HomeMy WebLinkAboutNegative Declaration for Proposed City of Dublin Civic Center
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: July 6, 1987
TO:
Planning
Commission
Staffe~ if
FROM:
Planning
SUBJECT:
Negative Declaration for the Proposed City of
Dublin Civic Center
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT:
Review of the Negative Declaration pertaining to
the proposed construction and operatio)l of a
52,000~ square foot Civic Center witbrCity
Administrative Offices and a Police Facility,
including approximately 214 parking spaces and
landscaping on an 11.6~ acre site.
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER:
City of Dublin
LOCATION:
Southwest Corner of Dublin Boulevard and Sierra
Court
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER:
941-1401-14-5
941-1401-23-1
PARCEL SIZE:
10.02 Acres
1.60 Acres
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Retail/Office
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE:
PD to allow Administrative Office Uses and
Retail Business Uses; the larger site is
essentially vacant; the smaller site contains a
continuation school that is to be relocated,
SURROUNDING LAND USE
AND ZONING:
North:
South:
C-2 B-40 Retail Commercial
No Zone, Outside City Limits,
Interstate 580
PD - Public Park
M-l Business Park
East:
West:
NOTIFICATION:
The Herald,
buildings.
Public Notice of the July 6, 1987, hearing was published in
mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public
ANALYSIS:
As a part of the City's plan to build and ODerate a new Civic Center
is a recommendation on the Negative Declaration from the Planning Commission
to the City Council. The draft Negative Declaration is attached (inclusive of
the Initial Study) for your review.
RECOMMENDATION:
FORMAT:
1)
2)
3)
Open public hearing.
Hear Staff presentation.
Hear Project Architect's presentation and public
presentations.
Close public hearing.
Deliberate and take action.
4)
5)
ACTION:
Adopt Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance which finds
that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on
the environment.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1) Planning Commission Resolution regarding Negative
Declaration
Exhibit 2) City of Dublin Civic Center Project Description
Exhibit 3) Negative Declaration/Initial Study
Exhibit 4) TJKM Traffic Study
RESOLUTION NO, 87-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED
52,OOO~ SQUARE FOOT CIVIC CENTER FACILITY ON
AN 11,6+ ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD
AND SIERRA COURT
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin proposes to construct a 52,000~ square
foot Civic Center with City Administrative Offices and a Police Facility on the
11.6+ acre site located on the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Sierra
Court; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together
with the State Guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that
certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental
documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, an initial study was conducted finding that the project,
as proposed, would not have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this
application; and
WHEREAS, public notice of the Negative Declaration was given in all
respects as required by State Law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review and consider the
Negative Declaration at a public hearing on July 6, 1987;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission
finds as follows:
1. that the project to construct and operate a 52,000~ square foot Civic
Center facility on the 11.6~ acre site located on the southwest corner of
Dublin Boulevard and Sierra Court will not have a significant effect on the
environment;
2.
accordance
and
that the Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in
with State and local environmental laws and guideline regulations;
3.
that the Negative Declaration is complete and adequate.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration for the
construction and operation of the Dublin Civic Center.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of July, 1987.
AYES:
NOES:
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: July 6, 1987
TO:
Planning
Commission
Staff ~~ -$:f
FROM:
Planning
SUBJECT:
Negative Declaration for the Proposed City of
Dublin Civic Center
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT:
Review of the Negative Declaration pertaining to
the proposed construction and operati~ of a
52,000~ square foot Civic Center wit[(City
Administrative Offices and a Police Facility,
including approximately 214 parking spaces and
landscaping on an 11.6~ acre site.
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER:
City of Dublin
LOCATION:
Southwest Corner of Dublin Boulevard and Sierra
Court
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER:
941-1401-14-5
941-1401-23-1
PARCEL SIZE:
10.02 Acres
1.60 Acres
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Retail/Office
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE:
PD to allow Administrative Office Uses and
Retail Business Uses; the larger site is
essentially vacant; the smaller site contains a
continuation school that is to be relocated.
SURROUNDING LAND USE
AND ZONING:
North:
South:
C-2 B-40 Retail Commercial
No Zone, Outside City Limits,
Interstate 580
PD - Public Park
M-l Business Park
East:
West:
NOTIFICATION:
The Herald,
buildings.
Public Notice of the July 6, 1987, hearing was published in
mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public
ANALYSIS:
As a part of the City's plan to build and operate a new Civic Center
facility, (on the 11.6~ acre site located between Dublin Boulevard, Sierra
Court, the Alamo Canal and Interstate 580) an Environmental Assessment must be
completed prior to beginning construction. Per the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act, Staff has completed an Initial Study
analyzing the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction
and operation of this facility. Staff has found that this project inclusive
of the appropriate mitigation measures will not have a significant effect on
the environment and therefore a Negative Declaration has been completed.
Today's action does not involve making a decision on the project. The action
ITEM NO. 9./
COPIES TO: Planning Department
is a recommendation on the Negative Declaration from the Planning Commission
to the City Council. The draft Negative Declaration is attached (inclusive of
the Initial Study) for your review.
RECOMMENDATION:
FORMAT:
1)
2)
3)
Open public hearing.
Hear Staff presentation.
Hear Project Architect's presentation and public
presentations.
Close public hearing.
Deliberate and take action.
4)
5)
ACTION:
Adopt Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance which finds
that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on
the environment.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1) Planning Commission Resolution regarding Negative
Declaration
Exhibit 2) City of Dublin Civic Center Project Description
Exhibit 3) Negative Declaration/Initial Study
Exhibit 4) TJKM Traffic Study
-2-
RESOLUTION NO, 87-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED
52,000~ SQUARE FOOT CIVIC CENTER FACILITY ON
AN 11,6+ ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD
AND SIERRA COURT
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin proposes to construct a 52,000~ square
foot Civic Center with City Administrative Offices and a Police Facility on the
11.6+ acre site located on the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Sierra
Court; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together
with the State Guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that
certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental
documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, an initial study was conducted finding that the project,
as proposed, would not have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this
application; and
WHEREAS, public notice of the Negative Declaration was given in all
respects as required by State Law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review and consider the
Negative Declaration at a public hearing on July 6, 1987;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission
finds as follows:
1. that the project to construct and operate a 52,000~ square foot Civic
Center facility on the 11.6~ acre site located on the southwest corner of
Dublin Boulevard and Sierra Court will not have a significant effect on the
environment;
2.
accordance
and
that the Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in
with State and local environmental laws and guideline regulations;
3.
that the Negative Declaration is complete and adequate.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration for the
construction and operation of the Dublin Civic Center.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of July, 1987.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
rv I..S ~ ~.":~ a'r 1"
~,. '... ~7. ~ffi ~ .~
CITY OF DUBLIN
CIVIC CENTER
Project Description
Purpose and Need
The City of Dublin has identified the need and provided funding ror the
development of permanent City Administrative Offices and Police Facility.
