developments exeluded)
(i) width. 50 feet
(ii) depth: 80 feet
c. Maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.35
ViI/age Parkwav Specific Plan
Page 3U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
d. Maximum lot coverage: 35 percent
tl. MaXImum site area per resIdential unit: 2,500 square feet.
r Sethacks:
(i) front: 10 feet (all uses)
(ii) rear- 20 feet for residential lots, otherwIse none
(iii) sIde, comer- 10 feet (all uses)
(iv) side: 5 feet (reSldentialllses)
g. Building height: Two stories or 35 feet
h. Landscaping_ The fol!owll1g areas on private lots shall be landscaped.
(i) All reqUIred setbacks
(ii) Parking lots
5.0 Trame Improvcmcnts and Parking
This section ofthe SpecIfic Plan describes the range oftraffie/eireulation improvements and
parkll1g requirements for the Village Parkway Specific Plan area:
5.1 Traffic Improvements and Roadwav Alternatives
Major Roads. Existing roads eurrently servmg the sIte will he maintall1ed and Improved to
meet Specific PlaIl staIldards. Village Parkway will contmlle as the maJor north-south arterial
road 111 the center of the plaIming area, providing aceess to the maJonty of uses 111 the PlaIl
area, as well as functioning as part of Dublin's cIty-wide circlllatlOn network. Amador Plaza
Road and Dublin Boulevard will remain in their respective present locations north and south
of the Specific PlaIl area. No Hew right-of~way or other improvements are anhClpated to
eIther of these two major roads.
5.1.1 Task Force Recommendations - Streetseapc and Parking
Improvements. During the sIx-month penod 111 whIch the Village Parkway Specific
PlaIl Task Force met to discuss the plan, the Task Force detennmed that there was a
need to revitalize busincsses along the segment of Village Park"ay between Amador
Valley Boulevard to the north and Duhhn Boulevard t(l the s(mth_ To accomplish this
and to achieve the goals and objectives ofthe Specifie Plan and the City, it was decided
by the Task Force that slowing traffic and provlding better parkll1g opportunities dose
to businesses would ereate a more pedestrian and shopper friendly environment, thereby
stimulating the eeonomie growth of businesses and increasing the activity level in the
area_ Four different options [or the ultimate design of Village Parkway were evaluated
dunng the speeifie plan development process, along with the eXIsting roadway
configuration as shown in Exhihlt 7 A. The Appendix of this document eontains a brief
description of each (If the Village Parkway roadway alternatives considered and also
Village Parkwav Specific Plan
Page3}
exhibits (Exhibits lOA through 10D) illustrating the alignment and cross-section of
Village Parkway for each alternative.
The Village Parkway SpecIfic Plan Task Force reviewed the various options for the
roadway which includcd variations on the ultimate width of the road, width and design
ofthe existing raised median in the center of the roadway and provisIOn ofparkmg
along Village Parkway Thc Task Force reeommended a phased improvement plaIl
for Village Parkway which would gradually implement one of the alternatives after
additional study and testing is eompleted. The lull improvement plan for Village
Parkway would be developed initially to assure that improvements are only
constrncted once and in the right locations to facilitate the phased implementation.
Under the phasll1g of the plan Implementation, streetscape Improvements would be
implemented first, such as increased laIldscaped frontages, sIdewalk improvements,
aIld the addition of street furniture and lighting in a portion of the plan area. The next
phase, at an interval of 12 to 18 months, would evaluate the cost effectiveness of the
recent streetscape Improvements on husmess. At that tIme, are-assessment of the
traffic on Village Parkway would he perfomled to obtam real traffic volume numbcrs
smce the ope1l1ng oflhe new fi-eeway on- and off-ramps_ It could then be detennined
if one of the alternative roadway deSIgns WIth diagonal parkmg should be tested, along
WIth more concIse cost Il1formatlOn ,md fundll1g mechaIlIsms.
Testing of the alternative would also be phased with implementation of a hmited
anlOunt of diagonal parking in the fumlat of the alternative, which would then he re-
evaluated at a particular interval. By improving a limited area, and then testing the
performaIlCe, the investment in the improvements could also be limited and eontrolled
while determining if the option was feasible. The Task Force has recommended that it
be reeonvened during this process to provide input to City staff.
The alternative preferred by the Task Force was Alternative 3, as sh(lwn m ExhibIt
JOe, whieh would provide two lanes of trame on Village Parkway (one laIle 111 each
direction) eombined with diagonal parkmg along the streel frontage J1l selected
loeations. A total of 81 parking spaces eould be provided with this alternative_ A SIX-
foot Class 111 bicycle lane would be located on the roadway between the diagonal
parking aIld the through traffic lane. Two new crosswalks for pedestrians would be
provided inmid-bloek locations with caution signals. Each traffie lane wonld he 12
feet and the center median would be reduced from 16 feet to 14 feet in width. The
Task Force also suggested that thc median be reduecd in height tor better visibihty for
pedestria.l1s erossing the street.
The total right-of-way (ROW) reqnired for this option would be 100 feel. As the
roadway ROW is currently 100 feet, no additional ROW would need to he obtamed
from property owners. The amount of ROW needed for this alternabve IS less than that
requIred for the other options considered, but it would reduce the number of through
traffic laIleS from tour to two, thereby slowing traffic conSIderably In slowing traffic
on the roadway, Alternative 3 would also create additional congestIOn on Village
Parkway dunng peak hour pen ods, and traffic may be diverted to Amador Plaza Road
Villa,," Parkway SpeciJic Plan
Page 32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and residential streets witb less capacIty m the vlcmity With the existing level of
tratlie plus approved prOJetts' and BART's estimated traffic volume, tbe traffic
eunsultant's eMlmate IS that the level-of-scrvice (LOS) on Village Parkway would
operate at LOS F (unacceptable levell, deereasing from LOS C (acceptable level) with
thIs altemal1ve. AdditIOnally, the LOS at the intersections of Amador Valley
Boulevard/Village Parkway and Dublin BoulevardJVillage Parkway would operate at
LOS D during the AM peak hour, and LOS F dunng the PM peak hour.
hnplementation of this alternative would require a pubhc/pnvate partnership, or joint
partnership bctween private property owners md the City to balanee the cost of
improvements, whieh are eshmated at approximately $1,050,000 (preliminary
estimate). This altemal1ve requires cooperation aIld commitment by both the City and
the property owners on Village Parkway to be successful. Therefore, a major
eommitment by a property owner or property owners is necessary before any change IS
to oceur
5.1.2 Staff Recommendations - Streetscape and Parking Improvements.
Along Village Park"ay, should a puhhc/private partnership not be feasible,
staft'srecommendal1on IS that the existing roadway bc maintained and the parallel
parking on buth Sldes ofthe street remain. Improvements in the streetseape and
sidewalk wouldbe provuled as described in the section related to streetseape standards,
and Chapter 6.0 related to urhm design guidelines, to cncourage inereased pedestrian
use in the area.
A Parkmg Authority District should bc eonsidered to fund development of Joint parking
areas, and may he further studied by the City Council. The dlstnct could provide an
admmlstrahve Ulllt for maIlaging existing un-street and puhhc parkmg lots, as well as
fund structured parking facilities, when such facihlles are necessary and finaIlCially
feasible. The parkmg district can establish and admmlsler a range of revenue sources
including paid parkmg, impaet fees, benefit assessments, and other pnvate or public
contribuhons. Other options reeommendcd by staff lu pnlVlde needed parking in the
area in lieu of diagonal parking are to provide improved aeeess 10 lhe rear of properties
adjacent 10 lhe freeway corridor, and to remove barriers such as fences between parking
lots by property owners. Jomt access between properties would encourage customers to
eombine trips to vanous businesses and improve pedestrian aceess.
If a substanlial commItment is made by a developer to redevelop a portlOn ofthe
Village Parkway SpeCIfic Plan area, the introduction of diagonal parking in lhe area
should be reconsidered and addressed at that time.
5.1.3 Staff and Task Force Recommendations. The following are
reeommenuabons of both the staff and the Task Force:
a) Interseehon Controls and hnprovements. Existing tramc signals will
remam at the mtersections of Dublin BoulevardJVillage Parkway, Lewis
AvenueNillage Parkway, and Amador Valley Boulevard/Village
Village Parkway Specific Pian
P"l!e33
Parkway Other mtersection improvements lllclude the additIOn of cross
walks and pedestnan safety lights/sIgns mId-block between Dublin
Boule, ani and LewIs Avenue, and hetween Amador Valley Boulevard
and LewIs A venue.
Although not cxpected to operate at unacceptable levels with Specific
Plan traffic, the Village Parkway/Dublin Boulevard intersection would
experience a significant increase in easthound right-turn movements
from Duhlin Boulevard onto Village Parkway dunng the PM peak hour.
In addlhon to current and planned Improvements to Dublin Boulevard,
another roadway Improvement recommended at Village Parkway/Dublin
Boulevard IS wldenmg the easthound Duhlin Boulevard approach to
inelude a separate nght-turn lane (see Report of the Transportation
Impacts for the Proposed Dublin Downtown Specific Plans in Appendix
A for additional details). ThIs measure would Improve the level of
servIce (LOS) dunng the PM peak hour
b) Public Transit Provision. The City ofDubhn will coordinate additional
pubhc transIt stops with the LivernlOre Amador Valley TraIlsit
Authonty Placement of new transit stops will be based on intensity of
new development, loeation of existing traIlsit stops and availability of
funding.
e) Bicyele and Pedestrian Facilities. New commereial and ofllce
development shall be required to provide bicycle storage facilil1es for
employees and visitors to the site. The amount of hi eye Ie parkmg shall
be deternlined based on standards estahlished in the Duhlin Zoning
OrdinaIlce and the location ofbieycle parking will be revIewed dunng
the Site Development Review process for proposed new developments.
Associated wIth the improvements to Village Parkway, SIgnS will he
installed to identify the bieyele route along this thoroughfare. Dublin
Boulevard is proposed to bc designated as a Class 1T Bikeway lane and
striping of the lane will occur in conjunction with other improvements to
Dublin Boulevard.
d) Driveway Spacing. Driveways into private lots shall generally be
limited to onc driveway per parcel of record and shall conform to City of
Dublin standards. New drivcways shall be loeated a minimum distance
of 150 feet from street interseetions and from oth"T existing drive"ays.
Where feasible, driveways should be shared between two parcels to
reduee the number of eurb euts along Village Parkway
e) Turnmg Radii and Emergency Vehicle Aecess. Based on Alameda
County Fire Department standards, a minimum turning radius of 20 feet
shall be mamtamed wIthin parking lots and driveways. Fire lanes shall
Village Parkwav Specific Plan
Page 34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
have a mll1lmUm width of 20 feet and shall be marked in aecord with
Fire Department standards.
5 14 Citv Couneil Recommended Improvements and Roadwav AllI!lIment
In adopting the Village Parkway Specific Plan, the Dublin City Council detennined that the
optimum road", ay alignment for Village Parkway is the eXlstmg four lane roadway Based
on safety and traffic concerns, the diagonal parking alternative will not be implemented at
thIs hme, and the parallel paI-king along Village Parkway will remain intaet.
Addihonally, the City Council adopted the Specific Plan with the staff reeommcnded
streetscape aIld parking improvements, and also with the staff and Task Force
recommendation as outlined in Section 5 1.3, above.
At a future date, the City Couneil may decide to study the issue of diagonal parkmg on
Village Parkway, but a more detailed analysis and evaluation ofroadway eondll1ons would be
necessary at that timc.
5.2 Parkmg and Loading
The SpeCIfic PlaIl can establish parking requirements that augment or alter existing >,:onmg
ordinance-bascd requirements. Incentives may also be offered I(,r development of mIxed
uses that ereate opportunities (or shared parkmg or reduced parkmg demand_ Parking and
loading for individual land uses shall be as requIred per the Duhlin Zoning Ordinance, with
the following exeeptions:
a) Shared Parking. Where two or more nearby land uses allow for shared use of parking
facilities, sharing ofparkmg areas IS encouraged suhJect to the preparation of a sharcd
parking study and the approval ofthls study by the City of Dublin Community
Development Director
b) Parking Authonty DIstrict. Where the City or other public cntity forms a vehicle
parking authority distnct, 1m-site parking for mdividual parcels of land within the
district may be redueed based on contributIOns of the laIld oWller( s) to the Distriet.
c) Citv Parking Lots. Tbe City of Dublin may determme that construction of City-owned
and operated parking lots is neeessary due to mcreased commercIal aIld business
activity in the Village Parkway area. Should the City construct parking lots within or
adjacent to the Specific Plan area, the a.ll1ount of on-site parking that is required for ncw
or eXPaIlded uses may be reduced by the Commumty Development Direetor based on
the proximity of City parking lots.
6.0 Urban Design Guidelines
6 1 Pumose and !ptent
The purpose of this section is to provide desIgn gUIdelines that will direet new construetion
and remodels with consistent character and quality of architecture throughout the Village
Parkway Specific Plan Area, which is also eonsistent with the desired theme. These
guidelines estabhsh an approach to design that will allow and encourage diverse archItectural
Villa,?e Parkway Speeific Plan
Page 35
solutions throughout the development area while mam(ammg a clearly recognIzable overall
desIgn character and qualIty The guidelines and images were assembled aIld writtcn to
provide an avenue to achieve the vision that evolved out of the plaIUling process with the
Village Parkway Specifie Plan Task Foree.
These gUIdelines aIld the associated Images should not be interpreted as eon(ammg the only
solul1ons for design whlCh would be eonsisten( with the desired "Turn-of~(he-Cen(ury
Downtown Rural Agranan" theme (see Figures 1 and 2). The theme is based On the
agncultural, packing, maIlufactunng and commereial industries that were hlstoncally
lInportant to the region. Property owners, business owners, and theIr design professionals are
encouraged to be ereative, innovative, and to work closely with the City staff to arrive at
appropriate design statements on a project by project basis.
The following seetion provides general direetion on architectural clements including building
foml, accent elements, articulation aIld seale, specific architectural styles/themes and
reeommended/discouraged construction materials.
6.2 Building Des!g!!.J2ill'ntation and Massing
The following guidelines apply to the design of buildings within the Speeific Plan area
General Design Principles. The overall intent ofthc guidelines is to maintain a "small
town" rural agrarian eharacter in the Village Parkway Speeific Plan Area typieal 0 f the
eOlllmunities tbroughout California at the turn ofthe century (See Figure 3). ThIS overall
intent is to be implemented through.
I Enhanced pedestrian orientation
2. Artieulated mdivldual huilding fonns and features.
3 Ptovldmg archItectural deSIgn solutIons that ,lCcOll1modate a mixture of uses
grouped together (1.e.. commercial space adJ'lcent to office space, retalllrestaUraIlt,
etc.).
4 Loose interpretal10ns and appropriate eomhmal1ons of selected archItectural
clements are encouraged.
5 Orientation of the built environment in tho; Village Parkway Speo;lfic Plan Area
should be toward ereating an interaetive pedestrian and "Village" feeL
6. Providing strong pedestrian connections to SIdewalk and parkmg facihhes WIthin
all building projeets.
Buildilll{ Form, Massing and Materials' A huilding, when hroken down into its primary
components consists o[three pnmary fonus, or elements: I walls, 2. roofs, and 3
openings (i.e. windows doors, and storefronts). A well-designed building, whether
historic or eontemporary m deSIgn, will creal1vely combine these simple elements to
produee a visually appealing structure. The "Tum~of-the-Century Downtown Rural
Agranan" theme desired for the ViIlagc Parkway Specillc Plan Area has certam
eharacteristies that will dietate placement and form of these elements. For eXaIUple,
huilding forms include high-pitched roofs, clerestory elenlents, multI-planed roof aIld
wall configuration, tower features and simple materials such as wood sldmg, metal SIding
Viii",!" Parkway Specific Plan
Page 36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Architectural Character, Building Form and Massing 1
'ii."~"..
""!fI)" ....
,.~'i ~"',
I i!t ,. ~
\;i'_~.r
~~J..!ro!!.1!~
Village Parkway 1 Jrban Deslgn GUIdelines
FIGURE 1
./
"iI
~,,' A..c
... .:'.;;' ~:,':''',::":,;.Ni:':i
~.j 0,.",..,,1'.."1."..'.
'.' ., ,". "~~,,,.. "",,~, "!~.,,,\.: ,< .', '
,....' .., ,'I"'.'
:L1._ ,::1 . ~i1 .~~."- .
~,,:,; ~ --J~'!"f""5ici'
S" : ... 'i; . .<1 'i"
a' ~5\",' r~,~ .,' ~\;..
,_:,~(' ,:,: ,"")"1 i"'.
"'.~""" ,_.;1,,~1;r -,"
~':'";.
_ ..^','_,....:,..::.,:_.:,~:o!::.:!' -~:. ;;;?
_.:..-r-~~'....:..:,...."
Architectural Character, Building Form and Massing 2
Village Parkway Urban DeSIgn GUldehnes
(d~r.~~h
riiY~+.\
,,=4,..
'~~~{~?
'~K~~'t.
FIGURE 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dormer window
, ,
Clerestory windows
" .,. ^~~
.(/01,,;\
".; - -)~, ,~>~
;", ,
,-
-""-,
.....
>-
../'
./
Multi-1om1 roots
Encouraged root
materials include:
- Corrugated metal
- Metal raised seaIn
- Concrete tile
- Composite shingle
Roofs
,1I'i!jJI,~.."
?i/ &'f!'~:;^\
10<\"" ..,,,
4S~~f}
..:'>j.J.r'!Y:.'i!.'f;:
Village Parkway Urban Design GUIdelines
FIGURE 3
and roofing. The followmg gmdelmes are mtended to encourage fonns, materials and
overall character that will communicate this theme without bemg overly restrictive.
General Building hmn, Massing and Materials (See hgure 4)' The following guidelincs
should bc observed
1. All buildings should have multi-planed detailed artieulation of each exposed
building elevation and all rooflines.
2. Buildings should ineorporate wall forms, pitehed rooffonns, signage, materials
and colors that reinforce the architectural themc.
3 Each hUlldmg facade should have a ddinable hase (\\;ainHeotlhulkhead), body md
roofline or parapet cap detail, and emphaslz.e the buildmg entry ThIS IS
parhcularly apphcable to buildings fronting on Village Parkway
4 Long building facades should mc;orporate vertical elements creatmg a rhythm of
bays generally hetween 20 to 30 fee! wide. These haYH can he desIgned as multiple
f,lcades on a smgle structure glvmg the appearance of Heveral smaller huildings.
'i T ,arge huildmgs should Hlcorporak changes in hoth vertical and horizontal planes
to aVOId the "hlg hox" appearance.
h Hmldmg heIghts should not exc;eed three slones m heIght except for tower
elements or other arclJltectural features desIgned to hreak up bUlldmg mass.
7 The desIgn of each project should address the project area goal to create a
pedestl'ian scale ,Itmosphere, emphaslz-mg hum,1I1 sc,de through detailed
architecture.
Buildmg Orientation and Site Planning. The following staIldards apply
Buildings should bc designed for viewing from all sides.
2. When buildings must be located baek trom the street, thc resulting space can be
used tor smaller ti.ee standing structures (t1owcr market, eoftce stand, etc. I to
provide a street front prescnce and provide some buffer to off.street parking.
3 Buildings should be located against the sidewalk where possible tedge of ultimate
R.OW)
4 Additional bmlding setbacks are encouraged for the creation of additional
pedestrim spaces like plaz,as, entry nooks, and cafe pockets.
5 SIgnIficant "1,lI1dmark" bUIlding should he on comers to frame intersections and
help to define entryways into the Village Parkway Plan Area.
Building Facade .Treatmenl' Building facade upgrades and character renovations ean
make a dramatIC dIfference in the attraetiveness and desirability of a eommercial
property. Figures 5 and h illustrate the apphcahon of fa<;ade guulehnes hy showmg
examples of how a lacadc renovatIOn program can do much to enhance the VIsual
appearance and pedestrian characler ofthe Village Parkway SpeCIfic Plan Area.
hlcade Renovation Polenlw/: Within the downtown Plan Arca, lIIany buildings have only
a business na.l1le to distingUIsh them from other buildings. Many o !"the buildings are till
up conerete or strip commercial buildings with littlc or no architectural character Facade
village Parkwav ~'p/:'(.'UiL' Plan
Pag,,40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PrOject landscapmg
Pedestrian friendly elements
Dual frontages and enhaIlced
enlnes forpedestriaIl access
.0
/~,~~ ~.
-~.,
"
Intemali:r.ed parkmg
Mixed llse, mlllmercl<U, ntJice
and prok~s]()na] space
l
l Agrarian eharacter architecture
Linkages to adjoimng
developments
Building FOTIn., Massing and Materials
"'R"'
~~ttiw'
H(~~~~j,
~~~!~fi1~
Village Parkway Urban DeSIgn GUldehnes
FIGURE 4
Cul'l$iSlcnl Slr~c!1
Amo S;gn~gt
Tc~(ur~J F&l'.aJC
I
I
'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
'Lfi~k", I
Xii fi ~.~
(i~~~j I
~\""~-"';;
'~'!I:I~.!"!Y~
FIGURE 5
I
Facade hefore renovation
Slrucmral Sh;K\il'lg Ar<:;;uI~
wJ~or:a.tiv~ Tilt O<=tails
.~ EI)hiU\ct::!. l'clk.1ln,;m ~l;:...le
,..
.
V,flri~ Height Paf:Ilpi:1 Wall
and Dt:.t:(,r:aliv~ Cilp
De(:oril(iv~ Lighlillg
HI ~iJ'I
--'l~.- -el===I-~"",
Bas!:
Impro',led Fil;:ad~ Condition.
S~l'l'Ii.P~rJ1IiUl~nl
Sid~,*.alk ('....;tft Sacen
Peoora.liv(: Tilt:
Dc!.!.ul on base
" lnrormillion BoarJ
~Irian SigJlagc._
Uniqu~ hkan ~igns
Ull;ounlged
Tik/SIOfl~ Base
Tr~alm~nl
Facade after renovation
Facade Improvement Elevation 1
Village Parkway Urban DesIgn GUIdelines
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f< acad~ before renovation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LlL
00
~.1..
^~
LlL
DO
<>
,-""'.(>v<)
<>
<>
R<><Jy----+-
Sase-+
I
Facade after renovation
I
I
Facade IlllprOVement Elevation 2
Village Parkway Urban DesIgn GUIdelines
I
Ct'lrnk:l; De':.iail at Cap
Decorative Ligh(ing
SlteetlAu{o Sicnage
Rt!.~I!!:.s!i~d Channels:
Pl~t~f A.c.c:ent Sand wirh
Accent Tiles. Proportion
Fllocad.::
Fabric A wning Ennilm':~$
~edestri.an SC:iIIlc
Pcdeslrian Sigm\ge
M1.Ihi.P;jl,j'tll!:d Sl:ordronl
Window and Ooors
Plaster Finish
Accent Ti r e 10 Enham:;:e
Bas~.
Tilr;;/Stone :aa.....e
Tr~atmcnl
.:....Jfi!~,
r'y~/~;~~;\
h,:\'~ ,,~}~....
