HomeMy WebLinkAboutDowntown Improvement Plan Concepts AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING DATE: July 22, 1986
SUBJECT: Downtown Improvement Plan Concepts
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1) Strategy Summary Checkist
2) Memorandum from Larry Cannon,
Planning Consultant, dated
June 9, 1986
RECOMMENDATION: Provide firm direction on each land
use concept.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: To be determined.
DESCRIPTION:
The purpose of the Special Joint Meeting of the City Council and
Planning Commission is to provide firm direction regarding each land use
concept for the Downtown Improvement Plan.
Staff recommends that for each land use concept, the City Council/
Planning Commission should:
1) Hear presentation by Larry Cannon.
2) Open public hearing for public comments.
3) Close public hearing.
4) Discuss the concept (City Council and Planning Commission only).
5) Take action to agree, disagree or modify the concept.
The attached strategy summary checklist, entitled Confirmation of
Downtown Improvement Plan, is intended to help the City Council take action on
each land use concept.
The attached memorandum from Larry Cannon summarizes most of the
concepts for the Downtown Improvement Plan.
PAGE.,
CONFIRMATION OF DOWNTOWN, IMPROVEMENT PLAN
STRATEGY SUMMARY DIAGRAM TO BE USED FOR REFRENCE•
ITEM SYMBOL AGREE DISAGREE COMMENTS
1 CREATE A VISUAL IDENTITY FOR
DOWNTOWN AND TIE DOWNTOWN
TOGETHER
a ENTRIES ENTRY
b VISUAL ELEMENTS `2t
•
c VISUAL LINKAGE UNDER
FREEWAY 444meot
2 CENTRAL BLOCK CONCENTRATION OF
WORK WITH PRIVATE OWNERS
a IMPROVED ENTRIES E
DEFINITION
b IMPROVED INTERNAL
CIRCULATION
rte+
PEDESTRIAN/ VEHICULAR
c RETAIL & AMMENITY FOCAL
POINT OF DOWNTOWN
d ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT
e ADDITIONAL PARKING LOT
LANDSCAPING
3 VILLAGE PARKWAY UPGRADING
(SPECIAL STUDY AREA)
NEED GUIDANCE ON PRIORITY OF
THIS ELEMENT
4
RESTAURANT ROW ^—
EXHIBIT wi„,,
•
•
PAGE 2
CONFIRMATION OF DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT PLAN
STRATEGY SUMMARY DIAGRAM TO BE USED FOR REFRENCE.
ITEM SYMBOL AGREE DISAGREE COMMENTS
5
AUTO DEALERSHIPS
DIRECTION ON APPROACH NEEDED
a DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO
RETAIN DOWNTOWN
b PLAN FOR GRADUAL
TRANSITION TO OTHER
LAND USES
SAN RAMON ROAD IMPROVEMENT
00iflfl
i
a PUBLIC R.O.W.
IMPROVEMENTS
b ENCOURAGE BUSINESSES TO
IMPROVE ACCESS FROM SAN
RAMON ROAD AND VISUALLY
IMPROVE THEIR PROPERTY
7
1-680 FREEWAY RAMPS
DIRECTION ON LOCATIONAL
PREFRENCES i
8 STREET IMPROVEMENTS:
MODEST IMPROVEMENTS RATHER
THAN EXTRAORDINARY
9 PROVISIONS FOR FUTURE BART
STATION AND MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT
10 IMPROVED DOWNTOWN
PEDESTRIAN
CIRCULATION SYSTEM
11 SEEK GREATER INTEGRATION OF
ADJACENT DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN
THE DOWNTOWN AREA
PHYSICAL CONNECTIONS
AND VISUAL APPEARANCE
12
LIMIT LOCATION OF FAST FOOD
RESTAURANTS
. .
•
. .
•
'• . ..
• -
. .
. . .