The proposed 52,000 + square foot facility is to be located at a central
location to service the existing City and areas which may be annexed into
the City in the future.
The proposed facility is planned to accommodate City Administrative Offices
and a Police Facility. The Civic Center will provide parking space for
approximately 214 vehicles. The majority of the parking will be open for
use by the general public and may s~cve as overflow parking for the
adjoining Dublin Sports Grounds complex.
Project Design
The project site involves an 11.6 + acre property at the southwest corner
of Dublin Boulevard and Sierra Court. The subject property is north of
Interstate 580 between the Alamo Canal and a new entry road recently
constructed at Sierra Court. The facility is designed as two semi-circular
wings with an interior courtyard. The exterior has a paved plaza area
adjacent to the main entrance.
The Administrative Offices Wing is proposed to accommodate the following
components: office space for Administration, Finance, Recreation, Planning,
Building, and Engineering/Public Works; a Regional Meeting Room containing
1250 + square feet; a 160 + seat Council Chamber; a community television
studio; employee locker room; and associated support facilities. The size
of the Administrative Office Wing including the Council Chambers, Regional
Meeting Room, and Cabletelevision studio is proposed to be approximately
32,6l3 square feet.
The Police Facility Wing is proposed to contain space for the following
functions: Administration/Records, Investigations, Patrol, Communications,
Short-term Holding Facility, Emergency Operations Center, and other support
facilities. Adjacent to the Police Facility will be covered parking and an
area to clean vehicles. The facility will have an enclosed sally-port for
use in the transfer of individuals in custody to the holding area. The
Police Wing is proposed to contain approximately 19,390 square feet.
Construction activity with the project's development will include grading,
site clearing, paving, drainage, building construction, and lighting. The
project will be constructed to comply with State of California Development
Requirements for Handicapped Accessibility and with Title 24 Energy
requirements.
- 1 -
EXHIBIT ~
A noise study was conducted at the site to determine noise contours. The
noise at the site ranged from 60 db to 75 db with the higher levels
registering adjacent to I-580 and Dublin Boulevard (see diagram). The
majority of the building will occur in the area with a 60db reading. The
construction of the building will include noise insulation features to
mitigate any unacceptable conditions.
Location and Configuration
The project is located on approximately 11.6 acres fronting Dublin
Boulevard immediately west of the intersection of Sierra Court.
Approximately 0.8 acres of the site has been utilized for the construction
of an entry roadway. The location is immediately adjacent to local and
regional transportation routes. A traffic signal at Sierra Court will
control access to and from the site. A secondary access on the west side
of the project will provide access for Police Vehicles and deliveries.
/
,<~
....,.1
'I I.
-'
4 (
-'--'
1\
..
. .
CITY OF DUBLIN
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
Pro ect Title DUBLIN CIVIC CENTER
j . APN-941-1401-014-0S ......1
,.
Address 6900 DUBLIN BOULEVARD. DlJBl.TN CA
0.0 0 I 0.2 1.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 !!7 0..8 0' 1.0 mile
I t;i _ ~ la. ~
2Y" inches:1 mile
~
~
'~
n
~
~
~
o
'"""M
u
e
Cd
~
~
z
n
~
<
~
n
n
M
Z
~
M
~
mfdj
rn
.
r-'-~. '
\ ~~.
\
,\
! \
~
\ ..~..
..~..~
"'0
-:II
~
~
-<
~
~
"'0
~
CI.ll:':l
'"0><
OH
::.:lCl.l
...;!...;!
CI.lH
Z
G)
G)
::.:It:::l
Oc
Ct:l:l
Zt-<
t:::IH
CI.lz
".::::::f'
.. ....
H:::::i;i
, III
III III
fa
~ ~:'
~ , .
'.
t.
"''".-'.'''''.' ....,
.-.,...~_._~~..~.,,< "~.-,"~".-~:- -.'
~"".""....-..,-....._-q>f'f:+'.!.'..':;;!"'r~),"':!"""~...: '";~~ ..'"'7'"'~ ""~.
~-.,.' -:,.... :;'-~""l" ,
""'" "...,.'n~7';::::'_""
..,:....~,......~.M'."...., .
r;--:-c-':,,",:-,'"
n
H
~
~
0
Hj
U
C
Cd
r
I--tl
Z
. I
I
n
HI
;SI
n
n
M
Z
~
M
~
'"
1l
~/
J' if
j'I 1/
,j
, "
, "
, ,
jJ /f
/ I .' i
1/' / {.
n ';
j:" i I
!.: ,.
Ii ;.1
iJ .
" 1 J
(i
n
~, '\
(( ~,
),' ',:0, I
,. r-.., Al
:,""-. ':, :"1',
:' ~ ~::!
, " r
0' ; . c-- ,:
o ;/. ~,Ln H
c.. r,' 'n ;1
:..cr" ~,' ~. J:
.(.; S( /:1'
-' -- ',-"!
~ ~"jl
, I' ,:' '1'"'1
.' ,.-......'
" ~~ :~:
l- :>: .11:
<>L'~ij
l '" 1;
; ~: 'i
L'~' t
'--1
z
o
-,
cr.