1'0~..~:.$
('!!ib.i::~';'
FIGURE 6
upgrades and character renovations can make a dramatie differenee m the attractiveness
and desirability of retail property The following desIgn examples are presented to
illustrate llie potenb.al for renovating building facades wifhin the Plan Area. [Note.
These illustrations represent design concepts only and do not constitute a requlfement to
upgrade a partieular building or property]
Potentia/Improvements. The following list of improvements should be considered for
individual buildings within the Village Parkway area.
I. Individualized eharaeter for each tenant.
2. New various parapet treatments.
3. New mdividually arb.culated storefront themes for each tenant.
4 Shadow rehefprovlded by arcade, parapet offset and decorative column supports.
5 lndividual slgnage for each business.
6. Building rhythm established which enhaI1CeS pedestrian -fi.iendly environment
7 New awmng over displav wmdows.
8. Recon1i/,'Ilred parapet and arl1culatlon.
9 Detailed wainscot to set It apart frOlll adpcent tenant spaces.
10. Arehitecturally detailed hghtlllg.
11. New Slgnage more 111 character with "architectural character vision."
6.3 Plazas and Amenitv Soaees
The creatwn of plazas would provide public gathering areas and a strong sense of place in the
Village Parkway area. Plazas should function as a multi-use space with the potenl1al for
outdoor entertall1ll1g and special events (markets, coneerts, etc.). Adjacent huildlngs aIld uses
should be encouraged to orient to the plaza space. The following guidelines address
prototypical elements to incorporate into a plaza featurc (Figure 7).
The following guidelines should also be used III [emlS of the locahon, design and level
improvement for individual plazas;
The design of plazas should be consistent with the plaza concept deSIgn
illustrated in Figure 7
2. Plazas may he plarmed in conjunction with a new building opportu1l1ty site.
Buildings adJacent to plazas should be restauraIlts, spccialty shops or other
entertainment -oriented businesses.
3 Plaza design should maximize pedestrian access and mull1,use function.
4. Plazas should be ereated as open space filcal pomts for llie Village Parkway
area_
5 Landscaping, planters and hardscape should he used to define spaces and create
seating and passive and active areas.
6. Plazas should ineorporate a kiosk for infoTlllahon. ThIS may serve as a business
directory for the Parkway and display specIal events or funetions located in the
Plan Arca. City officialsNillage Parkway Task Force, Village Parkway Busmess
Assoeiahon or other organIzation should maintain the information placed within
[he kwsk.
Vtllage Parkwav Specific Plan
Page 44
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I:
I
Elements of a Plaza:
- CaI1\lPY trees
- Central gathering area
- Seating areas
-Pubhc art
- Adjaeent to street
- Pedestrian aeeess
Plaza Features
f"%Z~
:.://~*\
.*d~
~~? .~;;y
%:!i!&~
FIGURE 7
\liIlage Parkway Urban Design GUldelmes
7 Trees should be used wltllln the plaza to enhance tile comfort oftllC spaee.
Large canopy trces should be used in eonjunction with the raised turf planters
lor seale, and accent trees should be used along the penmeter of the plaza.
Public/Private Amenity Spaces Public and Private amemty spaces are places and
features that create interest and provJde a sense of discovery for the pedestrian. These arc
gathenng places that accollmlodate a vanety of activities and will often includc plazas,
pocket parks, outdoor cafes, markets, and seating areas.
Public and pnvate amemty spaces are also nodes tllat provide orientation and a sense
of plaee. The strategic locating of these elements throughout tile Specific Plan Area
can provide continuity and COilllect the fabrie of the streetseape cnvironment.
6.4 ~.!!.eetscapc Stand-,1rd~
This section of the Specifie Plan regulates the loeation aIld coneeptual deSIgn of streetscape
and laIldscape standards. The street system provides a common thread that connects a
community together. In the ease of the Village Parkway Specific Plan, Village Parkway is the
backbone of the Plan Area. A primary goal of this Speeific Plan is to ereate a more
pedestrian.friendly environment along Village Parkway and the aqjoining commercial sItes.
a) Streetscape Elements and Design. Streetscape elements include entnes mto the Specific
Plan area and landscaping along Village Parkway (including Village Parkway sections
and plan views, diagonal parking deSIgn, proJect entnes, puhhc laIldscape elements).
Fntries. Gateways and landmarks are importaIlt in defining sense of place and creating
a framework for onentahon of Plan Area users (see Figure Ill. The gateway system will
provlde a strong statement that l(lenhfies Village Parkway as a distinet and uniquc area
worthy of exploratl(lll_ The gatewavs will functIOn by creating a strong visual impact at
North Village Parkway, Amador Valley Boulevard aIld Dublin Boulevard. These
gateways will aid m defimng the Village Parkway as a special commercial area.
Gateway loeations are:
. Village Park"ay and Duhlin Boulevard, PnmaIY Gateway
. Village Park"ay ami Lewls Avenue, Secondary Gateway
. Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard, Primary Gateway
Streetscape Design: A conceptual streetscape 1I1 plan view with parallel parking (as
approvcd by the City Council) JS mcluded as Figure 9 which depicts tile parallel parking
along Village Parkway WIth 1Jnprovements. Please refer to Section 5 0 for additional
discussion on alternative parkmg configurahons.
Sidewalks. New and reconstrueted sidewalks should adhere to the followlllg desIgn
standards:
Village Parkway Specific Pian
Page 46
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Gateway Diagram
I
l
j
Description
Symbol
@
@
Primary Gateway/Intersection
Second~ry G~teway/lnlersection
Village Parkway Urban Design Guidelines
#'-'iZ'\h
"'l@~~'"
. . '
"i,'"
FIGURE 8
;:;: r./J
~ q
IJQ CD
(D (l)
"'j r-+
ej en
~,()
~ ..g
S (D
cr'
~ $
t;l ~
(I> ~
Ul !JQ
.to CD
o >-t;j
~ ~
g: ~
S ~
(D Pl
Ul '<
.'"d
2;
Pl
-
-
(1)
-
'"d
~
.....
~
!JQ
"
G)
C
~ ~,~
co ~~'
Jl
Accent Paving
Parallel Parking Bulb-out
~~~~~~~
V V" V"'.
. . ' 'LandscapedMedi~' 0' ,
~~~A^AJ V '-.1AA
Village Parkway
Sc ored Concrete
Street Tree
in Tree Well
If
----......-------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Sidewalks should be inereased to a minimum width of 10 feet from hack of curb
to baek of sidewalk wbere possihle.
2. Sidewalks should COnSIst of a gml of scored concrete at equal intervals
(apprOXImately 2 foot spacing) running both parallel and perpendienlar to the
street.
3 Colored concrete bands, 12 inches wide, should be used to define the edges and
also be placed perpendicular to the curb at regular IIltervals.
4 Large planters should be loeated at comers and at public spaces to define
pedestrian spaces and introduce color and fohage at pedestrian level.
5 Dollards should also be utilized to define pedestrian spaces.
6 hnproved walkways should be provided at appropriate locations between
buildings, to provide mid-bloek access to off-street parkmg areas. Where aceess is
provided, direetional signage should be mcluded.
Crosswalks. The introduction of mid-block crosslIlgs between Amador Valley Boulevard
aIld Lewis Avenue, and between Lewls Avenue and Dublin Boulevard should be
considered. These crossmgs should mcorporate enriched paving, lighting aIld a raised
walkway to assist in tramc calmmg and enhance safety.
I Pedestrian crossings should have a nUlllmlilll width of 12 feet.
2. Mid-block crosswalks should be elevated 6 inches from road grade and be fitted
with pedestrian activated crosswalk hghtlllg.
3 Enhanced pedestnan crosswalks should be provided at the intersections ofDuhhn
Boulevard and Village Parkway, and Amador Valley Parkway and Village
Parkway
4 Thc mtersectlOn at Lewis Avenue should be enhanced with ennched pavers at
crosswalks.
Streellrees. Plantmg "fnew and/or replacement street trees within the SpeCIfic Plan area
shall be governed by the followmg standards
I Trees planted along Village Parkway are to be scleeted from the tree palelte in the
Preferred Plant Matrix (Figure 10) or be an approved alternative WIth comparable
charackTistic8.
2. Trees are to be plaeed III tree wells along Village Parkway aIld should be a 2.5
mch caliper tree. Trees shonld he planted at 30 feet on center with as mueh
regularity as possible.
3 Tree wells are to be irrigated WIth bubblers.
4 Each tree well shonld have an electrical outlet for lighting of street trees.
5 Tree wells are to be outfitted with ornamental metal tree grates.
u. Wherc feasihle, existing street trees should not be renlOved until new trees planted
along Village Parkway in tree wells have been well estabhshed.
7 Street trees along Village Parkway should be a consIstent specIes selection to
maintain Ulll formity
..-....
Village Parkwav Specific Plall
Page 49
I
Village Parkway Preferred Plant Matrix
I
Botanical & Common Name
Plant Uses Comments:
I
'" '"
P- ~ ~
c
C <<I ~ ~
. . ~~~
~ ~ 0
'" ...
H '"
~ n
TREES ~ c
Fr.axinu!;i i1UQstITOIIB 'l'(a)"lNOocl RaYWDoo AJ;h . Shades Eitreet!a-, lacy foliage
Pyrus caUeryana "Anstocral' Aristocrat Pi!dr I' . \Nttite early flowers
Koelrel.lteria bipinnata Chinese Flalnt! Tru . Shades. street. fall oolor
I-l'Igerstroemla Indica 'Kubta' Crl!pe M'yN/~ . Red flowers during summer
Pistacia cnlne-n.sis Chlne$~ P4ttlche . . Shades street, 1all c:oIor
Ulmus pavifOlia Chlll.e9t Elm . 'Shades :streets, fa$t growing
cotlni.Js coggygria Smoki: Tree . . Orange and J;lI;:.';Ir1et leaves in autumn
Ceris CliInl;lden.sis ED.Jtern Rl!dbu.d . Showy flowers ill s.pring
Robinia ernbigua 'ldahocnSIS Idaho l...tn.ust .
Sapium seboferurn Chineu Till/ow Tree . Autumn color, fa~t growing
Cettis sinensil;l ClriffC5e Hackberry . . .
I
I
I
I
SHRUBS & GROUNDCOVER
I
I
t'(napnlOlepl~ -RostJt:l!tll! . . Evergreen shrub~
Xylosma . Flo.CDJl.rtJl!Utl.l! . Evergreen or dllClchJous shrub
Rl'Iamn - tz11lnfiCef": . E~rgrean Or'Ot:iCIDUQI,IS st1rub
pnormlum tens):" - k>WRr/ N~ Zealand Flax . Law maintenance, sword like leaves
Rhapl1ioleDis SSD. . . low milintenanee
ArctostaDhlos. edmund~ii - /:i~f1ild (,'" " ..
Ceanothus []fori~us 'Anchor Bay' ..
XVlo.s.ma conge~tl,lm y Xvlo:nna .
Pennisetum setaceum 'Rubrum' - Ft:ntltltzin Gr4'i-'i .
Rhamnus caUfornica 'Eve Case' - C(J.fft~herrl' . .
Dodonae.a - HDPs~ Brui! .
Ros&l'F1aim,J!;l, offICina-lis. Rosemary ..
Grevillea 'NoeUi' ~ Grmllea .
la~tera ~ Tree M11.11t)w .
Nerlum Ole~nder. OllMnder ..
Grevillea . Proteaceae .
Berberis ~ Ba!'btrrv . .
Nandina r Sflcm Btzmbt:Jo .
Artemisia ~ POWH CMtl1,! .
PittosDOrum - Pl1hJ1po,.fJCf:fl8 ..
JunlMr shore ~ Conferta .
LelJtQspermum ~ Tea Th!!e .
c...,.. R_ .
!;:rigsron - Ftmbfllle .
Tutbaohla 'V'lolacea - S(lCjny GArlic ..
Aaaoanthus - Lil" Qlthe Nile ..
Dietes r l'ortnidt Lilv ..
Jasmlnutn - JlJlmme ..
Chrisanthemum - A~tertu:~ .
Lantana montevidensis - VerbenacetJe ..
Tagetes Lemmonii - Mar/~Jd .
Onetnera - Mai~ E"~";ng Primrose ..
Verbena - Vt'~aceae .
LBvandula . Laveruler ..
,
I
I
-
I
t
I
I
FIGURE 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8. Tree plantings near mtersectJons should he accent trees to set apart mtersection
character
Street Furnishings: Thc following gUIdelines are also to be employed for the selectJon
and loeation ofstrcet furniture elements_ (see Figure 11)
lOne bike rack should be placed at a minimum of every 300 feet on each side of
the Village Parkway
2. Bike raeks should be installed in additional locations throughout the Specifie Plan
Area as needed.
3 Benches should be located at an approximate minimwn of250-foot intervals with
at least One hench near each comer on each side of the street at intersections.
4 Benches shall be placed at the back of the sidewalk adjacent to buildings, faeing
the street. Where the sidewalk is only 5 feet wide, bench shall be plaeed off the
sidewalk area.
5 Planters should be plaecd at caeh eortler and near benehcs. Irrigation should he
stubbed up through the bas" of the plant<:rs. Planters should be densely planted
with colorful annuals and be replaeed regularly
6. Two trash receptacles should bc plaeed at each intersection locating them on
opposite comers. Trash reeeptacles should be placed as nccded.
7 Trash receptacles should be eonvenicntly located, but not diredly a(Uacent to
seating areas.
Figure 12 illustrates the streetscape perspechve VleW of Village Parkway, as seen by
pedestrians and dnvers, wlth implementatIOn of improvements proposed in this plaIl.
Plant Palette. The Preferred Plant Malnx (Figure 10) shall be used to gUIde plantings
within strectseape areas and on pn,ate parcels m the SpecIfic Plan area.
li5 Sums and Lighting
This sechon deals with provision of signs and lighting within the planning area.
Signs. Business establislmlents within the Village Parkway Specific Plan area are
en cow-aged to prepare Master Sign Plans lor all uses on individual parcels. Master Slgo
Plans ensure umformity of on-site signs, both temporary and permancnt. The number,
sizc and genl--ralloeation of SlgoS shall be govemed by Chapter 8.84 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance.
Exterior architectural hghtmg on individual buildings should be designed to fully
complement a building's design eharactcr The light fixtures shonld work in eonJunchon
(size, seale, and color) with the building's wall, roof and aecent matenals. Additionally,
sIte hghting should be consistent throughout a development to ensure cohesiveness and
should be of a design eonsistent WIth the viSIOn the Village Parkway Specific Plan Area.
~illage Parkway Specific Plan
Page 5/
Planter
Street Sign
Street Tree
Thematie
Bollard
Thematic
Bench
Accent Paving
Thematie Trash Reeeptacle
Scored Concrete Sidewalk
Tree Well
Thematic Bike Raek
Thematie
Streetlight
Diagonal Parking
Note:
Street furniture such as benches, trash reeeptac1es, bicycle racks aIld plaIlters will be incorporated into pedestriaII areas.
Enhanced sidewalks, street tree~ ingrates aIld streetlights will be used throughout the Specific pJanArea streets.
Streetscape Character
Village Parkway Urban Design GuIdelines
.
FIGURE 11
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~;I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Facade Renovation of Existing
Commercial Structures.
Street Trees 30' 0 C.
- ~
~ ~
~j
.0--
Pedestrian Zone
C""'liB",,""', 'i
p..noP_, I-
Seored Concrete Sidewalk
Village Parkway Pedestrian Oriented Streetscape
.-~--
E;~~
Village Parkway Urban Design GUldelmes
FIGURE 12
The followmg gUIdelines for provision of lightmg should also be met to the fullest extent
feasible:
I Lighting systems and fixtures shall be coordinated througbout the pro] ect area
with respect to energy conservatIOn, lIght output, a.l1d public safety
2. Pnvate lighting systems shall be designed with eutoff-type luminaries to prevent
spillover from one laIld use area to another
3 Use of aecent lighting to highlight sueh features as entri"s, pathways, specIal
plantings, etc. shall be eneouraged throughout the plan area.
4 Colored or flashing lights are not allowed, execpt temporary for holiday displays.
5 Adequate lighting to ensure maximum pub lie safety shall be provided.
6. Street lighting shall occur at all traffie interseetions and at regularly spaced
intervals along the roadway to provide safety to motorists and pedestTIa.l1s.
7. High pressure sodium vapor lights shall be used on puhlic streets, III parking lots,
and along publie sidewalks to Improve energy efficIency and reduce glare impacts.
8. Lighting system performance shall meet or exceed City ofDuhlin Public Work
Standards.
7.0 Infrastructure and Maintenance
7 I Overview
This sechon ofthe SpeCIfic Pla.l1 document deals with providing adequate public utilities and
lacilIhes to support the a.ll1ount of development aIlticipated for the Village Parkway area.
Maintenance ofpuhlic and private facilities is also addressed.
7.2 Water Facilities
Adeljuate water supply and pressure exists to serve the amount of develupment anticlpated
within the SpeCIfic Plan area. As part of development of individual new structures and/or
redevelopment of eXlStmg structures, VSRSV and the City of Dublin will review water
service and may reqUIre upgrading to meet eurrent eodes.
7.3 Wastewater Facilities
Adequate wastewater capacity exists to serve the aIUOllllt of development anticipated within
the Specific Plan area. As part of development of individual new struetures aIld/or
redevelopment uf eXlstmg structures, DSRSD aIld the City of Dublin will review wastewater
service a.l1d may require up!,'fading tu meet current codes.
7 4 $.tormwater Drainage
Since major portions of the SpeCIfic Plan are subjeet to flooding, drainage improvements will
need to be undertaken to ensure complianee with flood protection standards established by
the Federal Emergency Management Ageney (FEMA).
New development and structures whieh are substantially improved (substanllallmprovements
are typically defined as improvements which exeeed 50 percent of the market value of the
structure are required to be either flood proofed or elevated {me-foot ahove base flood
elevation
~iIIage Parkway Specific Plan
Page 54
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.5 Maintenance
Facilities withm the Village Parkway area will be maintaIned through a combmatlOn of
puhhc and pnvate enlitJes, as follows:
Table 4. Maintenance Responsibilities
Fl\.elU.t
Public and Private Streets
and V tillties
Pnblie street facilities
COllllllent
City of Dublin
Includes street p.ving and striping, traffic
signals, traffic control signs, street sjgns, street
light~,si<le.~.a!I<s....
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Bus bencbes and bus
structures
Traffic si nals
Underground utilities within
public rights-or-way or
dedicated easement
o en S aeeiLandsea in
Parkways and medians-
ublic streets
Pro. eet entries
Public park/plaza
City or Dublin
Cit of Dublin
Appropriate utility
provider
Includes water, sewer, drainage, natural gas,
electricity, telecommunications
City of Dublin
Includes landscape .nd hardseape adjacent to
streets
Includes ent
Cit uf Dublin or BID
City of Doblin, BID,
ur rivate develo ment
8.0 Administration and Implementation
8 1 Introduction
This sechon of the Specific PlaIl outlines methods lor translating project ohjechves, the land
use eoneept, clrCUlatlOlI plans and other elements of the SpeCIfic Plan lllto reality. Pnmary
melhods fi)r Implementation inelude rezoning the Speedic Plan area to ensure permitted uses
and development standards established in the Specific Plan are Il1corporated as official City
zonmg, revIew of private development plans, mcluding subdivision ofland, and capital
Improvement projects undertaken by the City of Dublin and/or local property owners and
businesses. Also addressed are methods to anlcnd the Village Parkway Speeific Plan.
hI/age Parkway Specific Plan
Page 55
8.2 Village Parkwav Sveclfic Plan (VPSP) ZoningJ)istriet
One uf the first Implementing actions for the Specific Plan is the initiation of a remning
acllon for the Specific Plan area. Proposcd zoning for the area would be "Village Parkway
SpecIfic Plan" Distriet. The Village Parkway Speeifie Plan wuuld conshtute the text of the
proposed zoning district and all new developments wIthin the SpecIfic PlaIl area would need
to be consistent with the reqll1rements and standards of the Specific Plan.
8.3 Nun-Confuffillm: Uses
Only permitted and conditionally pemlitted laIld uscs, as identified in Section 4.2 ofthe
Village Parkway Specific Plan shall be allowed. LaIld uses existing as "fthe aduption date of
thIs Specific Plan may continue to remain after the adoption of the SpecIfic Plan, as alluwed
by Chapter 8 140 ofthe Dublin Zoning OrdinaIlee, Non-Conforming Structures and Uses.
8.4 Review of Building Plans
All proposed plaI1S for new buildings, expansion of existing buildings and remodehng of
eXIsting buildings shall be submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Department for review of
consistency with the standards and requirements of the Village Parkway SpecIfic PlaIl.
Minor additions and rcmodeling may be approved on an admll1Jstrahve basis by the
Community Development Director, so long as proposed plans are consIstent with all of the
prUVlSlons of this Specific Plan.
Development proposals involving 1,000 gruss square feet of floor area or more shall be
required to adhere to the provisions of Chapter R.104 ufthe Dublin Zoning Ordinanee, Site
Developmcnt Review
Development Plans are required for new construction within the Specific Plan area, with the
exeeption of access\Jry resIdential structures, changes in sign copy or interior remodeling of a
commercial building_ The following requirements shall govern thc submittal, review and
approval of Site Develupment Plans:
8.5 Conditional Use Penmts and VanaI1CeS
Conditional Use Permits and Vanances, as may he required pUrSUaIlt to this SpeciJlc Plan ur
the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, shall be submitted and reviewed in accord with Sections 8 100
(Conditional Use Permits) and Secbon 8.112 (VarlaIlCes) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
Puhlic hearings, and notiHcations shall be conducted and findings shall be made pursuant to
applicable provision of the Dublin Z"nmg Ordmance.
8.6 Subdivision orLand
Division of land into smaller parcels mav be approved by the City of Dublin only when lut
and other dimensHlnal standards set forth in Section 4 of the Specifie Plan are met.
8.7 Enviromnental Review
Pruposals for new eonstruction and subdi VISIOn of land are subj ect to the rcquirements ofthe
Cahfumia Environmental Quality Act. Each develupment proposal will be rcviewed by the
Dublm Plarunng DepaItment for detcrminallon of the appropnate actIOn.
. ".
Page 56
hllage Parkway Specific Plall
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.8 fe~ll
Proposals for new development are requIred to pay City of Dublin fees in effect at the time of
proJect submittal. Other fees, ineluding but not linllted to those levied by Dublin San Ramon
Services Dlstnct (DSRSD), Zone 7 and other agencies, are due at the time building permits
are issued by the City
g 9 Sum Permits
PermIts to construet, modify or ehaIlge the copy of SIgnS by more than twenty-five (25)
percent within the Village Parkway area shall be subjeet to the issuance of a SIgn permIt by
the Dublin Planning Department aIld written permIssIOn from the property owner on whieh
the sign is or is proposed to be located.
