Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.5 EstblshROWLnStPtrkWy CITY OF DUBLIN A J~.,]DA STATEMENT City Council ,{~eting Date' July 25 1988 St. Patrick Way SUBJECT' Public Hearing' Establizhment of Right-of-Way Lines for a New Road Parallel to and Southerl7 of Dublin Boulevard (Between Amador Plaza Road and Regional Street) E,,YZTBI~S,- _ ATTACHED' 1) Resolution Adopting l{itigated Negative Declaration 2) Draft Ordinance '~ ~-~ = denial of protests 3) Mao of Proposed Plan Line Alternatives 4) Circulation Improvements - Durp!in Do~tov~ Plan 5) Proposed Street Section - Dublin Dow~to~ Plan 6) Proposed Street Section - New Parallel Road 7) Planning Commission Resolution Reccmmending AdoDtion of Hitigatad Negative Declaration (Resolution No. 88-036) 8) Planning Commission Resolution RecoLuending Establishment of Plan Line (Resolution No. 88- 0~V) 9) Proposed Mitigated" .... ' ~,=s=~zve Declaration t0) Existing Parcels 11) Planning Commission >[inures, April ~, May 2, Hay 16, and June 6, 195~ 12) Letters from HarveZ Levine dated 5/2, 5/16, and 13) Letter from John G~ Enea dated 5/9/~$ 14) Letter from Bud Lake dated 6/27/88 6) Re-omen ~ublic hearin~ Receive Staff report and public testimony Question Staff and the public Close oublic hearing and deliberate Adopt Resolution Adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration Waive ~==:'_~c~no= and introduce Ordinance Esta~~sn~nz Right°of-Way Lines No direct financial imsacts would occur from the recommended action. Costs zo the City as a result of deve!o~menn of the road would depend on the financing mechanism selected for this project. A sezarate action would be required by the City Council to authorize financing the project. DESCRiPTiON' ibis item has be~n continued from the City Council meeting of June 27, 5~.,~I had :~o~ completed ~ '] ' ~ for the ~:-o~ect and had not oreoared a full report of the project. The City Council o~ened the public hearing, received public testimonN, !eft the public hearing open, and continued the matter to the July 25, 19SS, meeting. The Circulation Plan for the Dublin Downto'.~n: Specific Plan includes reco:'.:mer, ded changes to improve do,.,m, to,.~n circulation. One such imorovement is a new street parallel to ar.d soutl'.erlv of Dublin 5ou!evard, cot. meeting Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road. The Downto~c~. Plan shows the a?proximate location of this road midway between Dublin Boulevard and I-5S0. ?he precise I'l't.'..~t NO.~ ~ COPIES TO: Property alignment of the street must be established throu~, adoption of a right-of-way line. After meeting with property owners affected by this proposed new street, Staff's recommendation was Alternative 1 shown on Ezhibit 3 attached. City Ordinance ~o. 44-87, entitled "Establishing Right-of-Way Lines," provides procedures for initiating and establishin~ ~~ght-of-way lines. Section 11, Effe_t of Right-of-Way Line, states that it is unlawful to construct or erect any building or structure within the newly established right-of-way line. The purpose of the right-of--~ay line (or plan line) is to notify adjacent property owners of future road;~ay requirements. If adjacent property is developed prior to the construction of the road within a new or revised right-of-way line, then that future development of the property, including yard requirements, must observe the loca-~ion of the future road. The right-of-way line can help guide dove!tomcat in an area to assure that circulation improvements can be accommodated. ?ne 1986-1991 Capital Improvement Program <Cf?) includes a 1987-88 project to study plan line widths and alignments, conduct public hearings, and establish a plan line for this parallel road. The Plannin~ Com~mission held public hearings on this project on April 4, lday 2, May 16, and June 6, 1988. After considering Staff's presentation and public comment at the April 4th meeting, the Planning Commission requested S~=~ consider alternative aligr~ments, which are sho'~n as Alternatives 2 that ~== and 3 on Exhibit 3. Alternative 2 is the least feasible because of impending freeway improvements and the location of the Zone 7 channel. Alternative 3 is estimated to cost approximately $300,000 more than Alternative 1 and would