~
, \
"
\ \
,
\
\
n
1""\
'-'
~
~~
;1 (/ \,..--, ' 0
,1 ,/' ! c:
1[:1' \ . ~
.~~~ ""'_\'~' ~ V;
\'
. \
'.,
\
i
I
I
i I I
\ I
\ '
_L
\,
:. \
\ \~\ \
\ \ \
. \ '\
\ \
'_ ,__i._
';. .....",,'v:O,-,....':"!".-, "_',',_~.' . ., '...,......,::. -~ .0.',' ",,:,' _' ">','~~~'.~.'.-.~
in !I ji
I I} ::1
.. _" .. L_,_.__
\
,
\
____~_ :._."...,A...,............_..."..*"""'"...,..--..-...r,;',,_,_,. '......"".,:','.' -.~ "t'.'l'. ""'.;:"~""'~"""',"'l,\ y~,'O- ~ --':,',:~."'_.._____'m<f-...~"',;;!Oo""'I."',~"'OO:.,~.c.G:!'\<'C";',. ~
Ll
c=J
~
L~
I
Development Services
P,Q. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
CITY OF DUBLIN
Planning/Zoning 829-4916
Building & Safety 829-0822
Engineering/Public Works 829-4927
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR:
CIVIC CENTER DEVELOPMENT/CITY OF DUBLIN
(Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.)
LOCATION AND
PROPONENT:
DESCRIPTION:
FINDINGS:
INITIAL STUDY:
MITIGATION
MEASURES:
PREPARATION:
This 11.6+ acre site is located on the south side of Dublin
Boulevard between Sierra Court (to the east), Highway 580
(to the south) and the Alamo Canal (to the west). The
proponent is the City of Dublin.
This is a proposal to construct a 52,000~ square foot City
Hall facility which would include the City Administrative
Offices and the Police Facility. It will include
approximately 214 parking spaces and landscaping.
The project will not have a significant affect on the
environment.
The Initial Study is attached with a brief discussion of the
following environmental components: Ground Water,
Flooding, Air Pollution, Wind Alteration, Soil
Consolidation, Seismic Activity, Liquefaction, Vegetation
Community, Traffic, Odors, Noise Levels, and Energy
Requirements,
Please see attached sheet entitled "Mitigation Measures."
This Negative Declaration was prepared by the City of Dublin
Planning Staff, (415) 829-4916,
SIGNATURE:
Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director
DATE:
EXHIBIT 3
CITY OF VUBLIN
PA No.
N/A
I
ENVID=10NMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, {N1E'(~\M
(Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et sec.)
Based on the project information submitted in Section 1 General Data, the Planning Stoff
will use Section 3, Initial Study, to determine whether 0 Negative Declaration or on
Environmental Impact Report is required.
SECTION 3. INITIAL STUDY - - - to be comp 1 eted by the PLANN I NG STAFF
'Name of Project or Applicant: Civic Center Development/City of Dublin
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - Description of project site before the project, including
information on: topography; soil stability; plants and animals; historical, cultural, and
scenic aspects; existing structures; and use of structures This irregularly shaped
11.6+ acre site contains an abandoned continuation school; however, it is for
the most part vacant and generally flat. Much of the property is covered
with dumped fill. Beneath the fill soils are made up of a heterogeneous
(See attached sheet 1A.)
Description of surrounding properties, including information on: plants and animals;
historical, cultural, and scenic aspects; type and intensity of land use; and scale ,or
development. North: Existing Retail Commercial.
East: Existing Public Park containing a parking lot; baseball/soccer fields & lightin
West: Business Park/Industrial which is bounded by Alamo Creek.
South: Interstate 580. The development of this site will not endanger significant
(See attached Sheet 1A.)
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - Factual explanations of 011 answers except "no" ore re- .
quired on attached sheets. Please see attacheds'heets entitled "Analysis of Qualified,
No, Yes and' Unknown responses from the 'Environmenta1 Assessment'Form." (See Sheet 2A.,
~'T IMPACI'S SCALE OF IHPAcr
NO QUALIFIED YES UNKNrnN
NO I . I
I ~ I I e5
, I I I~
g51~IBI:S
~~~!i!~
I,O~ : I 1
I I I
1.1 Hydrologic 8010nc. Will construction of the project alter the hydro- X ! ! !
loak bolanco?
1,2 Ground Woter Will the project aFFect the quality or quontity or X ! ! !
ground wofer supplies?
1,3 Depth to Wot.r Tobl. Will the rete of woter v/ithdrawol change the depth X I I I
or gradient of tho: warer table?
1.... Drainage and C!:'annel Form Will condructian impedf) the nalural drainage pattern X I .1 I
or couse aheration of stream channel form? I I
1. S Sedimentation Will construction in on orca result in mojor sediment X l I l
Intlu'C into adiacent water bodies?
1.6 Flooding Will there be rhk of Ion or life or property due xl I I
'n !I00d.on? I
A-5
_.. _._.... ._... _. ~h .' ...--.._.....~ ,_,..._,"_ "_' ~ _ _'. ....... . ..... ~. \__'_".__ .. ,......~. ...... . .,~. . 7'" :."1;;-..,.......:'. ., .:'"'...:-.... , " >~ :'.' -...~.. "'-." ...... '. . ,.' ';'-' --.-., ..'~.. ....~. ":..... -'. ',. ','....
"
, ro-lI:'OOENT ?ACTS sa OF IMPAcr
NO QUALIFIED YES UNKN~
NO I , T
'~I ,~
I~ I ,H
p: p: E-t
. pI 1015
~'81~'~
I""', ,
1.7 Woter Quo"lifY Doc, drinking woter svp?ly foil to meet ,tote and X l I I
federal ,rondards?
Will seW09" be ino.::!<!1'JOtcly oc:commc~o'cd and X I l I
treoted?
Will receivin!) wofers rnil to meet 10:.,1, ,t...:'c and X I I I
federal stondords?
Will ground worer sufrcr conrominotion by Sol!,fo:e i i I
se~p"~J, intrusion of )(lit or polluted 'Y-'Qtcf from
adjacent woter bodies or from another ':on~."'Toin"tcd I I I
oQIJire,? X ! ! ! ,
--
2.0~ I I I
I I I
2,1 Air poUution . Will .here be 9~nerotioil end rJi,pcrsior. r,F F111utonts I I I -
by project reloted octh.itics Of in p:"o:..c:r.itl t.-: t~~e I I I
project which wil! ere-eod :r.atc ,..; r.c~i~:":.o 0::- I I I
, . quality star-dotds? X I I I
2.2 Wind Alteration Will :structure o:ld terrr.rin'impedc p:,c.."t;ilirS vii"'" i i I
Flow ca.ning chann~ling olano certoi~ r:.orri:! '.S "r X ! I
obstruction of wind mo....ements? i
3.0~ I I I
I I I
3.1 Slope StobiH,y Are there potential dong~rs related to ~bpe f:>il'Jres? X I I I
3,2 Foundation Support Will there be ri~ to I ife or prop~rt"'l'Je-:o:J:e of X i i i
cxcessi"e d~formotion of materials?