Applieable sign regulations for existing buildings shall reference former zoning distriet (C-I
or C-2) and shall eonform to Seetion 8.84 of the Dublin Zonmg Ordinanee "Sign
Regulations." Refer to ExhibIt 6 to deterrmne former zoning distriet (C-l or C-2) for the
subjeet property
8.10 Dcsign AssistlIP&e_frogranl
The City of Dublin may undertake a Design AssIstance Program for properties within the
Village Parkway Specitic Plan area. Under this prograIll, the City of Duhlin would provide
professlOnal archItectural aSSlstanee to business and property owners desinng to Improve the
exterior appearaIlee of bUIldings. The cost of a Development AssistaIlee Progranl would be
fully or partially underwritten by the City of Dublin. If such a program IS estabhshed, the City
would first develop eligibility and fimding eriteria for participation.
8.11 .Capital ImDrovement Proiects
The City of Dublin, either as part of a public/pnvate partnershIp or acting alone, may assist in
implemcnting the Village Parkway Specific Plan through undertaking the following capital
improvements. It is anticipated that these and/or other programs would be included in tuture
City of Duhlin Capital Improvements Budgets in phases, based 011 pnonty, for forthcommg
years.
Phase 1
o Construchon of Improvements at Village Parkway/Dublin Blvd. mtersechon WJth
eastbound approach to he widened and include separate right-tum lane_
o Construction oflocahzed dram age improvements along flood control channel to
alleVIate Idenbfied flood hazards wlthm the Specific Plan area.
Phase II.
o Completion of a streetscape progranl to add new landscape elements, street
improvements, street furniture and other items JdentJfied in the Specific Plan.
o Widening of sidewalks to 10 feet, wherever possihle, WIth special paving treatment.
Page 57
Village Parkwav Specific Plan
:::::::::-::-::--'"~~.,
-....',
\\
_,"""'- ."- \....<.. "-J c---
\ .r .....--:" j
...... ~.' I .,. / ~----..J
/" ^ '....-L.....->.../ ,
/ ........ .....- ';--:-
..---! ~-r . I
;i ~ ~,~
_____~'\ ~~i '-i
~'. r___i
- .......---. .
'........--li-:.--or:', ~
.......-I. '~
....... I =-- r .
\ \ '., /"" \........ :
\ \... ! i ~ I
. , .
, "~.<:..,.....~'.'.-(n.~
"' \ ,C'":"'!"_.'" "I;";
~ ~....--\ ,....--::-"""-; ; \ . ~
\' ',: 1"""~.--.' /...-
" .....----' ~ ~...--- \._...............~;" -.... /"t
, ~ \ ~~ J /, --~
, ----"- 1t{';J./. ~-
---, . r ' ~.
. '. ''''1'0 ,,/'" '.
,'" \
f~""
.--.~
l~'../
~ \.
,
,
t
,;I
i!J
.~ ~
\
,----
--~
,
, ,
""""""".:r. ., ,I \
-" l:\ ' ...-c--'" '. , '
- ~'., --.. ..-;':-::-., .
\ \~,..,..- " '. ,I"'
.\ ~ \ _ 1 .
~~"""""\I,,\,
\ l ....-, ~,\ \
.C'.,_~_-~--- \:\
.-----.\t:.\ r-, 1 \.
\ -( ','
~ -, -:O~ ,....""'""-.,...;. ,......-"'-
, i.. .0' ---
. ~ ..---
1_'\O'r""
"
" .
\'. \
\
VAllEY HIGH SCHOOL
,------c .
. .... \
, ...
\~"
,-.Ji, '-\
._,~~
.,\
,....,
~\'.\.
-'"
--...
\
\. \ ,....-~
\, .,..,-
\.............\,..-r""
" ;', \.--
~\ ;
,
\ \ ...
,
~
. .
. ,
:.............
~UN BOULelARD
C~
\ ~; !
I 'I-- ~
, \
\ '
,
\'
,
,. \
\ .
-"'Ii \
\, \
'. \
"
I' \
\ ~' \\
\', ',I
\ \ ~ . 'I' \ \
" '
!' \ \
,"\ " \
, l ... \
.r--
./~.
............,..
--
\"
- ~ \ ~
....JI~ ~~ {
_ ,,__.1;""
;----.~
,-
,--
'. ,
,
)::)(I-lIRIT 1n
I
;, I
I
I
I
. .
-,
"
LOCATION OF TASK FORCE MEMBERS' ..
PROPERTY/BUSINESS N.tS.
SEPlEMBEA 2000
VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN C IT Y
OF
DUBLIN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Item C
VILLAGE PARKWAY
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES
During the six-munth period that the Village Parkway Specific PlaIl Task Foree met, the
eommittee determined that there is a need to revitalize businesses along the segment of Village
Parkway between Amador Valley Boulevard to the north and Dublin Boulevard to the south. To
accomplish this, it was deeided by the task force that slowing traffie aIld providing better parking
opportunities close to businesses would ereate a more pedestriaIl aIld shopper friendly
environment, thereby stimulating the eeonomie growth of businesses aIld increasing the aetivity
level in the area. Fuur different options for roadway improvements along Village Parkway were
evaluated during the specific plaIl development process, along with the existing roadway
eonfiguration as shown in Exhibit 7A of the Speeific PlaIl. The Task Force recommended
implementation of a roadway design that would deerease the number of traffie lanes and add
diagonal parking withm the existing right~of-way. Staff recommended maintaining the roadway
with four laIles of traffie aIld parallel parking as it currently exists, with streetscape design
modifieations. This seetion contains a brief deseription of eaeh of the Village Parkway roadway
alternatives eonsidered followed by exhibits illustrating the alignment and cross seetion of
Village Parkway for each alternative.
Alternative I. The Village Parkway Speeific Plan Task Foree reviewed the various options for
the roadway, all ofwbieh contamed diagonal parking to bring people closer to business
storefronts and to ehange the streetscape in the area. Alternative I, as shown in Exhibit
lOA, would provide four laIles of traffic on Village Parkway (two Janes in each direction)
eombined with diagonal parking along the street frontage in selected locations. There are
approximately 60 existing parallel parking spaees along Village Parkway at this time, aIld
121 parking spaces could be provided with this alternative.
A four-fuot elass III bieycle laIle would be loeated between the diagonal parking and the
right traffic laIle. The sidewalk would be widened from five feet (existing right-of-way is
eight feet) to 10 feet to provide enough space for increased pedestriaIl use. Two new
crosswalks for pedestriaIls would be provided in mid-bloek locations with caution
signals. Each traffie laIle would be 12 feet aIld the center mediaIl would be redueed from
16 feet to 14 feet in width.
In the Consultant's Report of the Transportation Impacts for the Proposed Village
Parkway, Downtown Core, and West BART Station Specific Plans prepared by Omni-
MeaIlS for the Downtown specifie plans, the eonsultant determined that this alternative
would create the least potential roadway impacts of the four alternatives and
recommended it for implementation. This determination was based on the following: 1)
four travellaIles would be maintained; 2) diagonal parking would provide additional
spaees close to business frontages; aIld, 3) bicycle traffic would be provided on the street
(however, this could create some conflicts between motorists baeking out of spaees and
bieyclists). Some conflicts may oecur between through vehicles and those baeking out of
1
spaces, but the bike lane should provide a buffer zone, thereby reducing the potential for
conflict.
The total right-of-way (ROW) required for this option would be 115 feet. As the
roadway ROW is currently toO feet, an additional seven feet six inches of ROW on each
side of the street would need to be obtained from prqperty owners. Implementation of
this alternative would require a pubIie/private partnership, or joint partnership between
private property owners and the City to balance the eost of improvements. This
alternative requires a high degree of cooperation aIld eommitment by both the City aIld
the property owners on Village Parkway to be successful. The preliminary eost estimate
for improvements related to this alternative is $2,005,000.
Alternative 2 - Alternative 2, as shown in Exhibit lOB, would provide four lanes of traffic <in
Village Parkway (two lanes in each direetion) combined with diagonal parking along the
street frontage in selected locations, aIld the bicycle laIle would share the sidewalk with
pedestrian traffie. The sidewalk would be widened tol2 feet to provide enough space for
the shared use. Two new crosswalks for pedeStrians would be provided in mid-bloek
loeations with caution signals. Each traffic lane would be 12 feet and the eenter mediaIl
would be reduced from 16 feet to 14 feet in width. The total right-of-way (ROW)
required for this option would be 118 feet. As the roadway ROW is eurrently 100 feet,
all additional nine feet of ROW on each side ofthe street would need to be obtained from
property owners.
The consultant's report determined that this alternative was adequate for roadway
circulation; however, maintaining the bike laIle on the sidewalk could be problematie in
the downtown retail district due to pedestrianlbieycle conflicts on the adjacent sidewalks.
Additionally, the alternative does not provide a buffer area between the outside laIles and
vehicles backing out of the diagonal parking spaces. This eould be disniptive to traffic
flows during peak hours of traffie.
Implementation of this alternative would require a public/private partnership, or joint
partnership between private property owners and the City to balaIlee the eost of
improvements. The preliminary eost estimate for improvements related to this alternative
is $2,170,000.
Alternative 3 - The alternative preferred by the Task Foree was Alternative 3, as shown in
Exhibit toe, which would provide two lanes ofttaffic ot! Village Parkway (one laIle in
each direction) eombit!ed with diagonal parking aJong the street frontage in selected
locations. A total of 81 parking spaces eould be provided with this alternative. A six-foot
Class III bicycle lane would be located on the roadway between the diagonal parking aIld
the through traffie lane. Two new crosswalks for pedestrians would be provided in mid-
b10ek locations with caution signals. Each traffic lahe would be 12 feet aIld the eenter
media.l1 would be reduced from 16 feet to 14 feet in width. The Task F otte also
suggested that the mediaIl be redueed in height for better visibility for pedestrians
crossing the street.
The total right-of-way (ROW) required for this option would be 100 feet. As the
roadway ROW is eurrently 100 feet, no additional ROW would need to be obtained from
property owners. The amount of ROW needed for this alternative is less than that
required for the other options eonsidered, but it would reduce the number of through
2
I
-
"
I
J
I
J
'.
I
J
I
I
J
J
I
I
I
,
I
'-'
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
traffie lanes from four to two, thereby slowing traffie eonsiderably In slowing traffie on
the roadway, Alternative 3 would also create additional congestion on Village Parkway
during peak hour periods, and traffic may be diverted to Amador Plaza Road and streets
with less capacity in the vicinity. With the existing level of traffic plus approved
projects' and BART's estimated traffic volume, the traffic consultant's estimate is that
the level-of-serviee (LOS) on Village Parkway would operate at LOS F (unacceptable
level), decreasing from LOS C (aceeptable level) with this alternative. Additionally, the
LOS at the intersections of Amador Valley BoulevardNiHage Parkway and Dublin
BoulevardIVillage Parkway would operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour, and LOS
F during the PM peak bour
Implementation of this alternative would require a publie/private partnership, or joint
partnership between private property owners and the City to balaIlce the cost of
improvements, but to a lesser degree than Alternative I and 2. This alternative requires
eooperation and commitment by both the City aIld the property owners on Village
Parkway to be suceessful. The preliminary cost estimate for this alternative is
$1,050,000, and is the lowest eost alternative when compared to the other three
alternatives.
Staff has several concerns regarding narrowing Village Parkway to two lanes of traffic
and adding diagonal parking. VehieIe trip diversion may occur aIld adversely affect the
adjaeent neighborhood to the east. This could affect the quality of life for that portion of
the City residential area by ereating safety hazards for residents and ehildren attending
the neighborhood school. Noise levels could also increase in the area with the additional
eut-through traffic. Additionally, the AIa.l11eda County Fire Department aIld Dublin Poliee
Department have expressed eoneerns related to eommunity safety, response time, and the
ereation of roadway hazards in the event that Village Parkway is reduced to two laIles of
traffic with diagonal parking within the existing right-of-way.
Another option for the alignment of Village Parkwa), which is the staff recommended
option, is to maintain the existing roadway without expansion, and contmue the use of
parallel parking on both sides of the street. Improvements in the streetscape and sidewalk
eould be provided as described in the section of this document on design to encourage
inereased pedestrian use in the area. Additionally, joint/shared parking should be
encouraged between properties, with fences removed which impede pedestrian access.
This option would require less eapital funds for implementation and would ereate less
roadway impacts.
Alternative 4 - Alternative 4, as shown in Exhibit 10D, would provide four laIles oftraffie on
Village Parkway (two lanes in eaeh direction) and a four-foot bieyeIe lane. Diagonal
parking would be provided along the frontage of businesses in selected loeations, but it
would be separated from street traffic by narrow medians. A total of approximately 106
parking spaces would be provided with this alternative along Village Parkway Drive
aisle entra.l1ees would provide access to these separated parking areas. Two new
erosswalks for pedestria.l1s would be provided in mid-bloek locations with eaution
signals. Eaeh traffic laIle would be 12 feet and the center median would be redueed from
16 feet to 14 feel in width. The total right-of-way (ROW) required for this option would
be 128 feet. As the roadway ROW is currently 100 feet, an additional 14 feet of ROW on
each side of the street would need to be obtained from property owners.
3
This alternative would increase the distanee between roadway traffic and the businesses
on Village Park\yay, and may not meet the objective of slowing traffie and providing a
mOre pedestrian oriEmted streetscape, as the width of the ROW would be substantially
increased. Implementation of this alternative would require a public/private partnership,
or joint partnership between private property owners and the City to balance the eost of
improvements. The preliminary cost estimate for this alternative is the highest of the four
alternatives at $3,130,000. Therefore, as the eost is extremely high and it would not meet
the basic obJective of providing parking close to the street and businesses with better
pedestrian aceess, it is not reeommended as a viable alternative.
Pcfiles/G:DowntownSpccifcPlans/VilIage ParkwayNilPkyAlts.doc
4
I
-
I
I
I
J
I
I
,
I
J
I
I
-
I
,
-
I
,
I
.~
I
I I _"; ! r-:J / I
I i'-._j VACANT! i ,"\
i r ------- j / ~"0<b\"
l I -'~""""'_~_____--.._~../~r i "%.
I l.._ AMADOR \. -_'____
I 1\, !~--f-- --"-=oc,-c:"",,-.;:~LLn BL Vo --..-..-
I' , " '1'1 .1!f!;C?
\ C-i ~ f" ;~ if ,:r,~"'I':::7.::':---"'~~___
!: I \ \ '5.\ 'ii ii! ...' ,,----.._..
I 'I , \ \ ~J. ~" ii 'iMI! (i >~t-) -"
\ I L..J ,-' %:/ I: t Ii ,'j' /:>'0 ( "
I I 1[1 ":, i:, V ~
. ".-~~I '.." ~ii \iili
I :! I: I::: ::::
II I '.:1 Ii :: I ---->
I:i I I; I:i: :,IOp:'-
II~-=-~=: :=~J:li 11 I~g 1
I !iL-JI ! 11I1I'1111;:l_- I
'.1 "". ".,--------J
I L__ _. i :j , i i i L
I i CAR ,.-_..,.": I'
I :1 WASH : ;; : ~
I .------, i i! ' i:4
I i I! i 1: ij41
\ i[! F i!i 11,;[-_
I i --------' )> i iil 'I I
: ----L:::L. ::: : j : ('.R"SI"Mm
I I -- r'1.. : i. : i ~__ _"_..__________. J
I :, :, LEWIS ~VL._.
'II L~'. --~li'!I.1.\ hi' ~-,:~..- 'I
--u--~Ji ii IliJi L---, \
I i fJ: !i iji~ I---i
I :1 _ [~=J~i 'I I~i' r ~~.;
I"i ~: !:I ~
i !i I __.___~ ,';j F- i '"
i ii L~,--.--.1 ~I il ii,
I' t -.J:" :'" ,-'---1
II !t:=::J_:-=::=:=-'~1 ;~' i! 'Ii I J
I' I "" iLl
i :L.----~-----L__.J I ; j 'I! I .......1
I, C:~~.~=~.~i, !!~;. 0
I ~ ,-- '1,'lj I i!:l o~
Ii,,' i'!'; I.......-~:;~
! I",.~i. :"!i l.~~~__~ M~
I I, j " 4';0
, McDONALD'S.._ i! j j i IT
i /~ ! :} I~ i! ~ ~'--'
L I._j/ ii, 1:.. ()'._~
'"' "- .- '.' i,'" ;".
I -'-,,--;:...ij~ I:~ 1;1;\ \ '0-<:-'
I l..i. .. r""'" '\
L DUBLIN "\ "'\//'
~~ 1"-
!~~ I '-"--'-'--.-,. eou. '. " / / //
,~!~ ~ [...:.-- 7 \, (('I-- ',< /... ...- /
<~ . --" J I .--. -11?, " (
~ii · w.eAR, .1' ....,. <) ',."
4S. '. , " ~
:J;: _0 H ,------"1 I <' -_ '.
- '-i -I 0', "
~~ L__-\ F \ II';,;?,) "'. "'_
m
X
;l;
OJ
.::j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
r.
Ie
,
/
\
i
I:
, I,
i,
!-
i
:,
/1
:
. - I
Ii
,
i
(~
\-1
LJ
(~
.,~
-'.
--
-'
,
@:,
,
j)
....
~)
D
~]J
'\
-<> .
\>:. J'
/\\"'~ '%- :
" -' I
\- :
/
rn
<=>
~
II
-
-
-
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
,
-
-
I
~
-
?-
m
I
x
w
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I'V'LL I J \ -.J . j~
'- 4""" 1_, : I \.- 0'-" ~C
.'. " ''::', \ :;. \L-j NSfo'M I~~ g
/-: - n -- J' Clv:) ! ~
' ) '- vc.Y~ '. -' \ r--'' : I~g f-
/ ~ -, v:.; -- '. ! "7 . Clil ii'i
" "''''''.- ~II)O \. ~---I- !i ~ffi ~
' ' " - - 6" I ~;~ W
//' ,// /~\~:;;;---"-~ ,~~'
( ,j0 '\ .: ;~ I 1
.,-+-'".) 1\\'j'M\'j' ,/'--""-~ I
~" # w'. ,.., ,,-, l
'P'" ,----, '-' 'J'! :!: /! L, : I
L_H" : ! ~!~ /; r' I I
1 : ", L ,.~ .
, 1 [1 -smVNOOOI'l i
I~ l' -".- ~ g! i :i i LJ i II
o ~.ii':! [~~,---l '1 I
r'.'-.!! 'I! 'I [I--L-----II
- I: , I'
i .\ ! ;' i - : L---uu.,-_.--~==J
I , ' _'_'_~","~'___----:, 1 . I
L-----, ,. [ L I i I
!,l: i ;--- 1 !: I
"" L__~ I Ii I
i : -, I ,. I
~ i." I,' ,'.-;::.-.") L.I \ !
, ,')::.----'; i I
.....----, !!, r<if
\ ii' 11' : I \3: i, I
\ ,. -. 'i: i : C~-.-------; [
, 'L......r-' I ill I I a::: I i.!
I ~:I, ~ '<( ___~.___.J , II
. --- D Ir-n- i
~:~J0:if _~10"31 --, 'I '
r w
:1' ,- -'1 '~i : ,-crl <f_ --- ,__.__, i
1 (~~ 1'1: 1.....J 1 I' j
L--_'_~~....J I -~ : [---1 i ! i! I
I ~; II>' i il 'I
I Iii 'I
d .!; 'I L I,:
: ~i :-1 I ,I I
I : :, i L --' I i
' . . HSVM , I
Iii __ .... i ~VJ i '
" r-- l! i, j : r- ,- r--li I
" L_ iT! I . 'I 'I"
;i~, Dii"'iiIL i i II!
-1 : ~I - : j i !.---j ,-... i !
l ' 8dil ! l !~: ~- [--Ii
\ >0'" '---' . : : I ! i ! ,
I ; :,' I J' I
I di. '-_J --'i,l,
/\ /; in "A
</(,j 'O~ II:I~:~ I.! ", (-I '-1 -! j ':
--------------::: ./ !!! ! j, \. ;t >'6 \j . !! I
----';;! ':, "\ ",., , 1 j
"-----_ 0;"'8 ),:17,; 1\ ~ -------..-J.,~ i
--------, \, /------ dOG\fYV\f -- i i
\\~~'- / /C.V;:1VA, .'- ~------------~::~ i
\.. J J . ~.J L_ f: ~
I / L~/ -I I
.' I
,
.
~)
II
I I
u
,
))
r...J-"~~f11
L 0~ .
~J
I;
lJ
<(--0 '
(.."'1 _.~,~l
,
~ \'..--..,
<( .
0.... ~""'! I
i:. L_,_.~_._\ f'e'
'i-.Jk'I'
Ii ,..
r-- V.J'
I
C
"-
"-
; ''\.,
",..,>
~ "\ S
'"
" 0
'. ,.", 011>
::" T37n
^, ()It
/ ::Ie" N17Sno
, b '.\
\"", .."1 I -.
.....v , \' <"/",,.~.--_
:: I! 1/:":'-"'-'1
,I! Ift/
'i i' ! I <""5-;'" .
..-~'."''''-'--'''''---'l I: :, ,-;'Y'rJOG,;V'{
,,' !i
'--~, : :: Ii i :I[.J
..1' --, : I ill'
L_.._-1 I I r"""
. .' III . L__.
~.. 1''''''---11 i r'H
.-. d i . .
i ~! ill,,:1>_.
L~_.. .~I;I 1-.-----
i! II ,Il.,
. . l~
i . II:~
:" '~'Ir"-~
r-'-~.-..-'" ].'Ii " . ~ ..
r i ~~
,^ys~~~j~: I i ,II
m__:=--...:
'III!: W
--~'18'; d:._~____
; e-~ i :1 i :J
:._._._._____._i I I 5'
". .1
~ Ii..
1---; ~
I! '. I' ~
! I I !~
----~,._....... "-1 i' . It.. ,--......
! ; I :,,-_..
, "_';,H~_,~. i !i
L___J .j /i
"1 II ,--..--...
i"----.,. I Ill:
I j I. . ": ,.....-
-.-- '., 1'1 I '
'I ::. '
!i iI':
~.....,.
/ '> ;:
/' ..~<? .'("
I ~"'\ v
.....10'"' "I
__. ..... ,-\1" ,~
01\ 7e ..._->--~;.,: I 'f \) i, -;
." <..,___ - I
~3771t1\ ~'--~. :
'- '. <JOOVYv~-
C:_J
I ''---wi_,
I ~~ I
.--'01..&... .
;ll.l.L i
.....~.~s__;
HS'
~,
7>
.0,,""-
\ "'..?;..
,
! J.N'rI~'V. r---..
, r'-- A. I'
': J
-" 1
b
~'j
. ..:.
nl~ Q
'"'
~
I-
~ II~ ij'j
I
B .ffi x
.~ w
~~
Q
-
-
-
J
-
-
I
I
I
,
I
-
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
I
L
;-~p
1,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project Title:
I,.;
CITY OF DUBLIN
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568
Websi!e: http://www.ci.dublln.ca.us
DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION
September 2, 2000
Revised December 14,2000
Downtown Specific Plans - Downtown Core Specific Plan (PA.99.055), West
Dublin BART Specific Plan (PA.99.056), and Village Parkway Specific Plan (PA-99-
054)
Description of Project: The proposed Project consists of three specific plans developed for the downtown area
of Dublin, the Downtown Core Specific Plan, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and the
Village Parkway Specific Plan to be considered for adoption by the Dublin City Council.