not utilize right-of-way that has already been offered for dedication. Tine offer for dedication relates to property located on the west side of ~.ador Plaza and o~ed by the Enea family. After receiving additional Staff presentazicns and public testimony at succeeding meetings, the Planning Com~mission adoczed resolutions recommending adoption of the~-~o---~ated ~e~=~'~ Declaration and adootion, of Plan Line Alternative 1. Copies of the Resolutions adooted 5-r the Planning Cot_mission are annached as Exhibits 4 and 5. Since the Planning Commission reco~m, endation to adopt the P~egati~ze Declaration, Staff has conducted additional enviror~.enta! review. As a result, a revised initial study (enviror~ental assessment) has been prepared. !he conclusion of the initial study has not changed, nor have the mitigated meausres included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration changed (Exhibit 9). The following information ,~as contained in the Staff Report presented to the Planning Com~nission on june ~. Need A oaral!el road south of Dublin Boulevard :,-culd offer the fo!!o~-ing benefits~to do:~-nte:~ circulation and traffic !) Traffic conditions at major intersectiens along Dublin Boulevard would be e~ualized. This cross-connection would al!ow alternative routes out onto Dubli~ Boulevard and relieve congestion at [he Kegional Street/Dublin Boulevard intersection. 2) Three long cu!-de-sacs :~'ou!d be eliminated, facilitating movement, especiailv for emergency vehicles. 3) Access from one cul-de-sac to another :,'o'ald be provided ~'ithout requiring travel en Dublin Boulevard. 4) Internal circulation %~'ould be provide,i in the area south of Dublin Boulevard, which ~,'ill encourage development of property consistent ~,,ith the land uses designated in the Do~.to~,'n Specific F!an and provide additional pedestrian links in the area. 5) Access ~,'ould be provided to the future 3AK? parking lot from three access points rather than concentratipql traffic at Jolden Gate Drive. In general the road ,,~ ha-~ area-wide (do;mtown) circulation benefits-' by providin;3 an alternat~: route. Size and Caoacit'~ ~ne Dublin General Plan contains Policy 5.1.F in the Circulation Element which reads' "Connect existing cul-de-sac streets near proposed B~3.T station south of Dublin Boulevard." A new street is sho~ on the General Plan Map. Diagram 4 and Diagram 6 of the Downtown Specific Plan show a new street and a street right-of-way section of 65 feet (Exhibits A and 5), which would provide two traffic lanes and a center two-way left turn lane (44 feet) plus parkways on either side (15 =~e~t~ and 6 feet). TJ~, the City's. traffic engineer, has evaluated the projected traffic for this road and has revised the optimal section to be 68 feet (~'-'h~b~.~ ..... 6), to include two eight-foot side~alks and two tra[i~c"~' lanes (20 feet each) and a center two-wav~ ~ie~~=~ turn lane (12 feet). ...... 12-foot travel lane and an 8-foot The 20-foot traffic lane czuld a ........ odat~ a parking lane. The pro~zision o= on-street parking would be determined during project design. F~n=~· -~ design of the road, giuen a 6~-foot right-of-way, could still take advantage of a wider parkway on one side (e.g., 12 feet on one side and A feet on the other). The proposed right-Gl-wa'; ;~ou!d be able to ...... ~oda~ about 17,500 average daily trips (ADT). Alternatives 2-hree plan line alternatives were evaluated in detail· Attachment 3 shows all three alternatives. !) Alternative 1 is the Staff-preferred alternative. This alignment would fall approximately halfway between Dublin Boulevard and the 1-580 freewa?'. The road would be located beu.~een the large retail building which · ~-~--? and others and the warehouse where houses Orchard Supply, Ross, -= ..... Unisource is located. Tn~ roac would proceed across Golden Gate Drive, with the northern edge of the righg-of-~-av falling along the northern property line of t?~e undeveloped parcel c~.ec ~ the Woolvertcns south of the seoarate Cro'.~. Chevrolet parcel, also o:~.ed by the Woo!vertons, and connect to the land offered for dedication from -h~ --n~ Plaza retail development The Alternative 1 road :~ould leave a 2.35+ acre bui!dabie area on the Enea parcel south of the road. Due to limitations of space bez~een existing buildings, the right-of-way section would need to narro~ to 6~ feet for approximately 600 feet. ibis narrow, er area beg~een the rear of the existing Kcss/Crchard Supply building (A?