Alos$1. : TIN „I,: NI: liertotostl is \\:\\ Iii,\ Y:51°' •&71. ...1, or
W 4. 111 iii al° *IN litiPli 1 atikEl 11.011 am a \m\y, ..---... ..,, is,. --1, 64 el
, vaii-, wira fro it** ArAir mar iing rim ■,\V% osito 4,
sv. wile two NI \,,,,,111 ■ a. -... IN 1
,,, . ■4111111r im MINI
010 014 Asoer,f
11111111111LOW, •#% P 447 4116 OW
rill",, gell SIIIIIP.t tat&• •■•111b..%\% Of MS 1,1-■ Vial 1110
.41. ,,,, • „ ,-- .rank Ma ism
z ar g ....-. si As gm.= .i. E . 1‘ uffATalidaillr a\\:\:‘,14`.‘111101 IIII0 IIII - IlL.111110:.VS.,,% ,' ..- '-a'.
Oa ...... c. . ,,,, eLsr - 1111 4/0•
SI M it ' 1 pa lave" ... %ihhauttek, ‘‘‘,\, _ t that, .**1 •
b II ■ anis mon \'\\\ro 0 -III/S■ 1014.\
. ... a t:, it,- via im .■.1 _I _IP --id si
. ....■ 1* A., 0
App. A v 1 1 , tAWS is ,,%‘, 014 4.NI#..•
•!, ;1101 ''i z s :..-=-8 f i 1 1111111111 011 1 • ■,',I%
t t%' ' lik 4 ,..■ , .
.00•3 $ -Ole •
__„. sa ---- .* . ENTRy.ario„ ,-, • * _A e. .■ .
i 4F --- 101141113121 .....- _,.. VISUAL LINKAGE,I 111
',..r 1-2( A I 1 I kst ST.i.14,tr. 44
ti it , -...vs....r-to%
VISUAL UWILMT . Illk
i;1 _ ill,i.l.i0 %%
%\',k ilk 1111-rie 1000 oll 1 $$
%,....i..... .tie.
‘ 11- ....f.....ASt,„%%
'
.00"*".
,,.. 11 01:":0 1','', t 011 ■ illik
g, , 1 liat t..
5"..-:.'...."5"...-1°" \% 0 fru im •
*
.:* .! ...•■• . ..
ENTRY II it it S-V `. ,,c2.-- \ 1 7,_0'...-...-0. %
..j.-1,i,./ ' -* .A
x _„,„,...•ii, ir-----.0.--,----01* ‘,‘, ,
I , 0,- 1.
1
, .....-- .2 , 0 1.spip- - •/
oevRoPmq As•o.... ,,,,
:tv4 VISUAL LIDAANT-d—.11, 0 1----- * 41,,,,,R.,, 1.j..5.- ....... ‘,,,,,‘, rillillivilic-IP40,1:"#***:--•ttts , "F
i ,, 0 1 , .PEDESTRIAN ..z......5.../...„.......r. \V,k, „iguat
'%".,,,....••........,...........,".. 11111 4teik .40:11.18.■,...--
k ‘v ikkta"‘
i -tt fr :49. t luNK j _....,..
..----..... - RESTAURANT%‘t, t Ili 111ra.a"11111W. -11, 410 N,(
.••••••••• ••:' ROW * VrA•k •
t 111.1" 4 4
';• Xt dt I.0 1 rn C -----E7—',1 ----.."1- .SA*0 001 k
r, • ";Z=7" 1 _.....,,,...0...
* A ci, Acc,s, 4 0- . --......,--_......_..-$-..-_... 44*• ,*
1 ---------
\\,,,%\ *
i--- , 1 --'—.---.0„..-----'--.,_
.u.3.-
.... C) A i Ai 01111 um I \
...:S.
am -"O' VeSUALI ILLIAINT
-i!
? P'1" 1" t' I' t• t• P. l' l' — ,,,,, 10_
)" P' t• l' E t. t• t• ..r........... .
:-.....,:: _,... %
• --_—. ENTRY , . . NATRON•
CLC..........
PFOISTRIAN
\ ."..44';...,;............ . .'r".1...4%••
t i/------- CROSSINGS .