The Specific Plans are intended to direct the use of land, the design of public
improvements, and the design and appearance of private and public deveiopment,
including buildings, parking areas, signs and landscaping. The adoptions of the Plans will
require General Pian Amendments for the Downtown Core and West Dublin BART
Specific Plan areas related to laod use changes and land use intensification. Additionally,
the portions of the previously adopted (1987) Downtown Specific Plan will require repeal
with adoption of the plans, to modify sections of the document rel8tive to Zones 1, 2, 3, 4,
7,8,10 and 11 Following PI8n 8doption, amendment of the City's Zoning Ordinance will
be neeessary
Project Location: Central downtown area of Dublin, generally west of Maple Drive and Portage Road,
south of Am8dor Valley Boulevard, north of Interstate 580, and east of Regional Street
Name of Proponent: City of Dublin, Community Development Department, 100 Civie Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568,
(925) 833-6610
Public Hearings:
Determination:
A Planning Commission Public Hearing on the Draft Negative Declaration and the
associated Project is tentatively scheduled for September 26, 2000 to consider a
recommendation of approval to the City Council. A City Council Public Hearing for
approval is tentatively scheduled for October 17, 2000. November 21.2000 and
December 19. 2000. All hearings will be heid in the City Council Chambers, City of
Dublin offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA.
I hereby find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the
environment and 8 Negative Declaration will be adopted. This document and the
accompanvinq Environmental Initial Study have been revised to incorporate and
evaluate modifications in the Specifie Plans that occurred durino the proiect review
process. All impacts of these chanqes have been assessed and determined to be
insiqnificant based on the policies and pP,:>orams incorporated in the Soecifie Plans,
Because the modifications are minor in nature and result in no new sionificant impacts.
recirculation of the Neqative Declaration is not required.
Area Code (925) . City Mana-get 833.6650 . City Council 833-6650 . Personnel 833-6605 ~ Economic Development 833~6e50
Finance 833.6640 . PubliC; Works/Engineering 82::3.6630 . Parks & Community Services 833-6645 . Police 833.6670
Planning/Code Enfomement 833-6610 Building Inspectlot'l 333.6620 . Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606
Printed on Rer.ycled Paper
Review Period:_
The review and comment period for this document was originally 20 days from the date
of publication on September 2, 2000. That period was extended to September 26,
2000.
/v/Jt!etfb
Copies of the Initial Study documenting the reasons to support the above finding are available at:
City of Dublin, Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, or by ealling (925)
833-6610.
Attachments
Date Published: September 2.2000. Revised December 14. 2000
Date Posted: September 1. 2000
Date Notice Mailecj: Se ember 1. 2000
Considered b .
On: t-- trD Council Resolution No. vU ~ OU
N.O.D filed: I#-tD
g:\DowntownSpecPlans\NegDec.
,
,
,
,
,
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
,
.~
-
,
~
~
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
I
II
I
I
I
Ii
LEGEND
~ DOWNTOWN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
k x >I WEST DUBUN BART SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
t'nunu~ VIUAGEPARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
.
N.T.S.
SEPTEMBER 2000
LOCAL CONTEXT
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN C I T Y 0 F 0 U B L I N
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DOWNTOWN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL
INITIAL STUDY
PA 99-054
PA 99-055
PA 99-056
Lead Agency. City of Dublin
September 2000
Revised. December 2000
INTRODUCTION
This initial study has been prepared by the City of Dublin to assess the potential
environmental effects of the proposed Specific Plans and General Plan Amendments for the
Downtown Core Specifie Plan, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and the Village Parkway
Specific Plan areas. The analysis is intended to satisfy the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and provide the City with adequate' information for project review
This initial study includes a project description, environmental checklist and discussion focused upon
Issues identified In the checklist. Modifications in the Specifie Plans have been made since the
onoinal draft Neoative Declaration and Initial Studv were eirculated in September 2000. The
revisions to the Plans are described in this revised document. and have been evaluated on the basis
of their related environmental impacts in this revised document. Because the modifications are minor
in nature and result in no sionificant impacts. recireulation of the Neoative Declaration and Ihitial
Studv is not required under CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. Additions to the olioinal document
are shown with an underline. and deletions from the document are shown with a' ctrilm throuah.
In summary, this Initial Study concludes that the project will not pose any signifieant adverse
environmental impacts. With the policies and proQrams are included in the Specific Plans. no
sionificant impacts will result.
The Initial Study was prepared based upon the loeation of the project, planning staff review,
field review, comments from City, County and local agencies, studies prepared by consultants, use
of City Planning Documents, the CEQA Law and Guidelines, and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of three specific plans developed for the downtown area of Dublin, the
Downtown Core Specific Plan, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and the Village Parkway Specific
Plan to be considered for adoption by the Dublin City Council. The Specific Plans are intended to direct
the use of land, the design of public improvements, and the design and appearance of private and public
development, including buildings, parking areas, signs and landscaping, The adoptions of the Plans will
require General Plan Amendments for the Downtown Core and West Dublin BART Specific Plan areas
related to land use changes and land use intensification. Additionally, the portions of the previously
adopted (1987) Downtown Specific Plan will require repeal with adoption of the plans, to modify sections
of the document relative to Zones 1,2,3,4,7,8,10 and 11 Following Plan adoption, amendment of the
City's Zoning Ordinance will be necessary
The Downtown Core Specific Plan area is generally located between 1-680 to the east and San Ramon
Road to the west, and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north and Dublin Boulevard to the south, and
consists of approximately 51 acres of commercial land uses. The westerly boundary of the Plan area is
the westerly property line of the parcels containing the existing Montgomery Wards and Target retail
stores. The Specific Plan calls for a maximum development potential of 1.206.8481,100,110 square feet
commercial, office and mixed-use development and approximately 148 dwellings. The oriqinal
environmental initial studv evaluated a maximum development potential of 1.100.110 square feet for the
area. However, since that time. the Citv Council has discussed an alternative plan to remove the Hiqh
Density Residential land use for senior housino .from the Plan. .and maintain the retail commercial use on
the Dublin Place shoppinQ center site with an increase in FAR to .40. This chanQe. if approved. would
increase the square footaoe of Commercial A retail use in the area bv approximatelv 40.000 square feet.
Additionallv. an increased FAR of .79 was recommended to the Citv Council bv the Plannino
Commission for the property owned bv Dublin Honda on Amador Plaza Road. which eould increase the
potential buildQut square footaoe of the 2,55acres of Retail/Auto use in the Plan area bv 65.330 s~uare
feet to 87.750 square fee\,
The West Dublin BART Specific Plan area is generally located between 1~580 to the south and Dublin
Boulevard to the north. San Ramon Road lies to the west of the area, and properties on the west side of
Golden Gate Avenue are included in the plan area. The area consists of approximately 70 acres of
commercial, office and light industrial land uses. The Village Parkway Specific Plan area is generally
located between the north and south sides of Amador Valley Road to the north and Dublin Boulevard to
Uublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
1-'5ge2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the south. The 1-680 freeway forms the southwestern boundary of the area and lies adjacent to the rear
property line of commercial uses. The area eonsists of approximately 31 acres of restaurants, offices,
retail commercial, service commercial and other non-residential uses fronting on this portion of Village
Parkway A maximum deveiopment potential of 1 ,900.743 1,760,066 square feet of non-residential and
491 residential dwellings are anticipated at full Specific Plan buildoul. The oncinal environmental initial
studv evaluated a maximum development potential of 1.750.055 souare feet. However. since that time,
the FAR for office uses shown on the Land Use Plan (Exhibit 9) of the Specifie Plan has been inereased
from .87 to 1.00, to add approximatelv 40.000 souare feet to the total amount of souare footaoe in the
area. The hotel proPosed on the BART-owned property has also increased in souare footaoe bv
109.864 s~uare feet from the orioinal proposal evaluated in the document. increasino the FAR to 1.12
for that portion of the Plan. The impacts of these increases in s~uare footaoe and FAR's are assessed
In this revised studY.
The Village Parkway Specific Plan is generally sited along the east and west sides of Village Parkway
between Dublin Boulevard to the south and Amador Valley BOUlevard to the north. The Specific Plan
area encompasses approximately 31 aeres of land and has been developed with a mix of retail
commercial, restaurant, office, automotive and similar uses, including the main Dublin Post Office
Existing types of land uses are antieipated to remain, however, a higher Floor Area Ratio included as
part of the Specific Plan is intended to eneourage intensification of uses with a more pedestrian-oriented
design. Exhibit 3 shows the proposed land use concept for the Downtown Core Speeific Plan; Exhibit 4
shows the land use eoncept for the West BART Specific Plan; and Exhibit 5 shows the land use concept
for the Village Parkway Specific Plan. Two potential alternatives to the roadwav desiqn for Villaoe
Parkwav are considered in this initial study_ The Task Force for the Specific Plan reviewed several
possible aliqnments. and recommended imolementation of a roadway desion that would decrease the
numberof traffic lanes and add diaoonal parkino within the existinq rioht-of~wav. Staff recommends
maintainino the roadwav with four lanes of traffic and parallel parkino as it cUIT~ntlv exists, with
streets cape desion modifications. All alternatives eonsidered are discussed in this document. as are the
Task Force recommended alternative and the Staff recommended desiqn.
Dublin Planmng uepartment
Downtown Specifie Plans
I-'age 3
<{"OFDu;:- "
~<> '~<<?'V' \
I, 'v/ .dIl" 'P,
e!1 I' ~\~
\t~I~!~2
~~'" ~ //~
; C'~ ~"
" :y;~\y
CITY OF DUBLIN
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
1 Project title: Downtown Specific Plans - Downtown Core Specific Plan (PA-99-055), West DUblin
BART Specific Plan (PA-99-056) and Village Parkway Specific Plan (PA-99-054)
2_ Lead agency name and address: City of Dublin, Community Development Department, 100 Civic
Plaza, Dublin, CA, 94568
3. Contact person and phone number- Janet Harbin, Senior Planner (925) 833-6610
4 Project location: Central downtown area of Dublin, generally west of Maple Drive and Portage
Road, south of Amador Valley Boulevard, north of Interstate 580, and east of Regional Street. See
Exhibit 1 for a regional location map and Exhibit 2 for the location of the three proposed Specific
Plans,
5_ Assessors Parcel Number(s): Various
6. Project sponsor's name and addre.ss: City of Dublin, Community Development Department, 100
Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568
7. General Plan designations.
Downtown Core Speeific Plan Area - Retail/Office
West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area ~ Retail/Office and Public/Semi-Public Facility
Village Parkway Specific Plan Area - Retail/Office and Retail/Office and Automotive
8. Zoning:
Downtown Gore Specific Plan Area - C-1 (Retail Commercial), C-2 (General Commereial), and PD
(Planned District)
West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area - C-1 (Retail Commercial), C-2 (General Commercial), and
M-1 (Light Industrial Di!;itrict)
Village Parkway Specific Plan Area - C-1 (Retail Commercial), C-2 (General Commercial), C-N
(Neighborhood Commercial), and PD (Planned District)
9. Specific Plan designation: Previously adopted (1987) Downtown Specific Plan, Zones 1,2,3,4,7,
8,10and 11
10. Description of project: See previous page,
11. Surrounding land uses and setting: The project area is located in the commereial core of the
City of Dublin and generally consists of retail, commercial service, offiee and some light industrial
type uses. Easterly of the project area is Portage Road and Maple Drive, and the residential
Uublin Planning Uepartment
Downtown Specific Plans
f-'age4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
development adjacent to the Village Parkway Specific Plan area. Westerly of the project area is
San Ramon Road and a portion of the Dublin Place Shopping Center containing retail and
commercial service type uses. Northerly of the project area is Amador Valley Boulevard, retail,
comniercial service and office type uses, and medium density residential development. Southerly
of the project area is 1-580, which also lies adjacent to the alignment of the proposed Bay Area
Rapid Transit District (BART) right-of-way spanning the freeway and connecting with the proposed
BART station in Pleasanton. Adjacent to the freeway on the Dublin side is the proposed West
Dublin BART station area.
12. Other Public Agency Approvals Required: None
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
- . Land Use/Planning - Transportation/ - .Public Services
Circulation
- Populati on/Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities/Serviee
Systems
- Geotechnical - Energy/Mineral - Aesthetics
Resourees
- Water - Hazards - Cultural Resources
- Air Quality - Noise ~ Recreation
- Mandatory Findings
of Significance
Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation:
L I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a
Negative Declaration will be prepared.
_ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attachment
have been added to the project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described
on the attached sheets, ifthe effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated." An Environmental Impact Report is required, but must only analyze the effects that remain
to be addressed.
_ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been
analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the
proposed project.
Dublin Planmng Uepartment
Dowotown Specific Plans
Page :,
Date. Auqust 30. 2000: revised December 14, 2000
For. PA 99-054. -055 & -056
Downtown Core, West Dublin BART & Village
Parkway Specific Plans, GPA
Printed
Janet Harbin, Senior Planner
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency eites in the parenthesis following each
question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply 'to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls
outside a fault rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive
reeeptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screenirig analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative
as well as project-ievel, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational Impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant If there are one or more "potentially significant impact" entries when the determination
is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" implies elsewhere the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "potentially significant effect" to a
"less than significant impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
processes, an effect has been adequately anaiyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances) References to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
document in substantiated. A source list should be attached and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
7) 'This is only a suggested form and lead agencies are free to use different forms.
LJublln Plannmg LJepartment
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Environmental Impacts; (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources
used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist)
Note. A full discussion of eaeh item is found in
the attachment to the following cheeklist
I. Land Use and Planning. Will the project
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning? (Source: 1)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental
plans or policies adopted with jurisdiction
over the project? (Source: 1)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in
the vieinity? (Source. 1,5)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(soils or farmlands or impacts from
incompatible uses)? (Source. 1,5)
e) Disrupt the physical arrangement of an
established community (including low
income or a minority community)? (Source.
2,5)
II. Population and Housing. Would the project:
a) Cumulatively exceed offieial regional or local
population projections? (Source. 1)
b) Induee substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (Source: 1)
c) Displace existing housing, especially
affordable housing? (Source: 1,2,5)
III. Soils and Geology. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts
involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Source: 1,6 )
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source: 1,6)
C) Seismic ground failure? (Source: 1,6)
d) Seiche, tsunami, including liquefaction?
(Souree. 1, 6)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (Souree. 1, 6)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable
soil conditions from excavation, grading or
fill? (Source: 1,5,6)
g) Subsidence of land? (Source: 1,6)
h) Expansive soils? (Souree: 1,6)
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
(Source: 1,5, 6)
LJublln PlanOlng Department
Downtown Specifie Plans
Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Unless Impact
Mitigated
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.
X
X
X.
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 7
IV. Water Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of surface
run-off? (Source: 1)
b) Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? (Source:
FEMA map, 1)
e) Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
(Source: 1,5,6)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in
any water body? (Source. 1,5,6)
e) Changes in currents or the course or
direction of water movements? (Source,
1,6)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or
withdrawals, or through substantial ioss of
groundwater recharge capability? (Source.
1,6)
g) Altered direction of rate of flow of
groundwater? (Source. 1,6)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source:
1,6)
V. Air Quality Wouid the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
to an existing or projected air quality
violation? (Source. 3,4)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
(Source 1,3,4)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, temperature,
or cause any change in climate? (Source. 1)
d) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 1)
VI. Transportation/Circulation. Would the
proposal result in?
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(Source: 3)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
(Source: 3)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? (Source: 3,4,5)
d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite?
(Source: 1, 3)
[)ublm Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
x
X
X
X
X
X
C, ;.;
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C, ;.;
X
Page ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or X
bieyclists? (Source' 1,3)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting X
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bieycle racks)? (Source. 1,3,5)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? X
(Source: 1,3)
VII, Biological Resources. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or
their habitats (including but not Iim ~ed to X
plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)?
(Source. 1,5,6)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage X
trees)? (Source: 1,5,6)
c) Locally designated natural eommunities (e.g. X
oak forest, coastal habitat)? (Source. 1,5,6)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and X
vernal pool)? (Source. 1,5,6)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X
(Source: 1,5,6)
VIII. Energy and Mineral Resources. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation X
plans? (Source: 1)
b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful X
and inefficient manner? (Source: 1)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future X
value to the region and residents of the
State? (Source' 1,6)
IX. Haziirds. Would the proposal Involve:
a) A risk of accidental expiosion or release of X
hazardous substances including, but not
limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, or
radiation? (Source: 1,4)
b) Possible interference with an emergency X
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (Source: 4, 5)
c) The creation of any health hazard or X
potential health hazards? (Source 4,5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of X
potential health hazards? (Source. 1,5,6)
e) Inereased fire hazard in areas with
flammable brush, grass or trees? (Source: X
4,5)
X, Noise, Would the proposal result in:
UUOlln C'laonlng uepartment
Downtown Specific Plans
C'age >J
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source.
1,5)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
(Source. 1,5)
XI. PUblic Services. Would the proposal result in
a need for new or altered governmental
services In any of the following areas?
a) Fire protection? (Source: 1,4)
b) Police protection? (Source: 1,4)
c) Sehools? (Souree: 1,4)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? (Souree: 1,4,5)
e) Other governmental services? (Source:
1,4,5)
XII. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems
or supplies, or substantial alterations in the
following utilities?
a) Power or natural gas? (Source 4)
b) Communication systems? (Source. 4)
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution systems? (Source. 4)
d) Sewer or septic systems? (Source: 4)
e) Storm water drainage? (Souree. 1,4,5)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Source. 1,4,5)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Souree.
1,4)
XIII. Aesthetics. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or view? (Source 1, 5)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? (Source. 1, 5)
c) Create light or glare? (Source: 5)
XIV. Cultural Resources. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Source.
1,5)
b) Disturb archeological resources? (Source:
1,5)
c) Have the potential to cause a physical
change which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values? (Source: 1,5)
d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within potential impact area? (Source. 1,5,6)
XV. Recreation. Would the proposal:
Llublln Plan nrng Llepanment
Downtown Specifie Plans
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.
X
X
X
X
Page 1U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regionai parks or other recreational
facilities? (Source: 1,4,5)
b} Affect existing recreational opportunities?
Source: 1 ,4,5}
x
x
Dllblln PlannIng Department
Dowotown Specific Plaos
Page 11
XVI. 'Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantia lIy reduce the habitat of a fish Dr
wildlife species, eause a fish Dr wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduee the number of Dr
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to
aehieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
eonnection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects)
d) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Potentially Potentially Less /han No
Slgnificent Significant Significant Impact
Uniess Impact
Mitigated
X
X
X
X
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts
1 Dublin General Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance
2. Evaluation of Development Scenarios, Downtown Dublin, prepared by Economic and Planning
Systems (EPS) (July 25, 2000)
3. Traffic analysis prepared by Omni-Means (August 4, 2000); secondary revisions to the Omni-
Means traffic analvsis (September 22. 2000: memo from Georee Nickelson of Omni-Means dated
November 13.2000: and. letters from Peter Gallowav of Omni-Means dated December 8.2000.
4 Communieation with appropriate City of DUblin Department(s) and service providers
5. Site visit
6. Other source (geotechnical reports, biological surveys and other studies)
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Attachment to Downtown Specific Plans Initial Study
Negative Declaration
PA 99-054
PA 99-055
PA 99-056
Discussion of Checklist
Legend
PS. Potentially Significant
PS/M. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated
LS Less Than Significant impact
NI:' No Impact
I. Land Use and Planning
Environmental Settino
The project site area is the existing downtown commercial area of Dublin. The project site is the location
of approximately 150 aeres of retail shops, restaurants, commereial businesses, offices and light
industrial uses with associated roadways and parking areas. Various small parcels remain undeveloped.
No residential development has occurred within the project area.
The City's existing General Plan and Zoning Ordinance envision a mix of retail, lodging, auto serviee,
restaurant, office and similar uses within the project area.
Project Impacts
a) Conflict with general plan designation and zoning? LS The Dublin General Plan designates the
downtown specific pian areas as Retail/Office, Retail/Office and Automotive, and PubliclSemi-Public
Facility, which allow retail uses, commerciai service uses, and civic type uses. The City's Zoning
Ordinance establishes C-1, Retail Commercial; C~2, General Commereial; C-N, Neighborhood
Commercial; M-1, Light Industrial; and PD, Planned District zoning districts in the project area. Some
land use designations in the Downtown Core and the West Dublin BART Specific Plan areas would
be modified through the general plan amendment process in conjunction with adoption of the land
use plans for these areas; however, the modifications would generally be minor and establish
another commercial type land use compatible with the existing and surrounding land uses. In the
West Dublin BART area, some high density residential use designations are proposed to replace
PubliclSemi~Public Facility and Retail/Office designations in close proximity to the BART station
location. This change would be eonsistent with the intent of the existing General Plan to create a
more transit-oriented area near the proposed BART station. The residential use would support the
surrounding commereial development proposed, and also provide riders for the transit facility The
designation of publiclSemi-Public Facility was placed on a portion of the property in the area with the
anticipation that the BART station would be developed in the general area.
In the Downtown Core Specific Plan area, the intent of !he Specific Plan is to retain existing major
retailers (Target, Montgomery Ward and similar users), and, at the same time, add complementary
smaller scale retail uses, restaurants, entertainment uses and offices to attract a more pedestrian-
oriented clientele. The Specifie Plan also calls for the eventual development of a number of plazas
and civic uses as additional attrotctors of people to the area. Senior residential housing is proposed
adjacent to the new senior center in the northwest portion of Specific Plan area. This would also be a
complimentary land use which should support the senior center and the surrounding retail
Uublln Planning lJepartment
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 13
commercial establishments. The mixed-use area (high density residential and commercial
combination) shown at the southeast corner of Amador Valley Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road would
be compatible with the residential development across Amador Valley Boulevard and the existing
retail commercial uses on Amador Plaza Road.
In both the Downtown Core and the West Dubiin BART Specific Plan areas, intensifieation of
development through increased floor area ratios (FAR) is anticipated. The City's General Plan
presently allows a up to a maximum FAR of .50 in each area for retail and office type uses The
Downtown Core Specific Plan suggests a maximum FAR of 79 for retail and office uses, and the
West Dublin BART Specific Plan suggests a maximum FAR of .83 for retail and office uses, ~ 1.00
for strictly office use, and 1 00 for mixed-use development. An increased FAR of 1.00 for office use.
as considered for approvai bv the Citv Council, on 6.98 acres within this Plan area has been
evaluated in this assessment. Additionallv, an increased FAR of 1.12 for the propertv adiacent to the
West Dublin BART Station is beino considered in coniunction with the development of a 240 room
hotel. Although these proposed FAR's under the specific plans are greater than those presently
provided for in the existing General Plan, they are eonsistent with FAR's in traditional, thriving
downtown areas, and in transit villaoesas proposed with the West Dublin BART Station
development. This is not considered a siGnificant increase nor would it create a sionificant impact.