3.3 Consolidation V/ill there be ri~ to liFe or propcrrl be::aw.e cf X I ! i
, excessi-,e eonsoridotion of Foundathr ~t",'it)fs? ;
" 3,~ Subsidenco " there rhk of mojor ground sub,idr:n..,:r. "S\:")( iote'" X ! ! !
with the project?
3.S Seismic Activity Is there risk of damage or loss resnhillg frr.m eorth- ! ! .!
quo!:.c octi.,ity? X
3.6 liquofaction V/ill the project C::J'JS(! or be f'!)tposc.:I ~o liqu~foct:o" X I I I
of soil, in s1e?es or und~r (ouncotkns?
3.7 Erodibiliry Will tl,ere hI!: s..;bstonliol Ion of $Oi! r.'::"l ~o cr.n- X I I I
struetion practices?
: 3.8 Penneobiliry Will the permeability of soils an06at:r! wi!!-: th" I I I
prafect present odvcr~Q conditions Iclot;'"e te: d\!- X l I I .
velopment of welh? I
3.9 Unique. featutcs Will any unique geologico I. featu:cs hI'! domoJed X 1 I I
or desfTo>-~d by p:'ojecl (lcti'W'iti~s?
3,10 M;neral Re$OUrces Are there geologic: deposits of PQtcnti..,II':"r.l~erciol X I I I
value close to the proiect? : i i
~.O PLANTS AND ANIW,AlS I I I
X I I I
~.1 Plant and Animal Species Are there rorc or endon9~red species p=-r.scnt? I I I
Arc there species pre:.~nt w!-.ic:h ore ~-tic'Jr(lrly X ! i i
susc~ptiblc to impact from humon octi'W'ity? :
Is there v,,::!:ctotion prr:s~nt: the !O\.l of 'whid~ will X ! i i
deny food or h.,bilot to importo~t wild:ife ,?cci~s? :
Arc th~rc nui",nce ~rcdes of plar.t or n,im:o:s fnr X ! ! !
which conditions will be improved hy II-e p~oiC'ct7
4.2 Vegetative Community Types Are there OilY unusual populations of plonts thlJt may X ! ! !
be of scientiFic intcre~t7
Are there vesetative community Iyre\ 'lltnich o!'c X ! ! !
Fortic~IQrl)' sl.t:;cep~iblc to impact frr.:n .l1U-nD:'l ectivity?
Are th::-c rr.njor tree' or majM veo~tntic.1' th::lt wit I X ! ! !
he C':J'..e:,~I}. nff~dr...{ hy Ih~ proi~el?
" Am the:,: ~~p~ori,,'r: r:1mrr.unity tYr~\ T"....~t":-:r. If..e k.:\ f--
I I I
of which v;ill deny ft'\')-:f or ho':.ilo. In i.'r,,:,'.~r.t \':i!~1 itl'! X I I l
specic" N to a :;u~stiJn'iol num"~. o~ l':;~' :'r:"'!~ :::1::';1":]b',
~.3 Diversity Is there \Ub5ta:"l~i{l1 d:versity in th.~ n~r":n! ~'r:':-:r,":~'I I I I
os reFlected in the nllmbr.r and type "If (')~":1t -~:' t1r:i;T".,1 X I I I
species p'~sent or rhe thrc::-(Hm.::n~:(lr.r.I (lrr~~'1"'rr."'O: I I I
of plant !.pecies prescnt? I I I
I I I
I I I
I 1 I
I I I
I 1 I
! ! !
A-6
I
-I
I
,"
. <X:MJ?OOENT IMPACIS ~OF IMPAcr
" NO QUALIFIED YES UNKNa-m
" NO . . ,
I~ I ,t5
I~ 1 ,H
p:: p:: 8
01 101:5
e1012,0
",,21"<"~
5.0 FACILITIES AND SERVICES : ! I
Educational Facilities Will projectra enrollments adversely arrect the ex- I I
5.1 I I
hting Of p!"opo'S~ Facili,ies in terms of spacing for I I
011 oeti"iries, Including clonrooms, recreational X l I
oreos, end stoffing needs 7 j
Will tne praiee. impact th. p'.Ipil/teocher totio SO X I I
CIS to impede the learning procen? I I
Is the school locot~d such thot it presents 0 haref\hip I ! I
ror 0 portion of the enrollment in terms of trovel time, X
dh'once, or safety hazards? I I
I ! l
5,2 Commercial Facilities Will there be on inadequate supply of and access to X
commercial fo.cilj'ies (or the project? ! I
5.3 LIquid Wo... Dispol'J' Are provision, for sewa~e capacity inadequate for i i
tho needs of the project without exctfeding quality X ! ! t
standards?
Will Ih~ tJroject be exposed to nuisances and odo" X ! !
ouodoted with 'NOste'NOter treatment plants? i
5.4 Solid Wa.to o;SPOl'J' I, thera inadequato pro....ision for dispoY21 of solid X I I
wostos generated by the pr<'ied? i
5,5 Woter Supply I, there jnod~uore quantity or quality of woter X I I
supply to meet the needs or the project? , i
5,6 Storm Water Drainage 'Hill storm 'NOter droinog! be inadequate to prevent I I
downstre-orn floodIng and to mcet Federal State and X I I
'ocol standards? i
5.7 Police Will the projectl, odditionol population, facilities, I I
" o~her rcofute~ generate on increas~ in police service X -,- i
or create 0 police ho:;ord?
5.8 Fire Will the proje-ct's additional population, facilities, X ! I
or othet' features generate an increase in fire ser.,ices
or create 0 fire hazard? I
5.9 Recreation Will the project ha.,e ;nod~uote facilities to meet X !- I !
the recreational needs or the residents 7
5.10 Cultural Facilities \ViIl cultural facilities be unavoilable to the project X ! I !
residents ? i i i
6.0 TRANSPORTATION I
6:i Tronsportotion Fac:ilities Are the traffic demonds on adjacent roads cUrrently I
I
ot or o!Jove copodty? If not, will the traffic gen':' I
erated by the proje..::t cause the adjacent roods to X ! kef
reach or exceed capacity? i i
Are the other transportation Facilities which ser.,e tho rl I I- -:-\- ~fL'\_
project inadequate to accommodate the praje-et1s J 1--
tra.,el demonds? --1 ,- i i ~~, ?~
6.2' Circulation Conflicts \ViII desig, of th3 project or conditions in the surrounc:!- X '-- . ./ I I (11
ing area increos.c Dccidenls due to circulation conflicts: - I I i
6.3 Rood SaFety and Oe.ign '"vill project residents and us~s be exposed to increased X ! !. I -)
occident risks duo to roadway ond ,treet design 01 lock .
or trorfir. centrals? I
~ ! i
7.0 HEALTH
WlII the project be ~xpos~d to or genorate any intense I
7.1 Odors X i i l
odor.?