. • yur... ...\-
..•T
../...G.',..••••• • ■
• , I t %
• I I %
• NAII0v10 LANOSCAPING-..1 ° IIII 1Vs•VILAT 1 11 ‘ Ill
' ON SAN RA•AON ROAD 2 e3 1 100 .)-
.,. 0
,„,,,cu . , i,,,, , \*
, ,, •
.. ,, ,•
i
,,.. V.-.----iiii•„:\
. , vaCiviSiOn TOM FUTOR1
'•
4 SART STATION AND
1...<
3- ":".."---■s.:,,..........\:, Ilbe WIRD UST OlVtLOP•ALNT ...". ' ' ' NV,
.i' ---:::"i("I ii':,:,-T•%::,„,‘,‘ /./i i 1 \\\s
,■• I , ,,
..,...,.
....,.. ,,..:.; I,, 1 ■ ■ I 1 v,'
,.,_. -----'-- ---------------_ I I '' ' -------- 'T.
/1 .s ••••.. ---------------- --.
‘■• :\ -",......... El- ,11 , L____ --------.....--.. .... ..s_
C.' .\\,if. 1;•,-----,';--------- ----------------------------------------
-
----------------------...__
.;...- ;.1..1
-,.
s•\t; ) 1 '.• ./.
g:
i ,/,--- •,•;-----: :".
..
Y: •• • . • NOTES:
% 1
1. Limit location of fast food restaurants.
El ' 2. Modify existing zoning designation.
STRATEGY SUMMARY DIAGRAM I. Increase parking lot landscapmg.
1 .
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT PLAN Wurster.Bernard and Emmorn.K. WA
..orecf.0.PI-----.
t DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
te. Leventhal nd Horvath EIP
7.;
. . - • - ' . •. • .,.,- -. .
. •. - -
•
RECEIVED
•
MEMORANDUM
'JUN � .' D1986.
• DUBLIN PLANNING
DATE: June 9 , 1986
TO: City of Dublin and Downtown Improvement Committee
FROM: Larry L. Cannon pG
SUBJECT: Dublin Downtown Improvement Study
This memorandum summarizes the Consultant Team' s discussions with
the City Council, the Planning Commissioners, and key property
owners about the Issues and Opportunities identified in the
Downtown Improvement Study' s Phase I Report. The Consultant Team
conducted these interviews to insure that the Study responds *to
these groups ' concerns and to involve those property owners whose
participation in the Downtown Improvements may be required.
CITY COUNCIL
In the Consultants ' discussions with the City Council several
issues were repeatedly brought up. Conclusions were not
unanimous but the following summary represents. a general overview
of concerns and attitudes:
1. Downtown Identity: The downtown needs an identity to
project so the area "feels like a downtown" . • Right now the
area projects an image of many shopping centers with little
relationship to each other.
2 . Downtown Cohesiveness : The downtown lacks cohesiveness both
architecturally and physically. The City needs something to
tie the downtown together.
3. Downtown Improvements:
A. The downtown needs to be upgraded just to ensure that
the existing merchants aren' t drawn away by
competitors.
B. The Village Parkway area,- including the Alpha Beta .
Center, is in need of improvement. This is an area
where redevelopment could be strongly considered.
4. Comments on Uses Downtown:
A. Auto Dealerships - maybe they could oe moved to a
central area. The Downtown plan should at least be
prepared to identify alternative uses for these sites
in case the dealerships relocate.
1
WURSTER, BERNARDI AND EMMONS, INC. • 40 GOLD STREET • SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94133
•
'!XHIBIT
'
City of Dublin and -Downtown
Improvement Committee
June 9 , 1986 . -
Page 2 -
B. B.A.R.T. - The reality of it ever happening is
questionable.
C. Restaurants - quality restaurants not fast food
restaurants.
D. Retails- build up retail, it is an important revenue
generator.
E. Office - Dublin is not seen as an office center.
F. Service - Small businesses have been the backbone of
Dublin, and the area should maintain its service
orientation.
G. I-680 Freeway ramp - various ramp locations were
suggested.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
The issues and concerns which were highlighted in the
consultants ' interview with.-the Planning Commissioners were:
1. Traffic:
A. Traffic is "one of the most important issues" affecting
downtown Dublin.
B. It was suggested that traffic should be monitored and
once it hits a specific "L.O. S. " (Level of Service)- the
necessary improvements should be made or development
limited.