General plan amendments will be necessary to amend the allowed FAR for the downtown plan areas
and modify the land uses, The proposed FAR's for the plan areas have been analyzed in regard to
traffic generation rates, and only minor traffic improvements are necessary to support the
intensification of the proposed development under the plans (refer to Section VI, Transportation)
Possible chanGes in trip Generation rates and levels of service related to the land use ehanaes from
the oriainal Plans are addressed in the Transportation/Circulation section of this document. These
improvements have been programmed into the Specific Plans Should FAR's exceedinG these
amounts be prOPosed with future land use applications. a specific traffic analvsis and land use
analvsis would be reQuired prior to approval to determine the impacts of the related intensified land
use on the roadway svstem.
Additionally, adoption of the Downtown Core and West Dublin BART Specific Plans will require that
portions of the previously adopted (1987) Downtown Specific Plan be repealed to modify sections of
the document reiative to Development Zones 1,2,3,4,7,8,10 and 11, which are within these specific
areas. Following Plan adoption, amendment of the City's Zoning Ordinance will be necessary
There are no proposed land use changes or modifications for the Village Parkway Specific Plan area.
The present General Plan allows up to a maximum FAR of .50 for the Village Parkway area, and the
average FAR in that area is currently .26. Therefore, further intensification in this plan area up to a
FAR of 50 would be within the range permitted under the present General Plan. No general plan
amendment will be necessary in conjunction with adoption of this Specific Plan.
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies? NI. The City of Dublin has adopted no other
city-wide or specific environmental plans or policies which would affect this project. No impacts would
therefore result
c) Incompatibilities with existing land use in the vicinity? NI. The proposed land uses to be established
with the SpeCific Plans would be compatible with and support the surrounding retail commercial uses
in the three areas (refer to Comment a, above). Non-confprminQ uses in the Specific ,Plan area
would be reviewed in accordanee with the City's established zonina reQulations. There will,
therefore, be no impacts related to land use compatibility
d) Effect on agricultura/ operations or soils? NI. The site has been used for eommercial uses sinea the
early 1960's. No agricultural operations exist in the subject areas or the surrounding areas of the
City No impacts would therefore result. .
LlubllO Plannln9 Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e) Disruption of physicai arrangement of an estabiished community? NI. The project eonsists of three
plans intended to direct the land use and future development In the City's central downtown area.
The plan is proposed to be implemented over a five to tef'l seven year period, and will oeeur as a
gradual replacement of uses with new uses. This method of adaptive reuse of the areas will serve to
integrate land uses, transportation and public improvements within the three Specific Plan areas not
significantly disrupt the physical arrangement of the downtown. There will therefore be no impacts
regarding disruption of established communities
II. Population and Housing
Environmental Settino
The eity population as of January 1, 1999 was estimated by the State Department of Finance to be
28,707 Significant population 9rowth is anticipated for the community based on planned residential
growth in east Dublin, where the City has approved a specific plan calling for residential growth.
According to the Association of Bay Area Govemments (ABAG), the total population of Dublin is
expected to increase to 35,200 by the year 2000, to 49,400 by the year 2005 and 58,900 in the year
2010 Under the proposed Specific Plans, a maximum of approximately 491 residential dwelling units
would be introduced in the West Dublin BART area, and a maximum of approximately 150 residential
dwelling units would be introduced in 'the Downtown Core area. This is not eonsidered a significant
increase for the region, and would actually establish housing closer to existing services and
transportation than much of the residential deveiopment in the City
Proiect Impacts
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local popuiation projections? NI. The project involves
primariiy retail, office, iodging and similar uses. Although future residential and mixed uses are
envisioned in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and Downtown Core Specific Plan areas, such
residential uses are intended to support transit-oriented development programs. Although the overall
amount of residential development for the community is anticipated to increase, such increases
would be less-than-significant.
b) Induce substantial growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? NI The majority of the development
that would occur under the Specifie Plans would be commercial, office and other non-residential type
land uses. Some new residential housing is proposed in the Downtown Core and West Dublin BART
Specific Pian areas, but it would not result in a substantial amount of ,new dwellings, nor would it
induce substantial growth in the area as land available for development is limited in this part of the
City Under the proposed Specific Plans, approximately 490 residential dwelling units would be
introduced in the West Dublin BART area, and approximately 150 residential dwelling units would be
introduced in the Downtown Core area. This is not considered a significant increase for the region;
and would establish housing closer to existing services and transportation thao much of the
residential development in the City, thereby reducing some impacts associated with growth such as
increased traffic generation.
According to the City's General Plan, the Downtown Core and West Dublin BART Specific Plan
areas are considered a Downtown Intensification Area which would allow up to 200 dwelling units. It
is also stated that the number may be inereased if mid-rise, mixed-use buildings, such as that
proposed in portions of the specific plan areas, achieve market acceptance. Additionally, the plan
areas are currently serviced with water, sewer, and roads, and therefore, the specific plans are not
considered growth inducing projects.
Dublin Planning lJepartment
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 1 t>
c) Displacement of existing housing, especially affordable housing? NI. The project site has been
developed as a retail eommercial and office downtown area. It presently contains no housing.
Therefore, there would be no displacement of housing units on the site.
III. Soils and Geology
Environmental Settinq
The site lies within the Tri-Vailey area, in the eommercial core of Dublin. According to historic geologic
studies in the area, the site is underlain by poorly consolidated, non-marine deposit sedimentary rocks of
the Tassajara Formation. The geotechnical investigation report prepared for the project indicates that the
site is not within an Alquist-Prioio Fault Zone (1982). There are no mapped faults which are known to
traverse the site, the closest Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone Is the Calaveras Fault located along San Ramon
Road approximately one-quarter mile to the west. The next nearest active seismic faults inciude the
Hayward and the San Andreas Faults which are located approximately 9 miles southwest, and 27 miles
west-southwest, respectively The closest potentially active faults include the (1) Verona, whieh is
located approximately 3 miles to the south, and (2) the Las Positas, which is located approximately 9
miles to the southeast
The soil conditions in the downtown area are summarized from previously prepared geoteehnicai studies
as foilows: Medium stiff to stiff lean clays to the maximum depth of about 41 5 feet below site grade
(BSG) The upper 2 to 5 feet BSG consist of dark brown lean clays with varied gravel and sand content
The upper 6 to 12 inches of the elays were intermixed with wood debris suggesting that the upper 6
inches was engineered fill. The near surface clays exhibit low to moderate piasticity, a low to moderate
expansion potential, and moderate shear strength. The consolidation tests indicate that the clays are
over-consolidated and exhibit low compressibility under the anticipated foundation loads. Groundwater
was encountered in most of the test borings drilled below 10 feet BSG at depths ranging from 12 to 13
feet SSG From a geotechnical standpoint, the area is suitable for proposed retail commercial and
residential development with regard to support of shailow spread foundations and concrete slabs-on-
grade. As this is a eurrently built and urbanized area, when excavation activities are proposed with
individual projects on specific sites, geotechnical studies specific to that property may be required at that
time
Project Impacts
a) Is the site subject to fault rupture? NI. The risk of fault rupture on the site is anticipated to be low,
since the nearest known active or potentially active faults lie a minimum of one quarter mile away
No impacts would therefore result.
b) Is the site subject to ground shaking? LS The site as well as the encompassing region is anticipated
to be subjeet to moderate to severe ground shaking from a number of active and potentially active
faults in the greater Bay Area, including the Hayward fault, San Andreas. fault and Calaveras fault.
The ground shaking issue is less than significant for properties in the Specific Plan areas because
new development constructed will be required to adhere to the requirements of the UnifolTll Building
Code and other seismic safety standards as they are developed over the life of the Specific Plans.
c) Is the site subject to seismic ground failure? NI. Based on previous geotechni~1 reports and
information for this area of the City, the risk of ground failure would be low Routine enforcement of
provisions of the 1997 Uniform Building Code and recommendations eontained in geotechnical
reports prepared for specifie development projects will serve to reduce potential impacts of seismic
ground faiiure to a less than significant level.
UuOiln Plannln,g Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
d) Is the site ..subject to seiche, tsunami hazards, including liquefaction? NL Geotechnical investigation
reports for past projects in the downtown conclude that the risk of liquefaction in the downtown is
low This is based on the presence of clay soils on the site which are not prone to liquefaction. There
are no major bodies of water located nearby which could be a source of seiche hazard.
e) Is the site subject to landslides or mudflows? NL The downtown project area is essentially flat with
little change in slope, .therefore, no impacts are anticipated with regard. to iandslides or mudflows.
f) /s the site subject to erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions? LS. The area is
essentiaily flat and contains no unstable soil conditions. No significant changes in topography are
proposed because the area has been previously graded the past to accommodate existing
development. However, future development and construction within the area under the auspices of
the three Speeifie Plans would result in grading and excavation for additional building foundations,
underground utilities and similar purposes. There would be a possibility of erosion of graded material
and eonstruction debris off of construction sites. The City of Dublin requires preparation and approval
of erosion control plans for all new construction where grading plans are requested. For development
projects involving five acres of land are greater, preparation of Stormwater Poilution Prevention
Plans are also required by the State Water Resources Control Board Adherence to standard erosion
control plans and Stormwater Poilution Prevention Plans will ensure that any impacts related to
erosion wiil be reduced to less-than-significant levels.
g) Subsidence of land? NL Minimal subsidence wouid occur in the area, according to geotechnical
reports prepared for past projects in the downtown. No impacts would therefore result.
h) Expansive soils? LS The soils have a low to moderate expansion potential and moderate shear
strength. Foundations of future buildings and other structures proposed under the auspices of the
Specific Plans will be reviewed by the City of Dublin pursuant to the Uniform Building Code to ensure
that adequate foundations are provided. Less-than-significant impaets related to expansive soils are
therefore antieipated.
i) Unique geologic or physical features? NI. No unique geologic or physical features have been
identified on any of the Specific Plan sites, based upon a review of a topographie survey and a field
visit. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
IV. Water
Environmental Settinq
Surface water exists on perimeters of the West Dublin BART and Downtown Core Specific Plan areas in
the form of open storm drainage ehannels owned by Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District (ACFCWCD) Zone 7 site. Storm water runoff within Speeific Plan areas is direeted
to regional storm drain facilities owned and maintained by ACFCWCD, which underlie the Specific Plan
areas. There are no creeks, wetlands or other bodies of water near the Specific Plan areas
The entire Tri-Valley area is underlain by an extensive underground aquifer The aquifer ranges in depth
between 15 and 500 feet but is no longer used as the primary source of domestie water in the area.
Zone 7 Is presently finalizing plans to store treated wastewater w~hln the aquifer during winter months,
which will be pumped out and used for landscape irrigation during dry, summer months.
Proiect Impacts
a) Changes to absorption rates? LS The Specific Plan areas have been largely developed over the
past thirty to forty years and eovered with Impervious surfaces, including buildings, parking areas,
walkways and other paved areas. Small portions of the areas are either vacant or landscaped to
Uublln Planning Uepartment
Downtown Speciiic Plans
Page 11
allow for drainage and irrigation. Construction of new buildings within the areas, under the auspices
of the Specific Plans, would add new impelVious surfaces, but would also add additional pelVious
surfaces in terms of plazas and more landscaping as required by the Specific Plans. Less-than-
significant impacts to absorption patterns are therefore anticipated.
b) Exposure of people or property to flood hazard? LS Portions of the Village Parkway and Downtown
Core Specific Plan are subject to flooding during 1 OO-year flood events and are generally inundated
with water during periods of intense and/or long-term rain fall. Representatives of the City of Dublin
Public Works Department have indicated that sub--regional drainage improvements will be
undertaken in the future as part of the City's Capital Improvement budget to alleviate flooding
hazards. Programs to deal with flood hazards are included in the Village Parkway and Downtown
Core Specific Plans. Less-than-significant impacts are therefore anticipated with regard to flood
hazards.
c) Discharge into surface waters or changes to surface water quality? NI. Existing storm drainage
faeilities are planned to be used to accommodate stormwater runoff from the Specific Plan areas.
Slnee the amount of stormwater runoff'is not anticipated to increase above existing volumes (see
comment a, above), no impacts are anticipated with regard to discharge into surfaee water Future
development projects undertaken under the auspices of the Specifie Plans will be required to meet
the water quality requirements of the City of Dublin'S NPDES permit and the Alameda County Urban
Runoff Clean Water Program.
d) Changes in amount of surface water? NI. Adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would have no
impacts to surfaee waters as all drainage shall be directed to the existing storm drainage system. No
impacts to surface bodies of water are therefore anticipated.
e) Changes in currents or direction of water movemenn NI. The project would not alter currents or
direction of water movement in nearbywater bodies since no substantial changes are anticipated to
the volume of stormwater runoff
f) Changes in quantity of groundwater? NI Approval and implementation of the three Specific Plans
would not significantly alter existing ground water resources on or near the project site because all
drainage is directed to the storm drainage system operated by Zone 7 Similarly, signifieant amounts
of groundwater use are not anticipated, since representatives of the Dublin-San Ramon SelVices
District have indieated that adequate water supplies have been identified to selVe the maximum
amount of development envisioned in the proposed Specifie Pians.
g) Altered direction of groundwater? LS Nt The project would not affect groundwater direction, since no
significant subsurface construction is anticipated. In the event that subsurface excavation is
proposed. adopted City standards require that specific development proiects, such as those requirinq
underaround parkinq structures oreoare a site-specific hydroloqical analysis with qeotechnical and
soils analysis to determine qroundwater levels. No siqnificant impacts are anticipated related to
altered direction of qroundwater.
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? NI The scope of the project is such that groundwater resources will
not be affected, as discussed above.
i) Substantial reduction of groundwater resources? LS. The project involves approval of three Specific
Plans to upgrade the appearance and land uses in downtown Dubiin. Since more intensive land uses
are anticipated in the Plans above that allowed in the current General Plan, some increase in the use
of water is anticipated. Representatives of the Dublin-San Ramon Services District have indicated
that adequate water supplies have been identified and addressed in future District plans to selVe the
Uublln Planning Uepartment Page 18
Downtown Specific Plans
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
maximum amount of development envisioned in the proposed Specific Plans. Therefore, the
projeeted level of water use is expected to be less-than-significant.
V. Air Quality
Environmental Settine
The project site is iocated within the Tri-Valley area, a sheltered, inland area surrounded by hills to the
west, south and east. Most of the airflow into the southern portions of the Valley is accomplished through
two passages in the surrounding hills. the Hayward and Niles canyons. Local wind data show the
frequent oecurrence of low wind speed and calm conditions (the latter approximately 23 percent of the
time) These local limitations on the capacity for horizontal dispersion of air pollutants combined with the
regional characteristic of restricted vertical dispersion give the area a high potential for regional air
quality problems.
Proiect Impacts
a) Violation of air quality standard? LS Potential air quality impacts can be divided into short-term,
construction related impacts and long-term operational impacts associated with the project.
I n terms of construction-related impacts it is anticipated that construction of new buildings under the
auspices of the Specific Plans would generate temporary increases in dust and particulate matter
caused by excavation and grading activities. Construction vehicle equipment on unpaved surfaees
also generates dust, as would wind blowing over exposed earth surfaces. Generalized estimates of
construction air emissions include approximately 1.2 tons of dust per aere per month of construction
activity About 45 percent of construction-related dust is composed of large particles which settle
rapidly on nearby surfaces and are easily filtered by human breathing patterns. The remainder of
dust consists of small particles (also known as PM10) The City of Dublill reqpire:::the apprQval and
implementation of a Construction Impact Reduction Plan as a standard condition of approval for new
construction projeets which will reduce short-term air quality impacts to a level of insignificance.
Buildout of the maximum development of the three Specific Plans would add additional vehicular
traffic to this portion of Dublin. These additional vehicles would generate quantities of carbon
monoxide, reactive organic gasses, nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter (PM10).
However, the iocation of the Specific Plans near major regional transportation corridors (1~680 and
Dublin Boulevard), and the fact that the intent of the West Dublin BART and Downtown Core Specific
Plans is to promote transit-friendly development results in conformity with the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District's Clean Air Plan. The short-term and long-term impacts to air quality of
approving and implementing the three Specific Plans would, therefore, be less-than-significant
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? LS. As stated in V~a above, the impacts to air quality of the
project will be less-than-significant both on the long- and short-term. The project, if approved and
construeted, would add some vehicular trips to the project area, but the development of the new
West Dublin BART Station would also reduce a portion of the vehicular trips in the area. This
increase in vehicular trips is minor eonsidering the fact that many of the trips are multi-purpose trips.
It is unlikely that the project would expose additional sensitive receptors, future visitors, and
residents to significantly higher concentrations of vehicle related poliutants. Any impacts related to
this issue would be less~than-significant.
c) Alter air movement, moisture, temperature or climate? NI. The Specific Plans are intended to
encourage the same general type of deveiopment as currently exists on each ofthe project sites.
Uubllll Plannlllg uepartment
Downlowo Specific Plans
Page HI
Although building heights may be somewhat higher than currently found on the site, no substantial
interference regarding prevailing wind patterns or climatic conditions is anticipated.
d) Create objectionable odors? NI. Permitted uses allowed by the Specific Plans include primarily retail,
office, entertainment, lodging and residential land uses, none of which are associated with the
release of siQnificant amounts of objectionable odors. Therefore, no impacts are antieipated.
VI. Transportation/Circulation
[Note. The following section is based on an analysis of the traffic and transportation performed by Omnic
Means, Transportation Consultants in Auoust 2000. with updates in September. November and
December 2000 ]
Environmental SettinQ
Major roadways selVing the site include.
. Interstate 580, a six-lane east-west freeway connecting Dublin with nearby local communities
such as Livermore and Pleasanton and regional destinations, such as Tracy and Oakland. In the
vicinity of the proposed project, 1-580 carries between 160,000 and 187,000 vehicles per day
Nearby interchanges include 580/680; Dougherty Rd.lHopyard Rd. and Hacienda Dr
. Interstate 680 is a six-lane north-south freeway connecting Dublin with local communities in the
Tri-Valley area and regional destinations north and south of Dublin. This freeway accommodates
between 123,000 and 144,000 vehicles per day with interchanges at Alcosta Blvd., Interstate 580
and Stone ridge Drive.
. Dougherty Road extends in a north-south direction east of the Specific Plan areas. A major
arterial roadway, Dougherty Road has four travel lanes north of Dublin Boulevard. South of
Dublin Boulevard, the roadway widens to six travel lanes as it crosses over 1-680, a full-access
interchange for eastbound/westbound traffic is located at Dougherty/I-S80. In the Dublin
Boulevard area, Dougherty Road provides access primarily to commercial and retail areas. North
of Dublin Boulevard, the road provides access to residential areas as it approaches Amador
Valley Boulevard.
. Amador Plaza Road. is a north-south street extending from Amador Valley Boulevard south
through Dublin Boulevard. Between Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard, Amador
Plaza Road has two travel lanes and a two-way left-turn lane. South .of DUblin Boulevard, the
roadway has two travel lanes and provides access to existing and new retail-commercial land
uses Amador Plaza Road is planed to connect to the new 1-680 southbound on/off ramps
currently under construction.
. Dublin Bou/evard is a major east-west roadway through the south part of the Village Parkway
planning area. Dublin Boulevard has six travel lanes and raised medians from San Ramon Road
to just east of Regional Street. As Dublin Boulevard approaches Golden Gate Drive, the roadway
narrows to four travel lanes and maintains this eonfiguration east to Dougherty Road. Dublin
Boulevard is designated as a route of regional significant in the Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency's Congestion Management Plan.
. Go/den Gate Drive is a short, two-lane roadway that extends south from Dublin Boulevard.
Providing access to commercial areas, Golden Gate Drive is designed with two travel lanes.
. Regional Street extends south from Amador Valley Road through Dublin Boulevard. South of
Dublin Boulevard, Regional Street is a wide, two-lane road provides access to retail and
commercial areas. North of Dublin Boulevard; the road has two travel lanes with a two-way left-
turn lane. .
[)ublln ~Ianmng uepartment
Dowotown Specific Plans
Page 2CJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
Amador Valley Boulevard is located north of the project site and extends in an east-west
direction. East of San Ramon Road, Amador Valley Boulevard has four travel lanes with raised
landscaped medians and is a major arterial street. West of San Ramon Road, the roadway
narrows to two travel lanes.
.
Village Parkway extends from Dublin Boulevard north to Alcosta Boulevard. A major arterial
roadway, Village Parkway has four travel lanes with raised center landscaped and hardscaped
medians. Between Dublin BOUlevard and Amador Valley Boulevard, Village Parkway provides
access to commercial land uses, Continuing northward, this roadway provides primary access to
residential areas off of Tamarack Drive, Brighton Drive and Davona Drive. A new northbound on~
ramp to 1~680 from Village Parkway recently opened.
San Ramon Road is oriented in a north-south direction west of the three Specific Plan areas. A
major arterial roadway, San Ramon Road has six travel lanes and raised medians north of i-580
North of Amador Valley Boulevard, San Ramon Road narrows to four travel lanes. In the Specific
Plan areas, the roadway provided access to commercial and retail businesses. San Ramon Road
is designated on System (MTS) roadway by the Alameda Clilunty Congestion Management
Agency
.
Starward Drive extends from Amador Valley Boulevard north and has two travel lanes. It provides
aecess to residential areas north of the Specifie Plan areas.
.' Donohue Drive is oriented in a north-south direction and provides aeeess to residential areas
mirth of Amador Valley Road. A two-lane residential street, Donohue Drive extends north from
Amador Valley Boulevard.
.
Clark Avenue extends between Village Parkway north across Dublin Boulevard to Maple Drive. A
two-lane roadway, Clark Avenue provides aecess to commercial areas south of Dublin Boulevard
and residential areas north of Dublin Boulevard.
.
Civic Plaza/Sierra Court. Civic Plaza is a wide, two-lane street extending south from DUbiin
Boulevard providing access to Dublin City Hall and Police Department headquarters. Civic Plaza
is not a through street. Sierra Court extends northward from Dublin Boulevard (opposite Civic
Plaza) and is a two~lane road, The roadway provides access to light industrial andresidentiai
areas.
.
Dublin Court extends southeast from Dublin Boulevard and is located east of the Specific Plan
areas. A wide, two-lane road, Dublin Court provides access to retail and commercial areas.
.
Lewis Avenue is a short, two-lane street extending east-west between Village Parkway and
Portage Road. Lewis Avenue provides access to commercial and office areas off of Village
Parkway before accessing residential areas east of Village Parkway
.
Tamarack Drive extends in an east-west direction on both sides of Village Parkway. A wide, two-
lane road, Tamarack Drive provides access to residential areas north of Amador Valley Road.
.
Brighton Drive extends in an east-west direction on both sides of Village Parkway A wide, two-
lane road, Brighton Drive provides access to residential areas north of Tamarack Drive.
Davona Drive extends between Village Parkway and Aleosta Boulevard. A two-lane residential
street, Davona Drive also provides through vehicle aceess from Village Parkway areas to 1-680
via Aleosta Boulevard.
Uublln Plannlog Uepartment
Downtown Specific Plans
Page;;1
The Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority ("WHEELS") provides bus transit service through the
Dublin area. Bus routes serving the downtown Dublin area include Routes 3, 4, 10 and 201/202.