7.2 Crowding and Density Will the: residents and users be exp-:>led to crowcHng or X i i I
high dcn:ity in their physicallivit'l9 environment?
7.3 NuIsances Will the project be cxpored to or generote roctors that X I
mey be considered os nuisances?
7.4 Struc~ural Safety Will design and proposed construction techniques roil X ! ! I
to meet stoht ond local building codes? i ; ;
8.0 ~ I
I
8.1 Noise Levels Will the project be cxpaMd tn ,..r !]CnCfote adverse X I
no he lev,..ls? I
8.2 Vibrations W;H the rr..,jc:d bo c)Cposerlto vibroti/"lns t'innoying to ! ! I
humans? X I
I
i . !
(
~
.
.
t!
,
;
,i
I
:1
I
,
A-7,
. - .,~.~ ,.., ," - ,.'....-. ...... _.~.-..' -~. . ..- ~'. .- r,..~.~....\.; i ;'-.'''' ..- ,',",~ -.~. "-'-.'-- ;-;;:. .' . .. ,
1
;l
.,.
r
"
I'
.
f
f'
~
~
"
<nMI?C:NENT IMPACTS , SCALE OF IMPAcr
NO QU1\LIFIED YES UNKNO-m
NO I ,
I~ I 15
I I rH
f51~JP: ~
~ 01
, sr812rO
00<., I"'~ ,...., ~
9,0 CO~MUNITY CHI\RACTER . f ! ! '
9.1 Community Organization Will the project dhrupt on C'Je;,tinO "" of I
organizations or group" withi" Ill" co~,"u"jry? X l i i
9.2 Homogeneity and Diversity Will the project change the character of tho I
community in terans of dhtribufion or concentlotion .x I
of income. ethnic, h:>vsing, or oge group 7 i i
9.3 Community Stability and Will the project bo r.xpos~d h) or genera to on X I
Physicol Conditions ar~o of poor ,tability onJ p!\f)kol conditions? I
10.0 VISUAL QUALITY i !
I
10.1 Views Will residents of the surrounding Drea b~ adversely X 1
affected by view: of or from the project? I
V/iIJ the project resid~nts be advcr:ely afEeC:l~ by X r I
views or Of' f,-.)m the surround in!) area? . :
10.2 Shadow> Will the project be exposed to or genefate cxcessive X i , -,
shadow> ? I' i ,
11.0 HISTORIC AND CULTWAL I I
I J
RESOU:CES - .--< >K I I
11.1 Histaric: and Cultural Will the project involve the destructb,.. or olter- /' ~/ ,y:. I 1
Resource:ll otion or 0 historic re-saure,,? . ! ; !
Will the projcct result in isol::uion oE a historic. X i !
resource fro"l ih surrounding environment? i i
Will the project intro~vc:c physico', visual, audible !'K I 1 I
or a~rno~Fherie ereme."fS thnt orc 1"I0t in character with I I !
a historic resotJrCe or its ~tti:'\9?
11.2 ~rehoeo!o9icol Sites Will the project involve th'J dCltrudion or alteration X~* , i
and Structures or on arc:hacolo:)icol rcmurc(' 7 , -j
Will rhO' project result in is.:>lotion of en archaeological I~ i i i
resource?
WiIi the prt"tject intro-1"Jce pJ,ysical, visual, audible ,,'1k
or almos?hcric elemenh that arc nol in character with f\
on orc:hocolooicol resource or its setting? i i
12.0 E NER GY
12.1 Energy Requirements Arc th~re potential proble."s .....~th the supply or X
energy required ror the project? i ; ;
WiIJ the '!':to::rgy requircment! excec-.::f the caJ'Ocity X i
or the s.,vicc utility company? i i
Will there be 0 net increase in t:ner!JY used for the X
project comp':Jre:J to the no proi~et oltern-:Jtlve? i i i
12.2 Consef"votion Me::aure:ll Doos the project planning and dzsio., fnil to indudo X
ovoibb!c crler:JY comer..,otion mo:awr~~? I
! ! !
13.0 LAND USE
13.1 Site ....o:ords Do conditions or tho site, pr?pOscd' sile c!cvel('lpm~nt,
or surrounding Oleo Cf~;ItC' poten:iolly hazardous situ- X
orions? --1-
13.2 Physico I Threat. "Iii! the project or the surrounding area crente 0 reeling
or in1ecurity and physical threat o~n~ thc rcsicltl'nts X
nnd usen? I
13.3 Son;lory l.andrm Wil! ~he project b"" ~xposed to sfruO:luro! d.,mngc, ! ! I
noise, oir, or S'Jrface or.d s:-ounti 'H"::lcr poll urian X !
", other nui50n~r.~ oU-:1ciote-J \vi,h 0 sanirary landfill? i :
13.4 \Vaterwoys Will t"~ projec:t affect on exi"inO w:::rcrwoy through : I
filling, dredoin!}, droinin!J, culvcrtin!J, Y."':J~rc dil- I
chorges, Iou or visuoJl quality or o~h.':'r lond u~c X !
~- pr('ct1~es ? i ;
I
I /~
I ~
1
I
, i ; ! I" C
A-8 Q) ~ \J\
*
. ~'-;"-"~'''-',:"'";''''.' '~:._'.~'" -.......... ".~...".,~-..
COMPONENT 'IMPACIS r-~ LE OF lMPACl'
NO QUALIFIED YES t)NKNO-m
NO , . .
I~ I I t$
I~I IH
~ I I~ I ~
~181~1~
- ,..:.. ,
l I I
I I I
I. I I
! !, I
I i
, I
I
I
I
I
Olher Environmental Components-; 1 .1 i
I I
I I
i i i
I
I ! !