2 . Parking: •
A. Get rid of the "ocean of pavement"
B. Convenience which presently exist should be maintained.
C. Multi-level parking lots are an acceptable alternative.
3. Downtown Identity:
The downtown needs a unifying theme.
4. Downtown Improvements :
A. The downtown needs to be cleaned up and beautified.
2
WURSTER, BERNARDI AND EMMONS, INC. • 40 GOLD STREET • SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94133
•
City of Dublin and Downtown
Improvement Committee
June 9 , 1986
Page 3 i
B. The scale of the "super block" needs to be broken up.
C. Improve landscaping- both usable (parks)! and non-
usable (medians , parking lots)!.
D. Develop a portion of the courtyard at - the central block
as a central gathering and focal point.
E. More park/open space is needed.
F. Village Parkway needs help and should be more strongly
linked with the other half of downtown.
G. The pedestrian mall concept is strongly favored.
H. Building heights could vary within reasons but avoid
• creating a canyon look from the freeways.
I. Those uses along San Ramon Road should be allowed to
front physically and/or visually onto San Ramon Road.
J. I-680 Ramp - Generally the concept of the ramps were
favored, however, there were some reservations and
concerns.
5 . Comments on Uses Downtown:
A. Auto dealerships : It would be best if they were to
remain in Dublin.
B. B.A.R.T. : It is a good idea and should be encouraged;
however, there is some concerns about the potential
traffic and parking impact on the downtown area.
C. Restaurants: The concept of "Restaurant Row" should be
encouraged.
D. Retail: Make Dublin' s retail distinct from
Pleasanton' s by emphasizing "specialty shops" .
E. Office - Office uses should be limited to small mixed
use buildings with retail on the ground floor.
F. Hotel: The commissioners had mixed feelings about the
need for another hotel .
•
• 31
WURSTER, BERNARDI AND EMMONS, INC. • 40 GOLD STREET • SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94133
•
•
City of Dublin and .Downtown
Improvement Committee
June 9 , 1986
Page 4
PROPERTY OWNERS
•
The property owners who were contacted by the consultant were
those associated with properties seen as having a direct -impact
on the success of the Downtown Improvement -Plants objectives.
Those properties either are directly affected by one or more of
the opportunities identified in the Phase I Report or might
require public/private partnerships ventures to achieve the goals
of the plan. The property owners who were contacted include:
1. Dublin Associates - Francis Suh, Property Owner .
(Gemco and area)!
2. Regional Street Joint Venture - Jack Deregt,
Property Manager
(Mervyns)!
3. Edibrook Corporation - Jerry Pollock
(Handyman)!
4 . Montgomery Wards Development Corporation - Howard Mange's,
Area Manager -
(Montgomery Wards)!
5 . Payless - Mr. Ted Dorset, Store Manager
6. Enea Plaza - Richard Enea, Property Manager
7 . Bedford Properties - James Horsley, Senior Vice President
8. Gertrude Dibble Estate - Barbara Cross, Property Manager
( "Sawmill" shopping center)!
9 . Don and Kathryn Hucke - Don Hucke, Property Owner
(Village Parkway Industrial Type Buildings)!
10 . K & S Co. Inc. - Al SataKe, Property Manager
(Parcel at corner of San Ramon Road and Amador Valley Blvd. )!
11. David Malcolm Realtors, Inc. , - Eileen Eeckendorn,
Property Manager
(Orchard shopping center)!
12 . F.W. Woolworth Co. - Roger Moss , Real Estate Representative
(Woolworth Garden Center)!
4
WURSTER, BERNARDI AND EMMONS, INC. • 40 GOLD STREET • SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94133
•
•
•
City of Dublin and Downtown
Improvement Committee
•
June 9 , 1986 -
Page 5
13 . Paul Tafjen and Gladys Trustees - Mrs. P. Tafjen,
(Parcel at corner of San Ramon Road and Property Owner
Amador Valley Boulevard)!
14 . Leahy Enterprises, Inc. - Frank Wallace, Business Manager
(Sawmill)!
The consultants have had some difficulty contacting some of these
owners or property managers for a variety of reasons (i.e. , busy
business schedules, and impending property ownership changes ,
etc. )I. Because of these delays some meetings are still pending:
such as those with Montgomery Wards , and the Gertrude Dibble
Estate.