Regional transit to and from the Dublin area is provided by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
BART opened a DublinlPleasanton station in the late 1990's, located approximately one mile east of the
project site. A recent proposal has been submitted to BART to eonstruct a Downtown Dublin station
within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area at the terminus of Golden Gate Drive, approximately 1/2
mile south of this Specific Plan area.
Bikeways exist or are proposed on Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard . Amador Valley
Boulevard is presently designated for a Class II bikeway lane, whieh is designed with a one-way striped
lane for bicycle travel on the roadway Dublin BOUlevard is proposed for a Class II bikeway lane, to be
opened with the eompletion of the roadway improvements. Public sidewalks have been constructed
adjacent to many of the streets within and adjacent to the Specific Plan areas.
The City commissioned a traffic eonsultant (Omni-Means, transportation consultants) to prepare a traffie
analysis regarding transportation and circulation impacts of approving and implementing the three
Specific Plans.
General Plan Transportation Policy Framework
The General Plan measures and evaluates traffie congestion conditions of the roadway network by using
intersection level of service ("LOS") analysis. The LOS analysis describes the operational efficiency of
an intersection by comparing the volume of eritical traffic movements to intersection capacity and
detennining average delays. LOS can range from "A," representing free-flowing conditions, to "F,"
representing very severe congestion and intersection breakdown.
The General Plan adopts LOS D or better as the acceptable LOS for all routes of regional significance
(these routes include: Dublin Blvd., Dougherty Rd., Tassajara Rd., and San Ramon Rd.). Development
and road improvements should be phased so that the LOS does not deteriorate below LOS D (Vie .91
or greater) (General Plan Guiding Policies 5.1 1 B and C).
Siqnifleance Criteria
Based upon General Plan policies, an intersection impact is considered significant if it causes the overall
intersection LOS, or a movement LOS in the intersection, to fall below LOS D
Proiect Impacts
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? LS The proposed project would increase vehicle trips
and traffic congestion on the local roadway network, which could deteriorate existing levels of service
on some affected roadways. Table 1, summarizes existing traffic conditions in and around the
Specific Plan sites, whiCh also includes anticipated traffic from approved but not yet eonstrueted
projects. The table also shows anticipated traffic impacts for the same intersections at full build out of
maximum Specific Plan densities. For two of the intersections, Golden GatelDublin Boulevard and
Amador Plaza/Dublin Boulevard, projected traffic would exceed City thresholds of signifieance. For
these two intersections, the Specific Plans require the installation of traffic improvements as part of
Speeific Plan development to raise the future Level of Service to comply with City standards.
Additional roadway widening improvements would be needed with the projected traffic volUmes.
Golden Gate Drive wouid require widening to four travel lanes with two-way left-turn lanes between
Uublln Planning Uepartment
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 22
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dublin Boulevard and St. Patrick Way To accommodate the oroiected develooment in the Plan area.
the eastbound Dublin Boulevard aooroach at Amador Plaza Road should be widened and restrioed
to include a seoarate riqht-tum lane. Amador Plaza Road is already planned for widening to four
travel lanes in the City's Capital Improvement Program budget. If St. Patrick Way is extended to
Regional Street with future development, Regional Street should also be widened to four lanes with a
two-way left-turn lane between Dublin Boulevard and St. Patrick Way
To offset overall development impacts in the downtown area, including the BART related traffic,
Dublin Boulevard is currently proposed for widening to six travel lanes between Sierra Court and
Doughtery Road. A second eastbound right-turn lane would be installed on Dublin Boulevard at
Doughtery Road, and the eastbound Dublin Boulevard aooroach at Golden Gate Drive would be
widened and restriped to include a seoarate riaht-turn lane. The eastbound approach to Reaional
Street would also be widened and re-striped to include a separate riqhHurn lane. Ultimate
eastbound aooroach qeometrics would include one lefHurn lane. three throuah-Ianes and one riaht-
turn lane. The traffic analysis also assumes the installation of certain traffic improvements within and
near the Specific Plan areas that have already been approved by the City or which are programmed
in the City's Capital Improvement Budget.
These Improvements would be completed in stages associated with the development of properties in
the area. For instance, the extension of St. Patrick Way to Regional Street would be implemented
with the development of the hotel and residential project proposed adjacent to the BART station and
the redevelopment of adjacent industrial sites, such as the Cor-o~Van's site. Some additional
property maY' be required in order to complete the roadway improvements' however. the extent of
that recuired is unknown at this time.
Since the onainal environmental analvsis was orepared in September 2000. an increase in the FAR
and square footace for the development of the site adiacent to the West Dublin BART Station has
been proposed. Jones, Lana, LaSalle. the proiect sponsor. has submitted a development oroposal
which shows an increase in sauare foolaqe of 109.864 square feet for the hqtelportion of the proiect
from the oricinal conceptual plan reviewed by staff. AccordinG to Omni-Means. the ttaffic consultant
for the Specific Plan even thouqh there will be an increase in square footaae,increaslnq the FAR on
the propertv to 1.12. no increase in traffic or deqradation of the LOS in the area is anticioated as
traffic qeneration rates are based on the number of rooms in the hotel. This number (240 ropms)
has remained unchanqed from the oriainal conceotual plan submitted bv the proiect sponsor.
Under consideration by the City Council. also, is a request from Morrison and Foerster. representinq
AMB. a potential purChaser of the Cor-o-Van warehouse site. reauestino an increase in the FAR
from .87 to 1.00 for the portion of that property shown as Office on the West Dublin BART Specific
Pian Land Use Plan (Exhibit 9 of the Specific Plan), All areas shown in the Plan as Office total
approximate Iv 6.98 acres. It was determined that all of the properties shown in the Office land use
cateaorv of the Specific Plan should be allowed to benefit from the increased FAR. Therefore.
because traffic aeneration rates are dependent on FAR's. a FAR of 1.00 was applied to 6.98 acres
and tested bv the traffic consultant. This FAR would create approximately 40.000 souare feet more
of office space than a FAR of .87. Althouqh this increased square footaae would oenerate more
traffic over that orioinally shown in the table, the traffic consultant has indicated that the increase
would not aenerate a siqnificantamount Gf additional traffic and the policies and oroarams related to
traffic in the Specific Plan are adequate for this increase (refer to Attachment 15, December 8. 2000
letter from Omni~Means).
In the Downtown Specific Plan area. the City Council is considerino removal of the HiGh Density
Residential or senior housino eiement of the Pian in the northwest corner of the Plan area adiacent
to Amador Valley Boulevard. If the use of the property remains as Retail/Office (shown as
Commercial A on the Land Use Plan. Exhibit 9. of the Specific Plan), an increase in the FAR for the
site to AO would occur under the Plan. reflectina that oroposed for the other portion of the shoppino
center. This wouid increase the ootential sauare footaqe for the site by approximatelv 40.000 sauare
lJubl,n Planning uepartment
Downtown Specific Plans
Page;<;;
feet Accordino to the City's traffic consultant this would result in more traffic trips per day than the
residential use at the same iocation. Because of this. intersections in the vicinity may operate at
LOS "D" rather than LOS "C". LOS "D" is qenerallY considered an acceotable level of service, so
althouoh trips would increase. it would not be a sionificant increase and will be adequately addressed
by the policies and proqrams in the SpecifiC Plans,
At their meetina on October 24. 2000. the Plannino CommiSSion sUQaested revisions to be inciuded
in the Downtown Core Specific Plan, and aiso in the General Plan Amendments for the proiect. The
Commission suooested a chanae in the FAR for a 2.55 acre Retaii/Auto use propertv to reflect a
request by Kenneth and Marc Harvey of Dublin Honda for property on Amador Plaza Road. The
chanae modifies the FAR from 0.20 (or 22.420 square feet with the existino development on the site)
to 0.79. resultinq in a development potential of 87,750 sauare feet. This chanoe would provide for
consistencY between the FAR of the Honda dealership prooerty and that of the adjacent property,
former s~e of Shamrock Ford, at the corner of Dublin Bouieysrd and Amadpr Plaza Road. It is not
anticipated that traffic in the area would increase with this FAR increase as the existino use would
remain the same. and the additional souare footaoe would be utilized for storaoe and office space
associated with that use. The policies and proorams in the Specific Plans should be adequate for the
proposed land use. AnY land use chanoe application for this oroperty in the future wouid require a
land use and traffic analySis to evaluate the impacts on the Specific Plan area.
For the Village Parkway Specific Plan area, the City Council appointed a Task Force which met over
a six-month period to discuss and direct the reyitalization of the business community along the
segment of Village Parkway between Amadpr Valley Boulevard to the north and Dublin Boulevard to
the south. To accomplish this revitalization effort, it was decided by the Task Force that slowing
traffic and proyiding better parking opportunities close to businesses would create a more pedestrian
and shopper friendly environment, thereby stimulating the economic growth of businesses and
increasing the activity level in the area. Four different options for roadway improvements along
Village Parkway were evaiuated during the specific plan development process, along with the
existing roadway configuration as shown in Exhibit 7A of the Specific Plan. The following is a brief
description of each of the Village Parkway roadway altematives considered. Exhibits illustrating the
alignment and cross section of Village Parkway for each aiternative are contained in Appendix AS of
the Viliage Parkway Specific Pian.
Alternative 1. The Village Parkway Specific Plan Task Force reviewed the various options for the
roadway, all of which contained diagonal parking to bring people closer to business storefronts
and to change the streetscape in the area. Alternative 1, as shown in Exhibit 10A of Appendix
AS of the Specific Plan, would proYide four lanes of traffic on Village Parkway (two lanes in each
direction) combined with diagonal parking along the street frontage in selected locations. There
are approximately 60 existing parallel parking spaces along Village Parkway at this time, and 121
parking spaces could be provided with thi~ alternative.
A four-foot class III bicycle lane would be located between the diagonal parking and the right
traffic lane. The sidewalk would be widened from fiye feet (existing right-of-way is eight feet) to
10 feet to provide enough space for increased pedestrian use Two new crosswalks for
pedestrians would be provided in mid-block locations with caution signals. Each traffic lane
would be 12 feet and the center median would be reduced from 16 feet to 14 feet in width_
In the Consultant's Report of the Transportation Impacts for the Proposed Village Parkway,
Downtown Core, and West BART Station Specific Plans prepared by Omni-Means for the
Downtown specific plans, the consultant determined that this alternative would create the ieast
potential roadway impacts of the four alternatives and recommended it for implementation, This
determination was based on the following: 1) four travel lanes would be maintained; 2) diagonal
parking would provide additional spaces close to business frontages; and, 3) bicycle traffic would
be provided on the street (however, this could create some conflicts between motorists backing
out of spaces and bicyclists). Some conflicts may occur between through yehicles and those
Uublln Planning [)epartment
Downtown Specific Plans
f'age 24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
backing out of spaces, but the bike lane should proYide a buffer zone, thereby reducing the
potential for confiict.
The totai right-of.way (ROW) required for this option would be 115 feet. As the roadway ROW is
currently 100 feet, an additional seven feet six inches of ROW on each side of the street would
need to be obtained from property owners. Implementation of this alternative would require a
public/private partnership, or joint partnership between private property owners and the City to
balance the cost of improvements. This alternative requires a high degree of cooperation and
commitment by both the City and the property owners on Village Parkway to be successful. The
preliminary cost estimate for improvements related to this alternative is $2,005,000
A/ternative 2 - Alternative 2, as shown in Exhibit 7B of the Specific Plan (see attached disgram)
and Exhibit 10B of the appendix, would provide four lanes of traffic on Village Parkway (two lanes
in each direction) combined with diagonal parking along the street frontage in selected iocations,
and the bicycle lane would share the sidewalk with pedestrian traffic. The sidewalk would be
widened to12 feet to provide enough space for the shared use. Two new crosswalks for
pedestrians would be provided in mid-block locations with caution signals. Each traffic lane
would be 12 feet and the center median would be reduced from 16 feet to 14 feet in width_ The
total right-of-way (ROW) required for this option would be 118 feet As the roadway ROW is
currently 100 feet, an additional nine feet of ROW on each side of the street would need to be
obtained from property owners.
The consultant's report determined that this alternative was adequate for roadway circulation;
however, maintaining the bike lane on the sidewalk could be problematic in the downtown retail
district due to pedestrian/bicycle conflicts on the adjacent sidewalks. Additionally, the alternative
does not provide a buffer area between the outside lanes and vehicies backing out of the
diagonal parking spaces. This could be disruptive to traffic flows during peak hours of traffic_
Implementation of this alternative would require a public/private partnership, or joint partnership
between private property owners and the City to balance the cost of improvements. The
preliminary cost estimate for improvements related to this alternative is $2,170,000
A/ternative 3 - The alternative preferred by the Task Force was Altemative 3, as shown in Exhibit
10C, which would provide two lanes of traffic on Village Parkway (one lane in each direction)
combined with diagonal parking along the street frontage in selected locations. A total of 81
parking spaces could be provided with this aiternative. A six-foot Class III bicycle lane would be
located on the roadway between the diagonal parking and the through traffic lane. Two new
crosswalks for pedestrians would be provided in mid-block locations with caution signals_ Each
traffic lane wouid be 12 feet and the center median would be reduced from 16 feet to 14 feet in
width. The Task Force also suggested that the median be reduced in height for better visibility
for pedestrians crossing the street.
The total right-of-way (ROW) required for this option would be 100 feet. As the roadway ROW is
currently 100 feet, no additional ROW would need to be obtained from property owners. The
amount of ROW needed for this alternative is less than that required for the other options
considered, but it would reduce the number of through traffic lanes from four to two, thereby
slowing traffic considerabiy In slowing traffic on the roadway, Alternative 3 would also create
additional congestion on Village Parkway during peak hour periods, and traffic may be diverted to
Amador Plaza Road and streets with less capacity in the vicinity With the existing level of traffic
plus approved projects' and BART's estimated traffic volume, the traffic consultant's estimate is
that the level-of-service (LOS) on Village Parkway would operate at LOS F (unacceptable level),
decreasing from LOS C (acceptable level) with this alternative. Additionally, the LOS at the
[)ublrn Plannmg Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 25
intersections of Amador Valley BoulevardNillage Parkway and Dublin BoulevardNillage Parkway
would operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour, and LOS F during the PM peak hour
Implementation of this alternative would require a public/private partnership, or joint partnership
between private property owners and the City to balance the cost of improvements, but to a
lesser degree than Alternative 1 and 2. This alternative requires cooperation and commitment by
both the City and the property owners on Village Parkway to be successfuL The preliminary cost
estimate for this alternative is $1,050,000, and is the lowest cost alternative when compared to
the other three alternatives.
Altematlve 4 - Alternative 4, as shown in Exhibit 10D, would provide four lanes of traffic on
Village Parkway (two lanes in each direction) and a four-foot bicycle lane. Diagonal parking
would be provided along the frontage of businesses in selected locations, but it would be
separated from street traffic by narrow medians. A totai of approximately 106 parking spaces
would be provided with this alternative along Village Parkway Drive aiSle entrances would
provide access to these separated parking areas. Two new crosswalks for pedestrians would be
provided in mid-block locations with caution signa is. Each traffic iane would be 12 feet and the
center median would be reduced from 16 feet to 14 feet in width. The total right-of-way (ROW)
required for this option would be 128 feet. As the roadway ROW is currentiy 100 feet, an
additional 14 feet of ROW on each side of the street would need to be obtained frorri property
owners.
This alternative would increase the distance between roadway traffic and the businesses on
Village Parkway, and may not meet the objective of slowing traffic and providing a more
pedestrian oriented streetscape, as the width of the ROW would be substantially increased.
Implementation of this alternative would require a public/private partnership, or joint partnership
between private property owners and the City to balance the cost of improvements. The
preliminary cost estimate for this alternative is the highest of the four alternatives at $3,130,000.
Therefore, as the cost is extremely high and it would not meet the basic objective of providing
parking close to the street and businesses with better pedestrian access, it is not recommended
as a viable aiternative.
Staff has seyeral concerns reqardinq narrowinq Villaoe Parkway to two lanes of traffic and addino
diaoonalparkinQ, as preferred by the Task Force. Vehicle trip diversion may occur. as discussed in the
previous section, and adversely affect the adiacent neiahborhood to the east. This could affect the
Quality of life for that oortion of the City residential area by creatinq safety hazards for residents and
children attendino the neiqhborhood schooL Noise levels could also increase in the area with' the
additional cuHhrouah traffic. Additionallv. the Alameda County Fire Department and Dublin Police
Department have exoressed concerns related to community safety. resoonse time, and the creation of
roadway hazards in the event that Villaoe Parkway is reduced to two lanes of traffic with diaoonai
parkinq within the existino rioht-of-way, Another option for the alignment of Village Parkway, which is the
staff recommended option (see attached diaqram), is to maintain the existing roadway without
expansion, and continue the use of parallel parking on both sides of the street. Improvements in the
streetscape and sidewalk could be provided as described in the section of this document on design to
encourage increased pedestrian use in the area. Additionally, joint/shared parking should be
encouraged between properties, with fences removed which impede pedestrian access. This option
would require less capital funds for implementation and would create less roadway impacts.
A letter has been received from the Alameda County Conoestion Manaoement Aoency (ACCMA)
commentino on the transportation and circulation analysis prepared for the Specific Plans. The City's
traffic consultant has responded to these comments in a letter dated December 8. 2000, The ACCMA
stated that the Dublin Soecific Plans oualified for analysis usino the Countywide Hansporation Demand
Uublln Planmng uepartment
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ModeL If another model is used in a traffic analvsis. the model outputs must be comoared to those of
the Countvwide modeL The traffic consultant used a manual distribution model ITRAFFIX) outputs as a
baseline for aeneratina future traffic volumes and has compared their forecasted yolumes to those of the
CountYWide model in their letter of exolanation to the ACCMA In comparinQ the two models. the traffic
consultants findinqs for the Specific Plan area volumes for the year 2005 oenerally exceed those under
the Countvwide modeL The only location where the models differ is at the intersection of Dublin
Boulevard and Villaqe Parkwav, with a laroe amount of trips actually attributable to undeveloped
northeastern Dublin properties, However. the policies and proarams in the Specific Plan would address
these future traffic volumes throuoh the implementation of widenino DUblin Boulevard in this area to
three throuoh lanes from two throuoh lanes. Additionally. the improvements proyided at the
intersections of Reaional Street, Golden Gate Drive. and Amador Plaza Road. as discussed above.
would fully address these traffic impacts. All roadwavs within the Specific Plan studv area would be
operatina at acceptable levels of service ("0" or better) with the prooosed mitiQation measures in the
Plans. Adherence to traffic and roadway improvements inciuded in the Specific Plans will ensure that
traffic and transportation impacts related to approval and implementation of the Specific Plans wouid be
less-than-significant These improvements are included in the Capital Improvement Program for the
Specific Plans.
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? LS. Proposed development and redeyelopment of
properties in the three Specific Plan areas will be reviewed by the City of Dublin Public Works, Police
and Fire Departments at .the time of site development review to ensure that City design standards
are met. Less-then-significant impacts are therefore anticipated with regard to safety impacts
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? LS AA. The proposed Specific Plan makes
provision for new roadways through the project areas. New development proposed pursuant to he
Specific Plans will be reviewed by the City of Dublin Public Works, Planning, Police and Fire
Departments to ensure that adequate access end roadway widths would be provided. Therefore,
adequate access would be provided to all building areas and no impacts would result regarding
access. Althouoh not a potentially sianificant impact. for more efficient and routine operations, Police
and Fire have recommended that Villaae Parkwavremain as a four-lane roadwav, as recommended
by staff.
Table 1 Existing and Future Traffic Conditions
Intersections
A 0.32
B 0.64
A 0.35
AO.57
C 0.76
AO 38
A 0.37
con
A 0.34
B 0.65
D 0.84
AO.38
lJublln Planning LJepartmenl
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 2/
D 0.85 CO.78 DO 87 D 0.89
AO.36 A 0.54 A048 C079
A 0.28 A 0.48 B 0.68 E091
B 0.62 CO.80
A 0.44 C 076 AO 58 F 102
A 0.50 DO 83
AO 47 A 0.60 AO 47 80.66
AO 40 AD.51 A042 AO.53
AO.35 AO.51 AO 36 A 0.54
AO.37 B 0.66 A039 CO 71
C074 0090 C075 D088
80.62 AO.58 B 0.62 A 0.56
C073 D 0.85 C072 D 0.85
A A
AO.56 80.61
AD 41 A045
Note: Italics text indicates yolume to capacity ratio and Leyel of Service after implementation of Specific
Plan traffic improvements
d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite? LS. Approval of the three Specific Plans and
construction of improvements based on the Specific Plans wouid increase the demand, for on-site
parking within each of the three areas, Parking demand would also be increased due to the pianned
presence of the proposed West Dublin BART station, the development of which is not part of the
Specific Plan project. Requirements included in each of the Specific Plans require that all new land
uses proposed pursuant to a Specific Plan inClude on-site parking to meet current City of Dublin
parking requi(.;.ments, Existino uses are assumed to provide sufficient oarkina with applicable City
standards on-site at the time of orioinal construction and development. The Specific Plans provide
that ~xceptions to parkina reoulations may be allowed for shared use of parking facilities, or in
instances where the Plan nino Commission or City Council find evidence based on a parkino analysis
that a reduced parkina ratio is appropriate due to the proximitv of the use to pUblic transit service.
The Specific Plans also prOVide that Provision of additionai parking facilities mavbe reviewed and
reouired will ba rDvicwed as individual Site Development Review applications are submitted to the
City of Dublin for new construction projects. This review process will ensure that adequate parking is
proYided and any parking impacts would be less-than-significant
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? NI. The proposed Specific Plans would require
construction of new tlicycle and pedestrian facilities to encourage non-auto travel modes. No impacts
are therefore anticipated.
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? NI. Each of the Specific Plans require the installation of some new facilities to support
enhanced bus service to each of the three sites. However, the additional facilities wouid be within
areas presently served by transportation services. The new facilities would be consistent with
adopted policies supporting alternative transportation as they would provide more opportunities to
use varying modes of transportation. Therefore, no impacts are foreseen.
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? NI The proposed project is not sited near operating railroad
facilities, near a navigable waterway or near an airport. Although the West Dublin BART Specific
Plan is located near the proposed West Dublin BART station, the intent of the Specific Plan is to
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
promote complementary land uses adjacent to the planned BART station. Therefore, no impacts are
anticipated.
VII. Biological Resources
Environmental Settinq
The Specmc Plan project sites are located in highiy urbanized areas. With the exceptions of County
drainage channels on the periphery of two of the Specific Plan areas, no wetlands or other bodies of
water exist in or near the site. Existing vegetation includes introduced ornamental landscaping within
planter areas.
Proiect Imoacts
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals and birds) NI. The Specific Pian Areas are existing, urbanized downtown areas.
The majority of the properties within the plan areas are fully developed. No such species have been
observed in the project areas based on field observations conducted in July 2000
b) Locally designated species (e g. heritage trees) NI. No heritage trees are iocated on the site
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat) NI. Only introduced,
ornamental vegetation associated with urban development is found on the site.