I I I
C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
(1) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
susloining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or end'angered plant or animal
or el iminate imparlont eX!Hlples of the major periods
or California history C'f prehistory?
(2) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
,goals?
(3) Does the project have impacts which are individually
, limited but cumulateively considerable? (A project
may impact on two or more separate resources where
the impact on each resource is relatively small, hut
where the effect of the total of those impacts on the
environment is sign ificant.)
(4) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adversp. effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
A-9:
CUALIFIED
NO NO ,YES UNKJ:..x:wN
.
X
-
X
X
X
. . ..~~~".... "_....":";~~.~..~__;\...._~......:-:r:'~-:-~~.;~:::.._~~_-....~a....,.. "'J"(':'"".";""'. : ,::.-...,..." "'-'-' .'*".,........ ~.' ...!."....,........,.~~~:: ';,"';~.....~.-,. 'l':.1>_~.,I~"'~.... -;...~~,."..(~;.~"..,"":.~ ''\(''~'':.~'<I<__''''''''''''f'-..v~~'' -.~ .
...,:,~ ~~.........,. ,'-'l'".c-' .",'
. ,.'.," ~'.'- -: ,''''''
D. MITIGATION MEASURES - Discussion of the ways to mitigl]~e tne significant effects
identified, if any: Please see attached sheets entitled "Mitigation Measure s."
(See sheet 3A.) ,
E. DETERMINATION - On the basis of this ,initial evaluation:
[Xl Th~ City of Dublin finds that there will not be any significant effect. The par-
ticular characteristics of this project and the mitigation :neasures incorporated into
the design of the project prO'/id.~ ~hi'l r.:)ctual basis for the finding. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION IS ~,=QUIRED.
.'
o The City of Vubl in finds that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect
on the environment. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED**
Signa'ture and date:
Name and title: ' Larrv Tong. Planning Director
-k-: .
**NOTE: Where a project is revised in response to an Initial Study so ~hlJ~ p..)h~:l~ial adverse
effects ore mitigated to 0 point where no signiFicllnt environmental effects would occur, a
revised Initial S~udi' will be prepared a;d a Negative Declaration will be req:.J~red i ls~ead of
an EIR.
._--," ..;:-,-~. ~-.'-.~-" ',~~ ,.,.........""......~"" ~..
........".....'; A-: 1 n' ...,......,.... _'.~~__ "'__...~'"'..,:"_....._.::";....,"'"":"I'r....',.._..~..~...,..~....~_,.~"':"~.._..l"'_r _A" .... .
~ ......
Sheet lA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, INTERIM (continued)
Civic Center Development/City of Dublin
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING (continued) (Description of project) - mixture of
moderately stiff to very stiff clays, silts, and some sands. The site
contains mature pines and liquid amber trees. The site fronts Dublin
Boulevard, Interstate 580, and Sierra Court.
(Description of surrounding properties) . plant and animal environments,
nor will it lead to the loss of valuable historical, cultural, or scenic
amenities.
Sheet 2A
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, INTERIM (continued)
Civic Center Development/City of Dublin
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - Analysis of "Qualified No, Yes and Unknown
Responses from the Environmental Assessment Form."
1.2 (Ground Water):
Development of this site will substantially
increase the amount of impervious surfaces
located on the property and will lead to the
introduction of urban pollutants (runoff
from parking areas carrying oil/gas etc.)
which collectively may impact quality of
groundwater.
1.6 (Flooding):
The subject site is located in Flood Zone B
according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map
for Dublin, published by the Federal Energy
Management Agency. Flood Zone B is
identified as an area subject to 100 to 500
year flooding with an average depth of less
than 1 foot. However, the Alamo Canal
(which runs directly through this site) is
rated in Flood Zone A which is identified as
an area subject to 100 year flooding with
indeterminate depths. There is very little
potential that periodic flooding could
present a risk to property and lives.
2.1 (Air Pollution):
A project of this magnitude will not have
significant air pollution impacts according
to standards set forth by the Bay Area Air
Quality Control Management District.
However, during the contruction/grading
process, there will be substantial amounts
of dust generated here.
2.2 (Wind Alteration):
This structure, once constructed, will alter
wind movements within the area.
3.2 (Foundation Support):
There is potential that the soils on this
site are of a questionable consistency and
thus could create structural foundation
support problems.
3.5 (Seismic Activity):
According to the State of California's
Special Earthquake Studies Zone Map, there
are no active faults within approximately
one mile of the site. As an essential
public building, a dynamic analysis will be
performed by the Structural Engineer.
-1-
3,6 (Liquefaction):
On the basis of the strength and density of
the soils on this site, potential for
liquefaction is considered minimal so long
as the groundwater levels remain below 10
feet, This notation was made in the
Geologic and Seismic Hazards Study prepared
for Amador Joint Union High School District
in March of 1973,
4.2 (Vegetative
Community Types):
The site has some mature urban landscaping
which is not native. The trees were added
at the time that the school was developed on
the property.
6.1 (Transportation
Facilities) :
The construction of a 52,OOO~ square foot
Civic Center will increase traffic demands
on adjacent roads,
7.1 (Odors):
The project is adjacent to an Alameda County
Flood Control and Water Conservation
District facility, which may emit odors. It
is the responsibility of the facility owner
to maintain the canal in a condition which
mitigates this impact.
8.1 (Noise Levels):
The project site is located where noise
levels range from 60 db to 75 db. At the
level of 70 - 75 db, the Dublin General Plan
specifies that this is conditionally accept-
able for office uses (which is the use the
Civic Center can be grouped under) as long
as noise insulation features are included
during the construction process,
The project includes a Police facility,
which requires testing of patrol vehicle
sirens prior to use of the vehicle, This
noise would be intermittent and for a short
duration.
12.1 (Energy
Requirement);
Proposal of a new 52,OOO~ square foot Civic'
Center on this primarily vacant site will
result in a net increase in energy use
compared to no project alternative.