~ 9~!-!500-44) and the Unisouree building (AP~ 921-1500-47-2) would orovide a minim~u~ !i0 feet maneuvering area for trucks at the Unisource warehouse. issues related to A!te-_'nazi';e ! follow' -, · ....... s~itate the removal of 191 parking spaces (69 behind Ross/Orchard £uFpiv and 122 from the front of Unisource). x~-~= -~ ~ could be included in tie project to orovide uo to 150 addiUiona! ~arklng soaces for Unissurce (see >litigated Negative Declaration - Exhibit 9). The reduced parking on the other parcel ~ou!c not Be considered slon~ ....... due to the low parking occupanc? rate in Do~,~.no~,~. Dublin. Depending on the ...... ~ design of the roac;,'av, the street may be able to acco ...... oda.e on-street parking which ;,'ev.,_d further reduce impacts from the loss of Gu-site parhing. The project would ~- reduce the. b~,~.~-up area for truck loading at Unisource from 121 feet to 110 feet. ~.e 110 feet is considered adequate for 55-foot-leug trucks. C~ The right-of-way between Golden Gate Drive aud Amador Plaza Road would cross un~eve!oped property. Ther~ would not be any siguificant impacts to existing development. The road ~ould leave a 1.4+ acre buildable area on the undeveloped Woolvertou parcel. This size ~,,ouid be - ;;~-'.~- to accommodate a c~mn.ercial GU office use -3- as de.~;i~nated in the Do;~nto',~n Specific Plan. The location of the road at this location would preclude the contiguous ezpansion of Crown Chevrolet onto the undeveloped Woolverton parcel to the south. This alignment would reduce access to the rear of the Orchard Supply, Ross, Krause's, and Levitz stores. With the exception of the Levitz customer pick-up roll-up door, all the doors along the back of this building are for pedestrian use. Ihey were not designed as truck loading/unloading areas. ?ne location of the roadway adjacent to the rear building sidewalk would preclude the use of these doors for other than pedestrian traffic. Loading for the Ross and Krause's stores would have to be done from the front of the stores. The customer pick-up for Le-~itz could still be used, although vehicles would not be able to back up to the door in a perpendicular manner. Orchard Supply has a formal truck loading dock on the side of the building which ~ould not be affected by the proposed road. The plan line location in this western portion of the project site was chosen to provide continued use of businesses on both sides of the road~¥ay. ~= cost for tn~s aligr~enn a!nernative is estimated to be $~ million. 2} Alternative 2 would place the parallel road adjacent to the freeway (1-580) over the Alameda County Flood Control Channel. Regional Street and D~ador Plaza Road would each need to be extended. ?mis alternative would result in approximately 3,200 lineal feet of total roadway. Costs for acquisition, design, and construction would be approximately $6.7 million. The pros and cons of this a!ig?~.ent follow. A) The most significant problem would be that Ca!trams has indicated they need 100 to 150 feet of additional right-of-way in this area for the ultimate width of !-~0. ine remaining c:mments are made for comp!eteness: however, they would be rendered moon by Ca!trams' need for the right-of-~ay. B) Construction over the Flood Contrs! Channel would he more ~ ~ fiat ground In ~-~^~ if the ACFCD were to costl/ than construct_on on . ac ....... , grant approval to build over their facilities, they ~ould require purchase of the property. Flood Control (Zone 7) would no~ be favorable to the enclosing of the channel. The long-term costs to replace underground facilities are considerably higher than the costs to maintain an ooen channel. For this reason, Flood Control would require the City to take over maintenance responsibilities for the unde---o~'-~ ~ortion, as '~ as the uosnream portions of the creek. In addition, any alteration to the channel, as it is a part of .... r ..... ~ an~ Dubi~ Creek, would require =~'~°" approval frc.n the Department of Fish and G~v.e and the Corps of =--~ .... C) The loss of carkin-i soaces would ~e less than the _~referred al-e--native (95 vs. 191 spaces). Ho'~,~'ever, there ;,'ou!d not be the same opportunity for on-sine mitigation of the parking_ soaces lost. The Wiilo;{ Tree Restaurant ~-ou!d lose '20 ~=--k~n~- soaces, and Eo~.