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal poa!)? NI. No wetlands exist on the project site.
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? NI The Specific Plans represent in~fill development within
an existing urbanized downtown area. There are no wildlife or migration corridors on the site;
therefore, no impacts would occur to such resources
VIII. Energy and Mineral Resources
Environmental Settino
Based on the previous geotechnical surveys of specific properties in the Specific Plan area, no known
deposits of minerals exist on the project site. The Conservation Element of the General Plan does not
reference any significant mineral resources on the project site or in the general area.
Project Impacts
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? NI. The proposed project will not conflict with
goals, policies or programs established in the Dublin General Plan regarding energy or energy
conservation.
b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? NI. The proposed project is not
anticipated to use resources in a wasteful manner The project will be constructed in accordance with
the Unifonm Building Code and Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, both of which require
stringent energy efficient construction methods, such as insulation, thermal pane windows and
installation of efficient appliances. Exterior landscaping will be governed by both AB 325 and Section
8.88 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, which requires "water budgets" for landscape material sand
methods of irrigation. Finally, the City is mandated by AB 939 to reduce the solid waste stream
I.)ublin Planning uepartment
Downtown Specific "Plans
Page 29
generated by residences, business and industrial establishments by promoting recycling and simiiar
programs.
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the
region and residents of the State? NI The project site is not located in an area designated by the
California Stale Department of Conservation, Diyision of Mines and Geology, as haYing sufficient
mineral resources that are suitable as marketable commodities. No impacts are therefore expected.
IX. Hazards
Environmental Settina
The Specific Plan areas are located in previously developed commercial. office and similar non-
residential areas. Existing uses within the West Dublin BART and Downtown Core Specific Plan areas
include automobile sales and service uses. Operation of these facilities use oil, grease, solvents and
other potentially hazardous materials, It is anticipated that some or all of these uses would remain in
business after adoption of the two Specific Plans, however, storage and handling of potentially
hazardous materials is controlled by the Alameda County Fire Department, Alameda County Health
Department, Regionai Water Quality Control Board and other regulatory agencies.
Project Imoacts
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances including but not limited to oil,
pesticides, chemicals, or radiation? NI With the exception of auto-oriented uses, none of the land
uses permitted by the proposed Specific Plans would store, use or transport significant quantities of
hazardous substances. No impacts are therefore anticipated with re9ard to hazardous substances.
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? NL Future
site development plans proposed within the three Specific Plans will be reviewed by the Dublin
Police Department, Dublin Planning Department and Aiameda County Fire Department to ensure
that adequate emergency evacuation is provided per City requirements. No impacts are therefore
anticipated.
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? NL Development of land uses and
other facilities pursuant to the three Specific Plans are not anticipated to generate significant health
hazards, since permitted uses would generally include commercial, office, entertainment, restaurant
and residential uses. No industrial or manufacturing land uses are proposed. No impacts are
therefore anticipated.
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? LS. Generally, new land uses in
the Specific Plan areas would inclUde commercial, office, lodging, entertainment and simiiar uses,
none of which would involve creation of a health hazard. New development that may be located near
automobile serving uses could have the potential to expose employees and visitors to health
hazards; however, the potential for exposure of peopie to health hazards from existing uses will be
reviewed during the Site Deveiopment Plan process to ensure compliance with all applicable health
and safety regulations. Less-than-signlficant impacts are therefore expected.
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees? LS The proposed Specific Plan
areas are located in urbanized areas and existing uses have been constructed in compliance with
Uniform Fire and Building Code requirements. Existing and future landscaped areas will be
permanently irrigated and maintained so that the potential for fire is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.
Uubiln Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 3D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
X. Noise
Environmentai Settinq
The General Plan identifies that the normally acceptable maximum outdoor Ldn noise level is 70 dBA for
commerciai areas, 'while interior areas have a maximum noise level of 45 dBA.
The primary existing source of noise in the vicinity of the three Specific Plans is vehicle traffic, autos and
trucks, traveling on adjacent freeways and surface streets_ It is anticipated that significant portions of all
three Specific Pian areas are subject to exterior noise in excess of 70 dBA.
Proiect Impacts
a) Increases in existing noise levels? LS Approval of the three Specific Plan and construction of
improvements pursuant to the Plans is expected to incrementally increase noise levels in and
adjacent to the three planning areas. Noise increases would include temporary noise increases,
associated wtth construction actiyities and long-term permanent noise levels, associated with
additional vehicular trips and operational noise (mechanical noise, unloading of goods and similar
activtties). Given the high ieveis of noise already on the site caused by nearby freeways, increases in
.noise leveis are anticipated to be less-than-significant.
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? LS The West Dublin BART and Downtown Core Specific
Plans both allow residenti~1 dwellings as permitted uses, Site specific review will be performed during
Site Development Review for residential projects to ensure compliance with City interior and exterior
noise standards, Noise studies may be required for individual projects. With adherence to City
noise standards, less-than-significant impacts would occur with regard to exposure of people to
noise impacts_
XI. Public Services.
Environmental Settinq
The project site is served by the following service providers:
.
Fire Protection, Fire protection is proYided by the Alameda Cpunty Fire Department, under
contract-to the City of Dublin, Which provides structural fire suppression, rescue, hazardous
materials control and public education services,
.
Police Protection. Police protection is provided by the City of Dublin Police Department which is
headquartered in the Civic Center The Department, which maintains a sworn staff of 31 officers,
performs a range of public safety services including patrol, investigation, traffic safety and public
education.
.
SchOOls, Educational facilities are provided by the Dublin Unified School District which operates
kindergarten through high school services within the community_ Schools which would serve the
project include Dublin High School (grades 9-12) and Wells Middle School (graded 6-8). Grades
K-5 could be served by one of three elementary schools within the District.
. Maintenance. The City of Dublin provides public facility maintenance, including roads, parks,
street trees and other pubiic facilities. Dublin's Civic Center is located at 100 Civic Plaza.
UuOlm Planning Uepartment Page ::11
Downtown Specific Plans
Other aovernmental services. Other governmental services are provided by the City of Dublin
including community deveiopment and building services and related governmentai services.
Library service is provided by the Alameda County Library with supplemental funding by the City
of Dublin,
The City of Dublin has adopted a Public Faciiities Fee for all new residential deyelopment in the
community for the purpose of financing new municipal public facilities needed by such deyelopment.
Facilities anticipated to be funded by the proposed fee would include completipn of the Civic Center
Complex, construction of a new library, expansion of the existing senior center, acquisition and
deveiopment of new community and neighborhood parks and similar municipal buildings and facilities,
Future applicants for development pursuant to the Specific Plans would be required to pay this fee.
Environmentai Impacts
a) Fire protection? LS Approval of the three Specific Plans and future construction in compliance with
the Specific Plans would incrementally increase the demand for fire and emergency calls for service
since additional building square footage would be added to each site. As part of the site development
reyiew process for individual buildings, specific fire protection requirements will be imposed to ensure
compliance with appiicable provisions of the Uniform Fire Code. Such measures would inciude but
not limited to instailalion of new fire hydrants, fire extinguishers and similar features. Based on
standard City fire protection requirements, fire protection impacts would be less-than-significant.
b) Police protection? LS. Approvai of the three Specific Plans and future construction in compliance
with the Specific Plans wouid incrementally increase the demand for police calls for service since
additional building square footage would be added to each site, As part of the site development
review process for individuai buildings, specific security requirements will be imposed to ensure
compiiance with applicable provisions of the City's building security ordinance. Such measures would
include, but not be limited to, installation of appropriate locking devices, instaliatlon of security
lighting and similar featUres. Based on standard City security requirements, police protection impacts
would be less-than-significant:
c) Schools? LS The West Dublin BART ;:lnd Downtown Core Specific PI;:lns each call for a residential
component. Although the size, type and orientation of dwellings that would be proposed for
development would likely generate a minimal amount of students to be served by the Dubiin Unified
School District, there could be an incremental increase in the number of school-aged chiidren. As
part of subdivision and site development review of futLire residentiai projects, coordination will occur
with school district officials to ensure that less-than-significant impacts would result,
d) Maintenance of public facHities, including roads? LS. Approval of the Specific Plans and construction
of individual deveiopment projects pursuant to the Plans would incrementally increase the need for
maintenance of public facilities. Payment of pubilc faciiity fees to the City of Dublin by individual
projects wouid ensure that future maintenance impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant
levels.
e) Other governmental services? LS Approval of the Specific PI:;Jns would represent incremental
increases in the demand for general governmental services. Payment of the City's Public Facility Fee
by individual project deveiopers wouid offset any impacts caused by such projects, reducing any
impacts to aless-than-significant impact.
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
XII. Utilities and Service Systems.
Environmental Settino
The project site is served by the following service proYiders:
. Electrical and natural gas power- Pacific Gas and Electric Co
. Communications: Pacific Beli and AT&T Cable.
. Water supply and sewage treatment: Dublin San Ramon Services District.
. Storm drainage: City of Dublin and Zone 7
Solid waste disposal: Dublin-Livermore Disposal Company
Environmental Imoacts
a) Power Dr natural gas? NI. According to representatives from Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
adequate facilities exist in the vicinity of the project to provide power and natural gas service.
b) Communication systems? NI. Pacific Bell and AT&T Cable, communication facilities presently exist in
the near each of the three Specific Plan sites.
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution systems? NI. Water services are provided to the
area by the DUblin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). According to representatives of the
District, adequate long-term water resources exist to serve future deveiopment envisioned in each of
the Specific Plans. However, an upgrade to a 12"loop waterline from Regional Street to Amador
Plaza Road may be required with new development, but the District will need to evaiuate the system
when specific projects are submitted.
d) Sewer or septic systems? LS Sewer services are provided by DSRSD Untreated effluent would
be transported to DSRSD's Regional Treatment Plant in Pleasanton for treatment prior to being
discharged into the East Bay Discharge Authority's outfall line for eventual disposal into San
Francisco Bay DSRSD officials indicate that adequate capacity exists within the regional treatment
facility to accommodate the proposed Specific Plans. However, the District may need to replace the
8' sewer main line with a 12" line in Dublin Boulevard if development occurs at the intensity proposed
with the Specific Plan. This will also requite further evaiuation when specific projects are submitted.
Less-then-significant impacts would therefore result regarding sewer treatment facilities.
e) Storm water drainage? LS This topic was preYiously addressed in Section IV, Water
f) Solid waste disposer? LS The City of Dublin contracts with Livermore-Dublin Disposal Company to
collect solid waste from househOlds and businesses and transport it to the Altamont Landfill, iocated
in eastern Alameda County The Landfili currently has an anticipated capacity until the year 2005
and pians are underway to extend landfill capacity for an additional 50 years,
Livermore-Dublin Disposal Company also operates a curbside recycling service to ensure that the
City's waste stream complies with state requirements for reduction of solid waste_ The most current
information ayailable indicates that Dublin exceeds state requirements for reducing solid waste.
Dublin Planmng uepartment.
Downtown Specific Plans
Page::!::!
Although approval of the proposed Specific Plans will incrementally increase the amount of solid
waste, any such increases will be insignificant because the existing facility would be able to be
accommodated given the existing solid waste facilities and resources. As stated in VIII-b above, the
City is mandated by AS 939 to reduce the solid waste stream generated by residences, businesses
and industrial establishment by promoting recycling and similar programs.
g) Loca} or regional water supplies? NI DSRSD staff indicate that adequate long-term water supplies
are available from Zone 7 and other sources to serve the proposed project.
XIII, Aesthetics.
Environmental Settinq
The Specific Plan areas are located within existing urbanized areas and are not located adjacent to,
scenic highways.
Environmental Impacts
a) Affect a scenic vista or view? NI. The proposed Specific Plan includes development programs to
intensify existing land use patterns. Each Specific Plan contains height and bulk requirements to
ensure that scenic vistas from surrounding areas would not be blocked. The Specific Plans establish
a heiaht limit of six stories for the Downtown Core and Villaoe Parkway areas, The Plannina
Commission has recommended a heioht limit of ten stories for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan
area to the City Council. which is common with development in most urban downtowns and
develooment near freewavs. The City Council mav determine that ten stories is appropriate for this
area due to its location near the BART Station. a maior transit facility, and the 1-580 and 1-680
freeways. Review of individual oroiects in accordance with the desiqn ouidelines related to
reduction in bulk and qualitv of desion as detailed in the Specific Plan will result in iess-than-
sionificant impacts on yiews.
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? NI. Each Specific Plan contains design guidelines to
ensure that new development projects occurring pursuant to an approved Specific Plan would result
in an aesthetically pieasing manner and wouid include additional iandscaping, As part of the Specific
Plan programs, new public plazas, streetscape elements and other improvements would be
completed to improve aesthetic conditions. Therefore, no negative aesthetic impacts would be
created.
c) Create light or glare? LS Proposed new uses constructed pursuant to the Specific Plans could
incrementally increase light leyels in each of the Plan areas. New sources of light would include
street lighting, plaza lighting and building security ilghting with new develppment projects and,
possible, extended hours of business. However, a significant amount of exterior lighting has aiready
been installed within each of the Spectfic Plan areas. Standard conditions of approval for individual
development projects will require that pole-mounted lights shall be equipped with cut-off luminaires.
Wall-mounted lights must also be equipped with cut-off ienses. Any additional light or glare created
would be therefore be minimalless-than-significant.
XIV. Cultural Resources
Environmental Settinq
The project site has been developed for a range of commercial and similar non-residential areas. No
cultural resources remain on the graded surface of the site. Since surface improvements are less than
fifty years old or newer, no historic resources exist on the site.
lJublln Planning LJepartment Page 34
Downtown Specific Plans
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project Impacts
a-d) Disturb paleontological, archeological, religious or cultural resources? LS. No cultural resources
remain on the graded surface of the site. Any cultural resources buried beneath lhe ground surface
would be re-buried by indiyidual deyelopment projects proposed to implement a Specific Plan. The
possibility exists that cultural resources inciuding paleontological, cultural, historic or archaeological
could be buried on the site and discoyered during excavation. Each indiyidual project proposed
pursuant to a Specific Plan will be conditioned to protect buried archeologicai and paleontological
resources. With adherence to this condition, iess-than-significant impacts would result to cultural
resources,
XV. Recreation.
Enyironmental Settino
Each of the Specific Pian areas have been developed with commercial, office, entertainment, lodging
and similar uses. No parks or recreationai facilities exist on any of the Specific Plan sites.
Proiect Impacts
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? LS.
Construction of new residential dwellings pursuant to the West Dublin BART and Downtown Core
Specific Plans would incrementally increase the demand for local and regional parks and recreational
facilities. However, it is anticipated that the majority of new dwellings would either be oriented to
senior citizens or non-family householdS, typical of higher density, multi-family housing. Therefore,
expected park and recreational demand would be less-than-significant. Future builders of residential
dwellings would be also be required to pay a Public Facility fee to the City of Dublin, which includes a
contribution toward construction of new parks in the city Additionally, the plans call for some plaza
areas to be created in the three specific plan areas which could provide opportunities for outdoor
recreational activities.
b} Affect existing recreational opportunities? NI. No recreational opportunities exist on the site that would
be affected by the project.
XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitet of a fish or wildlife species, ceuse a fish or wildlife population to drop below self~
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory? NI The preceding analysis indicates that adoption and
implementation of the Village Parkway Specific Plan, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the
Downtown Core Specific Plan would not have a significant adyerse impact on overall environmental
quality, including bioiogical resources or cultural resources.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? NI The project represents an example of in-fill development near a proposed
major transit station which will be sited in an area surrounded by major regional transportation
corridors, No. iong-term environmental impacts will occur
Dublin Planning Uepartment
Downtown Specific Plans
Page ;;"
c) Does the project have impacts that are individuaily limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects). LS Although incremental increases in certain areas can be
expected as a result of constructing this project, including addrtional traffic, short-term air emissions
and need for public services and utilities, the project site lies within an already urbanized area and
sufficient capacity exists within service systems to support the anticipated amount of development
planned as part of the three Specific Plans.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly? NL Due to project design and site characteristics, approval and
impiementation of the three Specific Plans involve no impacts that would adversely effect human
beings, either directly or indirectly.
Initial Study Preparer
Janet Harbin, Senior Planner
Jerry Haag, Consulting Planner
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study'
City of Dublin
Eddie Peabody Jr., AICP, Community Development Director
Lee Thompson, Pubiic Works Director
Kevin van Katwyk, Senior Engineer
T Philipps, Alameda County Sheriffs Department
James Ferdinand, Alameda County Fire Department
Dublin-San Ramon SaNicas District
Bruce Webb, Senior Engineering Planner
References
Dublin General Plan, ReVised September 1992
DUblin General Plan Housinu Element. June, 1990
Dublin Zoninq Ordinance, Adopted September 1997
Draft Downtown Core Specific Plan. City of Dublin. September /\uguot, 2000
Draft Villaoe Parkwav Soecific Plan. Citv of Dublin. September A<lguot, 2000
Draft West Dublin BART Specific Plan. City of Dublin, September A<lgllot, 2000
Consultant's Report on the Transportation Impacts .for the Proposed Village Parkway, Downtown
Core and West BART Station Specific Plans, prepared by Omni-Means, L TO., August 28, 2000;
secondary revisions to the Omni-Means traffic analysis (September 22. 2000; memo from
Georoe Nickelson of Omni-Means dated November 13. 2000; and. December 8; 2000 ietters
from Peter Galloway of Omnl-Means.
Uublln Plannln9 Uepartment
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c
o
:;::
ro
"0
c
ill
E
E
o
C,)
0)
D:::
0)
C,)
.....
I ~
IJ)
ro
I~
c
0),
E'
c
OJ
<(
>.
ro
,3;
..l<:
.....
ro
CL
.0)
OJ
ro
I
I
I
I :>
I
I
I
I
I
/
,/
i'
,)
"
\'
.J
--
\
~~
I li~
. ~i8
o 1~8
ij .~
I "I
:~ '
---j .
, .
i i
---; I
\ \
i
r---;
! \
u
t--::;;'dU"-
. Ql::
1 "-0
1-
c
o
..
'C
'" c
.... '"
f- E
- E
~ 0
J: "
X "
ill D::
"
U
h
o
lL
""
"
~
Village Parkway Alignment: Staff Recommendation (Existing
Alignment)
.... "...::?~/ ~~t::.~. "'\ "-
r--l / I ._]~.~-'--"-"-l (-_..~ /iiI.....' ,\__-:>/
'-.J ! I~ !~i [.__', ~~jff~ ~ "" \ /
/\ i Q I ! i<C: - n,v</ /
~:''t<:.j ;; ! .^, ,~ "~~, II II ~ i ~: ,fl ii~ i~'-, 11 i I 0 t>~~> I ~{ic~{~
- L";;' n Ll,-J l_-, I~I ~~'-~"'7c-:c': ~c-:~~=' i' C_~
- """- -' - , ;;;.,............._._____...._.......m .........-........----.--..,...-........-.....,...-----.=. Vlll,
1)1"\ t/~;~~~i=~'~=~=" .:'ic; m ='=:;- .=-,_z /-IT
~ '" I ! ~ I rJ WI! r--: r-"I ...~.-..~rl r'~l" ~=:-:::\ / (j
~ "7 ;' Q: /' /: ;;jdJ-S (---.-- \ i ' VILLA9E i ARj ~l-t ri L r I ~ f ! _..i ~ LJ_~ ~i 3 / {7~iX~-'
"" / 0'1 u;.. ,~-..- ...-.-..--..-----.~ 1 I i!i '1' Ii ,.1 !.I Ii I' ii i !!1: U0~
,a!,~, iii' 0 fa/
! ;,/ c---- j i _--1 wi lJ 11 I /
~-,/ ~ /1 ' Ii r---l j~!--l u I~ II /; ~~! /
Ii: 1 t ] L _ L ....J ~.._-_._, ____ ~.=~_____'..'__.__.._..___..l.__....L..._
-j"--:~__~__.....L_~=-~:=:=___~___=__::..::~_-:-'=___==.___-.!.____~___~______--------~---------------~- I:m' IIlJ' 00'IQ.bI
........,,"""''''''
"iJUJlU l'un...y .s:ncJ1C' J'UJl!
~n~ .ER:I.Il..I::o;L"-4D'
EXHIBIT 7A
Staff Rl:!~ommem!a~ig!1
-------------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Item E:
List of Resolutions and Ordinances adopting Specific Plan Amendments
and [iezonin_?-s fl!!J!I,lfYJ!!!lKeJ!ar!''!'.l!}' Specific Plan
8/8/2003 CDD dctcrmination relating to City Council Ordinance 11-02
2. 4/22/2003 Minor Teclmical Amendment to the Specific Plan authonzed by the
Community Dcvclopmcnt Director
3_ 6/18/2002. Planned Development Rewning, City Council Ordinance 11-02
4 12/19/2000' Adopting the Negative Declaration for the Downtown Spccific
Plans, City Council Resolution 226-0ll
5 12/19/2000' Adopting thc Villagc Parkway Specific Plan, City Council
Resolution 231-00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY UF DUBLIN
1 no '-=':ivic. Pla,,-3.. [Jul)lin, California 94568
Website: ~lttp;/.www.ci.dublin.ca.us
TO: File PA 02-12 (Village Parkway Specific Plan Rezoning)
FROM: Eddie Peabody, Jr., Community Development DirectorCf
DATE: August 8, 2003
SUBJECT: Community Development Director detcrmination on the definition of
"development" 10 the Planned Development (Village Parkway Specific Plan)
zoning district.
Background:
Ongmally adopted on Deccmber 19,2000, thc purposc of the Village Parkway Specific Plan IS
to assure the appropriate development and redevelopment of properties located along Village
Parkway At thc time of adoption of the Village Parkway Specific Plan, the mtent was to allow
more flexibility in the area and to encourage a mix of retail commercial, employment, services,
and housmg.
On June 18, 2002, the City Council approved rezoning the Village Parkway Specific Plan area to
Planned Development (Village Parkway Specific Plan), an implementing action as required hy
Section 8.2 of the SpecIfic Plan. The intent of the rezoning was to bring the zoning designation
for the area mto conformance with the land use designations contained in the Village Parkway
Specific Plan. The Planned Development rezoning was adopted as a Stage T Planned
Development with the requirement that "No development shaH occur on this property until Stage
II Planned Development and SIte Development Review (SDR) have been approved for the
property" (Section 3 of Ordinance 11-02).
However, Section 8.4 of the Specific Plan states that "Minor additions and remodeling may be
approved on an adl11mlStralIve basis so long as proposed plans are consistent with all of the
provisions of this speei lie plan." These two requirements could be read as contradictory to each
other, and therefore the Community Development Director has made a determination that
elarifies the mtent of the ordinance and Specific Plan.
DetemIination:
The intcnt of Section 3 of Ordinance 11-02 was to ensure that at the time of site (re)development,
the project proposal would contain the more detailed development standards as requITed by the
Stage II PI armed Development zoning district. However, thIS requIrement has had the
madvertent consequcnee of requinng SDRJPD Stage II approval for anv devclopment in the
Village Parkway SpeCIfic Plan area, including minor ministerial and administrative approvals,
which was not intended to be the case.