-2-
~~""{*-,'~~'P\'W~':o~.'~_':~~;!.'~."~-'P~";""';:,'-':""'.:''''_:_~'~,:~,.S'~"';'~':~'I'!;"'~""." -"~~-'"':_"T';::~,~~'~7~~~7:'lJ;~fo~~~~'!;.~~~~f:'r"~~~:;~?!J~~~~~,~r.:3.t~l1t~J~"'.iiIV~'t.~~i{"f.;:~~
Sheet 3A
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, INTERIM (continued)
Civic Center Development/City of Dublin
D. MITIGATION MEASURES
1,2 (Ground Water):
The City of Dublin's City Engineer (in
combination with the Project Architect and
Engineer) will be responsible for making
certain that the development of this site
will be completed utilizing the most advance
ground surface materials available in order
to curtail the seepage of urban pollutants
into the ground water system. In addition,
the City Engineer will be responsible for
making certain that the drainage system for
this facility will be properly tied into the
existing City system as well as making
certain that the finished on-site grading is
carried out in a fashion that provides for
smooth and unobstructed flows into the
appropriate drainage systems, This work
shall be completed through the review of
construction plans during the plan check
process to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and prior to beginning
construction.
1.6 (Flooding):
The City of Dublin's City Engineer (in
combination with the Project Engineer and
Architect) will be responsible for
1) making certain that the finished grade
for all building pads, structures, parking
areas and landscape areas on this site are
finished at a level that takes them
completely out of risk of flooding;
2) making certain that all building pads,
structures, and parking areas are
significantly separated from the center line
of Alamo Creek at a distance of at least 100
feet for all buildings and building pads);
and 3) site grading as well a building
placement and parking lot placement are
finished upslope from Alamo Creek, This
work shall be completed through the review
of construction plans during the plan check
process, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and prior to beginning
construction.
-1-
~""""~".':".~:~~~:.~~!ftll~?:~'T~m:~~'::~~J!~~~4.1~~~,);!t'P~~ v-w ~:~~~;~:iit}:~~u';~~'al'l:7:'.:.L.!~~'~\"'T->:'"""t""''''?~
2,1 ( Air Pollution):
2.2 (Wind Alteration):
3.2 (Foundation Support):
3.5 (Seismic Activity):
During the construction grading process, the
City Engineer shall be responsible for
making certain that the project site is
either watered down on a daily basis as many
times as he finds necessary, or other dust
palliative measures are to be used to his
satisfaction in order to prevent excessive
dust pollution.
Although wind movement will be altered, this
change will not be significant enough to
cause any adverse environmental impacts,
particularly since extremely heavy wind
flows in the area do not normally reach
dangerous velocities.
Prior to beginning construction, a Soils
Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist must
submit to the City Building Official and
City Engineer a Soils Report. This Soils
Report shall clearly identify all problems
associated with the soils on this site, The
Report will make specific recommendations
dealing with but not limited to problems
associated with site preparation, grading,
compaction, liquefaction, surface drainage,
erosion control and structural foundation
support. The City Building Official and
City Engineer shall be responsible for
making certain that the content of the Soils
Report is acceptable and,that all site
preparation work is completed in accordance
with this report,
Based upon the results of the "dynamic
analysis" report by the Structural Engineer,
and prior to the issuance of Building
Permits, the construction plans shall
reflect the appropriate construction
standards set forth in the report in order
to mitigate potential earthquake damage,
This work shall be completed to the
satisfaction of the City Building Official
with the assistance of the Structural
Engineer.
-2-
""~:'~"~:>"'~Y':":~~~~"":~""~:i."'~"~::'~~?I~~:l."~~:~~.*;:~~:~~'\~:'~~~~~~~'~~.~'!<7~~<:.'tC~~_';~~~:~;~"Sir~J:,~~=~~~~~~~y:~,.,~:.~:tr.~~:;:X!k~~.~::::i~~r':~~
3.6 (Liquefaction);
4.2 (Vegetative
Community Types);
6,1 (Transportation
Facilities) ;
The Soils Report mentioned in Mitigation
Measure 3,2 will set forth appropriate
mitigation measures in order to avoid
liquefaction. The City Building Official
and City Engineer will be responsible for
making certain that all necessary mitigation
measures are complied with and shown on
construction plans as well as during on-site
construction progress checks,
Through the review of the design of this
facility, the Planning Director can make
certain that the Project Architect makes
reasonable attempts to save as many mature,
healthy trees as possible. In addition, the
Planning Director can make certain that the
approved landscape plans contain a substan-
tial amount of mature speciman trees in
order to mitigate the loss of any
significant trees.
In 1985 the City of Dublin Traffic Engineer
prepared a report analyzing traffic
conditions. This report was completed based
on a development plan submitted by the
previous property owner, Imperial Freeholds.
Their proposal included a 160,779 square
foot office complex on the same site as the
proposed Civc Center site, As a result of
this study, a signal was required for the
intersection of Dublin Boulevard at Sierra
Court, The traffic signal was ultimately
installed,
If studies completed in 1985 found that a
160,779 square foot office complex can be
constructed on this site and not have
significant traffic impacts as long as a
traffic signal is installed at the
intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Sierra
Court, then a 52,000 square foot Civic
Center complex constructed in 1987/88 should
have an even less significant traffic
impact. A copy of the. Traffic Engineers
report is attached.
-3-
-+___'.... _._.~...,.._.'w_ _' .... -.-- --.~- . .
8,1 (Noise Levels):
*-
12.1 (Energy
Requirements):
-~ ~ ,\
The majority of the building will be located
on portions of the site where noise levels
reach the 60 db reading. This is
acceptable, However, in places on the site
where noise levels exceed 61 db, and the
building is located there, construction
plans shall show special construction
features to mitigate this impact, The City
Building Official shall be responsible for
making certain that these features are
appropriately noted in the construction
plans prior to the issuance of Building
Permits.
With respect to police sirens, this testing
will occur approximately 800 feet from the
nearest residential unit. The distance
should curtail any negative noise impacts.
Proposal of a new 52,000~ square foot Civic
Center on a vacant site will result in a net
increase in energy use, However, its
construction will not adversely impact the
utility district's ability to provide
services here.