The issues of primary concern to the property owners are:
1. Downtown Identity: The City needs an image (e.g. , Castro
Valleys lights create a strong identification)!.
2. The shopping centers need a way to improve their identity
and signing.
3. Comments on Uses Downtown:
A. Office - if higher grade office space is possible then
let some in.
B. Restaurants - "Restaurant Row" was supported.
C. Retail - Specialty shops were met with mixed reactions.
Some felt they would help while others didn' t see their
value.
4 . Downtown Improvements :
A. Pedestrian mall concept received good su000rt out would
require a review of more specific plans. _
B. Part/Plaza - The City could use a central gathering
focal point if it can be feasibly provided.
C. San Ramon Road Frontage - Almost all of the uses which
presently back onto San Ramon Road have an interest in -
physically or visually having access to San Ramon Road.
All supported a visual improvement of that frontage .
D. Village Parkway both architecturally and physically
needs improvement.
•
5
WURSTER, BERNARDI AND EMMONS, INC. • 40 GOLD STREET • SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94133
•
•
r -
•
•
City of -Dublin and -Downtown
Improvement Committee
June 9 , 198 • - •
•
Page 6
•
•
In general the property •owners favored improvements -in the
downtown and were willing to consider a public/private - •
partnership. However, they expressed -that they would -need to see
more detailed -proposals -prior to making •any commitments. In
some -cases , property owners would need to consult with their
tenants and sub-leases.
•
CONCLUSIONS
From the above discussions the following conclusions can -
be drawn. First, the overriding need is to create a visual
identity for the downtown and to tie the downtown together in a
cohesive manner. Improvements of this type -could include colorful
banners lining the major streets, entry markers, improvements
to the major entryways to downtown, and additional landscaping.
Second, :property owners plans and .the physical site -constraints
to development suggest that -improvements be concentrated towards
the central "super block" area -where the size of the properties
allow for change and the -property owners seem willing to consider
changes. .-Some of the improvements su-itable for future
development are: improved internal vehicular circulation,
improved entry identification, more internal parking lot
landscaping, increased development in areas of excess parking,
and enhancing the courtyard/plaza concept into a strong central
gathering/focal point along with improved pedestrian circulation
and amenities.
Third, the Village Parkway area needs improvement and might be
considered as an area for redevelopment. Village Parkway needs
to be more clearly identified as part of the downtown area or
developed with its own special identity. It might serve as the
"Village Center" or emphasize its services to the community with
a local community-serving focus. (It should be noted that no
strong consensus emerged on this issue).
Fourth, a consensus appears to exist that the concept of a
"Restaurant Row" is very plausible both economically and
physically. The uses along Amador Plaza Road already provide the
beginning structure of the concept.
Fifth, there is a strong concern that the Auto Dealership should
be encourage to stay in Dublin as they provide an important tax
base for the City.
Sixth, the uses abutting onto San Ramon Road should be permitted
to either physically and/or visually front- onto San Ramon Road -
and that the public right-of-way should be visually improved.
• 6
WURSTER, BERNARDI AND EMMONS, INC. • 40 GOLD STREET • SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94133
•
r
City of Dublin and Downtown
Improvement Committee
June 9 , 1986
Page 7
Seventh, future transportation improvements such as the I-680
freeway ramps, and B.A.R.T. must be considered as long range
possibilities which should be encouraged.
Eighth, traffic should be regulated and improvements provided as
needed. The cost of these improvements might be paid for
partially by the City and partially by developments which cause
the increase traffic congestion. No support emerged for
extraordinary street improvements (e.g. , flyover ramps)! in order
to allow additional downtown development.
NEXT STEP
After discussing and reviewing the -above findings with the City
and the Downtown Improvement Committee the Consultant Team will
develop diagrams of the agreed upon approach and emphasis. These
diagrams will then be presented to the City Council and Planning
Commissioners in a joint work session. - The Consultant Team will
then develop design concepts for review by the Downtown
Improvements Study Committee and downtown property owners.
•
7
WURSTER, BERNARDI AND EMMONS, INC. • 40 GOLD STREET • SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94133
•