A((Ji..1 (;\)(Ie (9;>,1:)) .' Lit,\>, Manager F\:..i8..6F;50 . City C.lllJnciI83:J.66bo . Pe-m,onneI8:33..66(Jb . Et;{Jt)umit; D~~\/HI1Jprr\e'll B:~:~..m';!'in
Finanl;o B3~3..fj64D Public Wnr'k.~:;JE~,f1(Jirl~ering 8,':\3-fi630 Parks & Community Services 831-6A4:::' [Jnlicl 8:3:.J.6f.ilfl
PI;;mninglt,vrl8 f~ntc:.CGITI8nt f.\::J:::!, 6'-; I (..\ . Dl.liI(j~nq In~,;p~",(~tion H3':-Hil)::-!O I:-'ir~ PravaJ1tior\ r~!Jf'!:'i:1I' r-):-l:~..flfl:JE
,nnllfC.J un nC:)(;ydur:.! Papi~{
_._--~-~~~''''''''''''''''--'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Community Development Director has determined that Section 3 of Ordinance 11-02 shall
exempt such development as interior tenant improvements, exterior modifications that do not
result in an increase in square footage, and sign changes from the requirement to completc the
Stage II Planned Development approval proecss. Additionally, exterior modifications which
result in a minor mcrease m square footage may also be exempt from Stage II Planned
Development approval process at the discretion of the Community Development Director
Such development, although exempt from the Stage II Planned Development process, shall still
be subject to the City's Site Development Review (SDR) requirements per Section 8.104 of the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance and shall be in conformance with the Village Parkway SpecIfic Plan.
G:IJ'A#\2002\02-<l12 Village Pkwy SP Rez\CDU interpretation 011 Minor SOR, 1]._doc
Page::: 2 of2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF DUBLIN
100 (-,ivic Plaza, Dublin, \.-Jalitllrnin \J4SflH
Website: http://WWw.ci.clublin.ca.L1s
TO: File PA 02-012 Village Parkway Specific Plan Rezoning
FROM: Eddie Peabody, Jr., Commumty Development Director
DATE: April 22, 2003
SUBJECT: Planned Development Zonmg District amendment (P A 02-012) - Minor technical
change/clarification to the Planned Devclopment (Villagc Parkway) Zomng
District regarding signage, permitted, conditionally permitted, and temporary
uses, (Sections 4.2 and 8.9 of the Village Park",ay Speclfic Plan)
DescriptioU.
The Community Development Dircctor herehy authori1.es amending the Village Parkway
Specific Plan Planned Development Zoning D,strict (PA 02-012) to clanfy the sign regulations
as well as thc types of uses permitted, eondlhonally pemlltted, and temporary uses allowed in the
Specific Plan area, hased On the linding that this amendment "substantially complies with and
docs not materially change the proVISIOnS or intent of the Planned Development Zoning District
Ordinance for the site"
Baeh,:round:
Ongmally adopted on December 19, 2000, the purpose of the Village Parkway Specific Plan is
to assure the appropriate development and redevelopment of properties located along Village
Parkway from Dublin Blvd. to Amador Valley Blvd.. The Specific Plan governs the uSe of land,
development standards, design of public improvements, and the design and appearance of private
improvements including huildings, parking areas, slgnage, and landscaping. Though very useful
as a blueprint for the long-range development of the area, the text ofthe Specific Plan docs not
address what uses are penmtted to occupy the existing buildings both by right and through
appmval of a comhlIonal use permit as new tenants move in to occupy existing spaces.
On June IS, 2002 the City Council approved an ordmance amending the Zomng Map to rezone
parcels in the Village Parkway SpeCIfic Plan Area from eXIsting zoning district C-I
(Neighborhood Commercial) and C-2 (General Commercial) to Planned Development (Villagc
Parkway Specific Plan) Zoning DIstrict. This rezoning was one of the implementing aehons per
Section 8.2 of the Speclfic Plan.
Rezoning thc parcels from the traditional zoning classifications, which clearly list permitted and
conditionally permitted uses in the City's Zoning Ordinance, to the Planned
Devclopment/Downtown Core SpeCIfic Plan Zoning District, where the Specific Plan constitutes
the text of the l.(mmg dlstnet, unintentionally made it difficult to determine the signage allowed
Area Code (925\ City Man8.gar H:~.1-fi650 . (.ity COLlnci1833-6650 . Personnel 833-6605 Economic Development H~-J~-J-665{)
Hn(:lnce 833-6640 . Public Wo(ks/EnHinAAring H3::1-fi030 . Park,s & Community Services 833-6645 Police 833-6670
PIr.mnirlU/Codt'! enforcement 833-6610 Buildinq Inspection 933-6620 ~ Fire Preven!i(Jrl Burei:l.lI 833-660fl
Printed on Reeve/ad Pa.p8f
Page 2 on
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
for a business or 10 deterrnme lf a use is allowed to or prohibited from locating III an existing
building in the Specific Plan area.
Proposed A~tion:
The Community Development Director has detemlined that while thc new /,onmg for the
properties IS Planned Development (Village Parkway Speeitic Plan), it is appmpnate to refcr to
Ihe fonner ('~ 1 and ('-2 zoning districts to determine the uses that have heen and continue to he
pemlitted to occupy existing buildings in the area both hy right and through a conditional
approval and the slgnage allowed for such uses.
Therefore, the Planned Development (Village Parkway) Zonlllg District Ordinancc (PA 02-012)
is amended to clarify two sections of Ihe Specific Plan: Section 4.2 "Permitted and Conditional
Uses" and Section 8.9 "Sign Permits" Additionally a new map will be 1llserted into the Specific
Plan that willmdicate which properties were formerly zoned C-l amI C-2.
The following text shall be added to Section 4.2 ofthe ViIIage Parkway Specific Plan:
4.2.4 Busmesses Occupying Existing Buildings
Permllled and conditionally permitled uSes of eXlstlllg huildings shall reference former
Lonmg district (('-lor C-2) and. shall confonn to Section 8.12 of thc DublIn Zoning
Ordinance "Loning Districts and Permitted Uses." Refer to Exhibit 6 10 determine
former zoning dislnct (C-l or C -2) for the subject property
New construction and development in the Village Park"a} Specific Plan area shall
conform with the adopted land use categories in Section 4.2.1, 4.2.2, and 4.2.3 of the
Specific Plan and shall 11Q! refer to the foroler zomng ("stncts ((,~I, and ('-2).
The following edits shall be made to Section 8.9 oethe Village Parkway Specific Plan:
Section 8.9 of the Village Parkway Specific Plan currently reads:
8.9 Sign Pemlits
Permits to construct, modify, or change the copy of signs by more than 25% WIthin
tbe Specific Plan area shall be subject to issuance of a sign pen11lt by the Dublin
Pllllming Deparlment and written peffilission from Ihe property owner on which the
sign is proposed to he located.
Section 8.9 will be amended to read;
8.9 Sign Pemlits
Permits to construct, modify, or change the copy of signs hy more than 25% within
the Specific Plan area shall be sllbjcct to issuance of a SIgn permit by the Dubllll
Planning Department and written permission from thc property owner on which the
SIgn IS proposcd to he located.
Applicable sign regulations for eXlstmg build1llgs shall reference fOffiwr zonmg
district (C-l or ('-2) and shall confoml to Section 8.84 of the Dubhn Zoning
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ordinancc "Sign Regulations." Rcfcr to Exhibit 6 to dctcrminc formcr zoning district
(C-l or C-2) for the suhJect property
Approval.
Thc Community Development Dimctor hcrcby approvcs thcsc two minor amcndmcnts to the
Planned Development (Village Parkway) Zomng Dlstnct and finds that these anlendments are a
minor technical change/clarification and consistent with the intent of adopted ordinancc for the
district. The authority lilf this action is Scction 8.32.080 of the Zoning Ordinancc, "Planned
Dcvelopment Zoning Dlstnet Amendments."
G:\PAff\2002\OZ-Q12 ViIlllge Pk\yy sr Rez\Minor PD .uncndmcnt re cUP ,Tur ,signs.uuc
Page 3 on
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
1---
-'# 57
ORDINANCE NO. 11 . 02
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE PARCELS IN THE
VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
I<"ROM EXISTING ZONING DISTRICTS C-N, C-l, and Ce2 TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
(VILLAGE PARKWAY SPEClFlC PLAN) WNING DISTRICT PA 02-012
WHEREAS, the City of Dub tin is desirous of improving the appearance, functionality, economic
vitality of the downtown portion of Dublin in a manner consistent with the broad vision expressed in the
Dublin General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City prepared the Village Parkway Specific 'Plan pursuant to Government Code
Sec. 65450 et seq_, and,
WHEREAS, the Village Parkway Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council On December 19,
2000 and includes permitted land uses, development standards, urban design guidelines, transportation
improvements and implementation programs to achieve the goals of the Dublin General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is initiating the rezoning of parcels in the Village Parkway Specific
Plan area from existing zoning districts C-N, C-I, and C-2 to Planned Development (Village Parkway
Specific Plan) Zoning District in order to bring the zoning of the parcels into conformance with the land
use designations contained in the Village Parkway Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the parcels in the Specific Plan area already zoned ptanned Development (parcel
numbers 941-210-13, 941~175-21-2, 941-175-21-6, and 941-175-21-8) are consistent with the Specific
Plan land use designations and do not require rezoning to be made consistent; and
WHEREAS, the Plarming Commission did hold a public hearing on the Planned Development
(Village Parkway Specific Plan) rezone On May 14, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval ofthe ptanned Development
(Village Parkway Specific Plan) rezone for P A 02-012; and
WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearings were held by the City Council on June 4, 2002 and
June 18, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the City Environmental Guidelines. An Initial Study
was prepared for the Village Parkway Specific Plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15071, and is
on file in the Dublin Planning Department. Based on the Initial Study, a Negative Declaration was
prepared for the Specific Plan with the finding that the implementation of the Plan would have no adverse
environmental impacts as mitigation was included in the project description. The Negative Declaration was
adopted by the City COWlcil on December 19, 2000. This application is an implementation measure of the
Village Parkway Specific Plan and therefore no additional environmental review is required; and,
_~'J!
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council amend the Zoning
Map to rezone parcels in the Village Parkway Specific Plan area from existing zoning districts C-N, C-l,
and C-2 to a Planned Development (Village Parkway Specific plan) zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the City Council heard and considered all said reports, recommendations, written and
oral testimony submitted at the public hearing as hereinabove set forth,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8,32.070 and 8 120050 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City
Council makes the following findings and detenninations regarding said proposed Planned Development
(Village Parkway Specific Plan) rezoning for P A 02-012.
The proposed Planned Development (Village Parkway Specific Plan) Zoning District meets the
purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance because it will provide uses that are
appropriate for the site as was determined during the Specific .Plan adoption process; and
2. Development under the Planned Development (Village Parkway Specific Plan) Zoning District will
be luumonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding areas; and
3 The Planned Development rezone is consistent with the general provisions, intcnt, and purpose of
the Planned Development Zoning District of the Zoning Ordinance in that it contains all information
required by Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance and accomplishes the objectives of Chapter 8,32,
A through H, of the Zoning Ordinance; and
4. The subject site is physically suitable tor the type and intensity of the zoning district being proposed
because it is an improved site with adjacent roadways which are designed to eany traffic that would
be generated by the proposed types of uses; and
5 The proposed rezoning will not adversely affect the health or safety of pcrsons residing or working
in the vicinity, or be detrimentat to the public health, safcty and welfare because the project has
been built according to City laws and regulations and because the Planned Development (Village
Parkway Specific Plan) Zoning District will limit land uses to those which are appropriate for this
site; and
6 The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Retail/Office designation of the Dublin General Plan
the proposed use types are pennitted by said designation.
7 The proposed rezoning is within the scope of the Negative Declaration adopted for the Village
Parkway Specific Plan and does not require additional environmental review under CEQA.
8 Assessor Parcel numbers 941-210-13, 941-175-21-2, 941-175-21~6, and 941-175-21-8 are already
zoned Planned Development and are not included in this proposed rezoning_
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said
reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth.
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NOW, THEREFORE, the Dublin City Council does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1:
Pursuant to Chapter 832, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code the City of Dublin Zoning
Map is amended to rezone the following property (''the Property") to a Planned Development (Village
Parkway Specific Plan) zoning district:
Approximatety 3 I acres ofIand located north of Dublin Boulevard and on both sides of Village
Parkway (APNs: 941-175-21-5 and 21-7; 941-197-79-4, 79-5, 79-6, 79-7,79-8,79-10,79-11,
79-12,79-13, and 79-14,941-210-1-4, 1-5, 1_7,2_2,5_3,54,5_5,6,7_1,7_2,8,9, 10-1, 10-
2, 11, 12, 14,15,16,18,19,29,30,31,32,33, and 34-2).
A map of the rezoning area is shown below'
tt
SECTION 2.
The regulations of the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property are set
forth in the Village Parkway Specific Plan and this ordinance. Any amendments to the Village Parkway
Specific PIIU1 shall be in accordance with the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors. If the Village
Parkway Specific Plan is amended or changed, the Planned Development zoning would remain consistent
in that it refers back to the Specific Plan for the development standards and allowed uses_
3
SECTION 3.
No development shall occur on this property until Stage II Planned Development and Site
Development Review have been approved for the property_ Except as provided in the Vi11age Parkway
Specific Plan, the use, development, improvement and maintenance of the Property shall be governed by
the provisions ofthe Dublin Zoning Ordinance. (see to II ClvVlll'1] 01 ~ te.rmlV\~ CIA I
G\ tv\- "',\ e> I '3 1"'3
SECTION 4.
The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3)
public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State
of California.
SECTION 5.
This ordinanee shalt take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days from and after its passage.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 18th day ofJune 2002, by
the following votes:
AYES:
Councilmembers McConnick, Oravetz, Sbl"anti and Zika and Mayol" Lockhart
NOES;
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAJN; None
UO/1fN ~P~0lxf
7' Mayor
ATIEST~~d-
K'/G/6-1S.02lord-vpsp.doc (Item 6.3)
(H~.NM:002\02'()lZWPSP cc Ord.doc
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RESOLUTION NO. 226 - 00
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
~ ~ n * ~ ~ k ~ ~
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARA nON
FOR THE WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFlC PLAN, DOWNTOWN CORE SPECIFlC PLAN,
AND THE VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN PA 99-054, PA 99-055, AND PA 99-056
WHEREAS, the City has prepared and approved for adoption the West Dublin BART Specific Plan,
the Downtown Core Specific Plan, and the Village Parkway Specific Plan, which have been prepared
pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65450; and,
WHEREAS, the Specific Plans include pennitted land uses, development standards, urban design
guidelines, transportation improvements and implementation programs to achieve the goals of the Dublin
General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to evaluate the impacts of the Specific Plans, the
repeal of portions of the 1987 Downtown Specific Plan, and the General Plan Amendments for consistency
with the General Plan. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared a draft Negative Declaration for the
proj ect with the finding that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment, because all
mitigation is incorporated in the context of the Specific Plans; and,
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan documents and a complete record of the project is available and on
file in the Planning Department; and,
WHEREAS, a 24.day public review period was held for the Negative Declaration, from
September 2, 2000 to September 26, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, letters of connnent on the Negative Declaration were received during the public
review period and fully responded to in writing and in the record; and,
WHEREAS, the Negative Declaration was revised on December 14, 2000 to reflect and address
the minor modifications in the Specific Plans as reconnnended by the Planning Commission and City
Council; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on the project on
September 26, 2000 and October 10, 2000, at which time they reviewed and considered the Negative
Declaration and all reports, reconnnendations and testimony before them, and reconnnended approval to
the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a properly noticed public hearing on the project on
November 21, 2000 and December 19, 2000 and at which time they reviewed and considered the Negative
Declaration and all reports, reconnnendations and testimony before them; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the above recitals are incorporated in this
resolution.
BE IT I<'URTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby find that:
A. The Specific Plans and associated actions would not have a significant effect on the enviromnent,
because mitigation is incorporated into the Plans as part of Plan implementation.
B The Negative Declaration has heen prepared in accordance with State and local enviromnental
laws and guidelines.
C. The Negative Declaration is complete and adequate and reflects the City's independent judgment
and analysis as to the enviromnental effects of the proposed Specific Plans, General Plan Amendments and
repeal of portions of the 1987 Downtown Specific Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby adopt the Negative
Declaration for P A 99-054, Village Parkway Specifie Plan; P A 99-055, Downtown Core Specific Plan;
and, PA 99-U56, West Dublin BART Specific Plan, including the Initial Study incorporated herein by
reference,
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 19th day of December, 2000
AYES:
Councilmembers Lockhart, McCormick, Oravetz, Zika. and Mayor Houston
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN: None
~~
ATTEST
K'/0/12-19.{10Ireso-SP-negdec.doc (Item 6.4)
GlDawntawn Spoofic PlansICCNORES._
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RESOLUTION NO. 231 - 00
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING THE VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF
AND REPEALING PORTIONS OF TilE 1987 DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
PA 99-054, CITY OF DUBLIN
WHEREAS, the City ofOublin is desirous of improving the appearance, functionality, economic
vitality of the downtown portion of Dublin in a manner consistent with the broad vision cxprcssed in the
Dublin General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Village Parkway Specific Plan (Exhibit A) which has been
prepared pursuant to Goverrunent Code Sec. 65450 et.seq., and,
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan includes permitted land uses, development standards, urban design
guidelines. transportation improvements and implementation programs to achieve the goals of the Dublin
General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin adopted a Downtown Specific Plan in 1987 for areas within the
boundaries of the proposed Specific Ptan. However, due to changing market and other conditions, this
Specific Plan is no longer relevant to this area or Development Zones (10 and 11) nOW included within
the boundaries of the Village Parkway Specific Plan and should be repealed; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and draft Ncgative Declaration have been prepared for this application
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15071, and are on file in the Dublin ptanning Department. Based
on the Initial Study, a draft Negative Declaration was prepared for the Specific Plan with the finding that
the implementation of the Plans would have no adverse environmental effects as mitigation measures are
incorporated into the project. The draft Ncgative Declaration is recommended for City Council adoption;
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the Village Parkway Specific
Plan on September 26, 2000, October 10,2000 and October 24, 2000, and recommended approval to the
City Council on October 24, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department did hold a public meeting on the Village
Parkway Specific Plan with property owners on November 9, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on the Village Parkway Specific Plan on
November 2], 2000 and December 19, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said
reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth.
ABSTAIN: None
)4A_~ .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby find
that the proposed Village Parkway Specific Plan is consistent with the land use designations, goals,
policies and implementing programs set forth in the Dublin Genernl Plan, as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dubtin City Council adopts
the Village Parkway Specific Plan as recommended by Staff, with the existing Village Parkway right-of-
way (as shown in Exhibit 7A in the Specific Plan) in attached Exhibit B as the established alignment for
Village Parkway, subject to modification in Exhibit C, andrepeal of the 1987 Downtown Specific Plan as
it relates to those lands within the boundaries of the proposed Specific Plan.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 19th day of December 2000
A YES: Councilmembers Lockhart, McConnick, Oravetz, Zika and Mayor Houston
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
K)/G/12-19-00Ireso-vp-sp.doc Otem 6.4)
g\DOwnUl'I\ITI. SpecficPhm.\cc-resVPSPspS2.doc
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0>
l::
~
'x
UJ
---
l::
o
"P" ,
rn
TI
l::
a.>
E
E
o
u
a.>
0::
:to:
rn
......
(f)
+-=
r::
a.>
E
r::
.2>
<(
>>
rn
~
'- ~
rn......
ll.iji
a.> E
Ole
1!!0>
5:;{
~
~"'LJ I.J t---.
. 1.'--.), : ---! LI
" '-, <( I-
" " ",-~ , "> \ -- ~SItM
... '-, n '-" j \ 11;)
/ --', veJ, '-'__/ /~_....
' "Vf:,-1 \, ..... _.J
-' /''', ", . :)7';l '.
/ , > '"......... O<s> ,..~..~
./ /' > NI7;~~'~"
, /i'"
'-/0
$'
C::J~
t::
CO
:r
X
flU
II
I~i
! 1:1
'-.-i I
I
\ [Ii, ~\!I --J,
ii 'i ~/ -1 I
h Ii NI i \ JJ I
~ i i . i j '--'S,O'lIINOUOYi \
~m '-~--""-J :~! i i i Cl i '
~3 l_,...,_~.. , if Iitl ---'J l'
li'ij _..
o ' i :: C __.,._.__
=] ! : I i.~ ;=;-_ ..__._>\
J I.;!.; ,
I It,. I
L 1:[ I i~l j __~__I
i:! "[c:-~::,",,: =~c~[_"_I:1
.... ,., _.J -- 1
! . iF' L..__r'-- l 1\
.~ I::! > __ i
(" ~~ i:! \ j:: ["..-;;:;;;;a,--J i I
l__ " I ! ,.1...._ I
[~~ ~: I i I;; [i-'''-'-' ,....._ I
\ '-c~ r 11 !:i ~--_.--- J i
I _-' .I!' I' i L~~,_....~___ i
i ~_'_'__'__" ~ ,
::=-,^'iLS~" J1l il! rt-1 I_~"_III
i .-""- b II I:! > l!
!I 'p':' :;! l '1 --"....! i I
' ": 1.1 HS'iM i
! i ': ..._1 a'io I :
:i [-."'-] !::\I.I.'..'.....\ [-II I
! .. I . -:"1 i :11"1:1: i l : JI
,[ ~I L J ! ;! Ii: " j ~_.__ I
-[\1 u. i! ~~[J .\ii' I':~ -r'~J! [-----11\ I
, . ,'1 !:~ I l - i
)/ i ill ilU ",'..- - i
=- /;'; 'Ii ,H. il ~ \J !'--j!
\..,..-(:t-~ i {Ii~\ ! i '\ \i:, ! j
"'-.. >\1' I!.'; ii: \ >). Ii
._-.._-.~"-~..__. hiM, tll! \. \. '0 \ I!
01\ 78 "-3771( ,.~--~"-___.__..___::::~~
-.."~"-~..-.._--~" 1\ tJO Qliyv I( . f
o A~~) (.._._--~.._---..~___[".:~
'\ Y" J i "N~~~A ("j f7 ---.1:
'. I , 1--' I I
I ! .---.Jf __,
j
j"
:i)
-'
1-]
L..
>,'.
.j
C,
O'i
~;
01
"1:1'
cl
CU,
E'
E
o.
.."
cu'
0:=
It:
,fI
0!
~~,~,q
&-r:. ft-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXIDBIT C
To Attachment 9
VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN MODIFICATIONS
. Change 1: Add to Section 1.5, Project Goals and Objedives, page 6, new Goal 10 As
tbllows: Enhance the Vi~1ltll quality uf the planning area by encouraging appropriate
projects with majar pllblic accesS either visually from roadways, large uutdoor areas,
or pedestrian traffic to incorpurate puhltc art intu the desiKfl, and in accordance wirh
the City's Publtc Art Pulicv
K'IGJ12-19-01lIvp-<;p-cxC .doc
G:/DownloWnSpccilCPlans/cv-reso VPSPexfl ,doc