~ / V
J'9- 0 VD ~
(2J~~~\1
,y\~
\
f ~ \~-
-4-
....~~
4637 Chabot Drive. Suite 214
Pleasanton Ca. 94566
(415) 463-06'1
MEMORANDUM
DATE :
January 2, 1985
Tom CeIllca, City of D.Jblin
'1'0:
FF:CM:
Chris D. Kinzel, TJKM
Sti'BJEcr:
Eedford ani ~al Traffic Study
~ memorandum is to present the fin:lings of cur traffic study for the
Eedford Properties developrr.e.'1t on sierra Court a."Xl the !m;:e-'>"ial' Freeholds
project on the south side of D.Jblin Eoulevard adjoining the D.Jblin Sports
Grounds. The purpose of. the, ~tudy i~ to determine the appropriate
distribution of costs for s1gnahzmg the mtersec+-~on of D.Jblin Eoulevard
and Sierra Court. The estilnated total sicmal installation cost is
$100,000. 'I'Wo access altenlates at the Inperial Freeholds project site
were analyzed, one with a driveway access onto Dublin Eculevard at a
location approximately 400 feet west of Sierra Ccw:t, ani the other with an
access road through the D.Jblin Sforts Grour.ds ani joining D.Jblin Eoulevard
rHrectly opposite sierra Ccurt. P.M. peak hour total inte..'>"S€C'-..ion approac..'l
volmnes were used in detenninir:g project contributions. '!he existir.g p.m.
peak hour total approach volume at the intersection of Dublin
Eculevardjsie:rra Court is 2,189 vehicles per hour (vph).
'The Eedford project site would contain 192,648 square feet of gross floor
area, ani, l::ase:i. on infomation provided by SUsan Shipley of Bedford, it
was assumed that 30 percent of the project area w-ould be used as offices
ani the rest as warehouses. It is estinated that tl'..e Bedford project would
gene.-"C.te 1,201 ve.~cle trir:s per day ani 240 vehicle trips during the p.m.
peak hour,' ani 144 of the 240 ve.~cle trips would use the intersection of
D.Jblin EoulevardjSierra Court. .
'!he prq:csed Inperial office cc:t;l1e.'C contains 160,779 square feet of gross
floor area, wmc..'l would generate apprcx:i.mately 1,736 vehicle trips per day
and. 347 vehicle trir:s during the p.m. peak hour. With an access directly
opposing sierra Court, all of the Imperial traffic would use the
inte...""SeCtion of DJblin Eoulevard/Sierra Court. With an access to the west
of Sierra court, only 320 of the 347 vehicle trips would use this
inte...'rSection, since left: turns cut of the site would be prohibited.
Therefore, if the signal installation cost 'Were to be divided between
Bedford and Imperial based on p.m. peak hour generation at Dublin
Boulevard/sierra Court, Bedford should contribute 29.3 percent
($29,300.00), and Imperial 70.7 percent ($70,700.00), with a 1IlIperial
access opposing Sierra Court. If the Imperial access were to be located
west of Sierra Court, ,then Bedford loIOuld need to contrih1te 31.0 percent
($31,000.00), and Inperial 69.0 ~t.,(~~~,OOO.OO). .
EXHIBIT
4-
'"
Tom ~Tl1("'a
-2-
Jamary 2, 1985
A 170,000 square foot :Bank of J\lllerica buildiIx] existed on the Bedford
project site before bein;J dem::>lished in August, 1984. Eecause of lack of
infonnation, we were unable to determine the trip generation of that
buildin:J before the dem::>1ition. since the available traffic vol\.1I'OOS at
D.1blin Eoulevard/sierra Court were eot.mted in August, 1983, they probably
include some of the trips generated by the Eank of AInerica buildi.n:J YJhi.ch
does net exist anyIIXJre. If the ca.mt:s were c:or.ducted noN, it is likely
that the volurres on Sierra Court ~d came out lCN1er than the 1983 ca.mt:s.
HOW'ever, this would net c:ha.n;e the ClIllCll.mt of the i.ncrementa1 iJrpacts of the
two study projects. .
other Dublin future developments that lIIight c:ontribute to the volume
increases at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard/Siena Court were
considered in the D.1blin Eoulevard Traffic Studv' conducted by TJ>>1 in
March, 1984. A list of these projects is presentei in the attac.'IJ.ed table.
'Their locations are shown in the attached, figure.
A separate cost YJhi.ch should be borne by !lIIpe..":i.a1 Freeholds, is the cost
for widening Dublin Boulevard to allOW' U-turns at the inte..."'"Section of
D.Jblin Eoulevard/sierra Court, if their site access is to be located west
of Sierra Court. An eight-foot wideninJ will be needed on the north side
of D.1blin Eoulevard west of sie...'7a Court for approxilrately 200 feet.
J:hm
Attachments
cc: Larry Tong
Lee 'Ihonpson
15717
,e.... '.:".: .~~~:~~:... ....:' ~ \.~.~,.;:,,:-..... ;.." ", ,.t'..r.:....... ~~_~,,;,..:.r,_~...'..-:- ,. .~~::.~~,: -"'I'1;::lr:"~ ~~~..';t;'"':'J;......~....."\~':"''';;.,..J;'"\''':::~-'.7~:_.: .0'> ~.,,'"
.. t, 'f;
~I
WID USE DATA :FeR OIlIER kV.l~ IFlEWIHEN'IS
SF MF Parking
Description 1.000 sa.ft. units Units Stalls
1 commercial 65.0
2 commercial 175.0
3 BARr station 1,250
4 Motel 80
5 Multi-Family 121
6 Multi-Family 53
7 Office 20.0
Lt. In:1ustrial 20.0
8 Office 23,4
Lt. In:1ustrial 12.6
9 Motel 150
10 ,Office 40.0
Research 16.3
11 Lt. Mfg. 157. 0
Office 17.0 -
12 Lt. In:1ustrial 78.3
Office 8.7
13 Lt. Irrlustrial 39.2
Office 4.4
14 Lt. In:1ustrial 107.6 -
Office 57.9
15 Lt. In:1ustrial 74.5
Office 8.3
16 Lt. In:1ustrial 82.4
Office 9.2
.,~>~:: :". . ..;: '~:':J .:.
r: ::;~;~":' ~ ~.~~..'~/}' \:. ;::~~~:.'
:'_',..~".; ,. ..~ " :':'..... .'
,. ,., ~.<:<.,. ~,r' '.~~~,~ ..'"
,__~~_.~~.~:__._:;._;_..___.______~~h~~,...-~~11t:;.:SEs1G::'X',;~i;:';','" ;,~::,..':,;'
.\
\
I
i.
\ q"
\ I
.-------~ )
".-,--............ ,
,-
,
,
-
\
\;;:
~
\
\
\
\
\
;!,.'
","t..
"
.'
,.-
".
..'
"
. .. (~f
. \ .