¢ard Johnson's ;~'ou!d lose 75 soaces. In addition, the road%'av '.~'ou!d result in dividing the Howard Johnson's parking lot into t~.~'o separate parking = = =. D) In addition to ti~.e loss of parking from the extension of Regional Street, approximately,g00 feet of mature landscaping would be removed. However, ne~.~- landscaoin~ could be planted along the right-of-;{av edge to replace that ~.,'hich is lost. E) The alignment along the creek wou!g be inconsistent with the General Plan and Do~,~.town Specific Plan and would require a General Plan A,.?.enPz?.ent and Specific Plan A?.:en5z:~.ent before a plan line could be established. F) Location along the free~,'ay lessens the opportunity for a landscaped pedestrian parkway ~d~.ich links the block from Regional Street to Amado~' Plaza Road. t~edestrians ~ou!d not be as inclined to use a road adjacent to the freeze,ay du~ to nois~~, nor woul~ the location link retail establisluuents fuequ~nted by p~d~strians (see (I% be!o~>. G) A road at this location would separate the proposed BARTD parking lot from the freeway and the future station. H) This alternative would not provide the incentive for interior circulation, which would lessen the number of vehicles on Dublin Boulevard, because of the greater length and because it moves traffic away from Dublin Boulevard. One of the main objectives of constructing this road is to reduce the traffic on Dublin Boulevard and to ease the congestion at Dublin Boulevard intersections. I) Should the area develop with other uses, there would not be the opportunity for retail business to locate on both sides of the street· Another option for this alternative would be to place the road adjacent to the Flood Control Channel or adjacent to the projected future right-of-way for 1-580. Either of these alternatives would put the road through three existing structures: the Unisource warehouse and two offices buildings at the end of ;=mador Plaza Road. The office buildings would be completely eliminated, but the bulk of the Unisource building could be preset;ed. The concerns outlined in (C) through (i) above would be similar, however, an additional 26 to 30 parking spaces would be eliminated with no opportunity to replace them. Envirorunentat, fiscal, policy, and regulator'/ impacts from Alternative 2 would make this alternative undesirable. 3) Alternative 3 would place the road in the niddle of the block but it would be located further south than Alternative 1 for the area between Golden Gate Drive and ~mador Plaza Road. The length of the road in this area would be only slightly longer than the preferred a!terna~ive. This alternative would place the southern edge of the road along the southern property line of the undeveloped parcel o~.ed by the Wooivertons, and it would split the remaining bui!dab!e area on the Enea Plaza retail development parcel. The road would leave a 1.~+ ac~= bui!dable area on ~e undeveloped ~; ..... - parcel, and it would maintain potential for conti~uous expansion of Cro,~ Chevro!en onto the adjoininz parcel to the south. A) ~.[inor '~== ...... s Alternative i) in the impact to · .~zg t_on measures proposed for ~]'=~= 1 existing parkzng would resu!n. could sti!~ be ~ .... ==d with minor modificaticns B) tm; ai~ .... - would so!it the ~=~-:=;n= bui!dab!e area on the Enea parcel into two (2) a~==s ~ 06± acres and ~ ~' ........ =.~ acres in size· l~-hile c~e_o~ ....... both of these areas could '='- ~ w~~% commercial uses, it is p~=ferable to '~' '~ in '~-= ' !) have a sinzie l~-~ a,-=~ (such as ~x= 2 35+ bui~ca~e area n~rnatlve to allow treater desi=~ and deveioument f!exibiiitv. C~· Additional rian~-o:'- --way would need -,-_~ be acquired (over the oreferred Alternative I). Right-of-wav on the lnea ~arcel has been offered for dedication as part of a ~so ...... ~ settlement for a lawsuit ~ernaining to the Conditions of ~,-ova~ ~o~ the Enea Plaza retail project Should the road be located ~ "~ " ~ ~ ~u~.e_ south, the City would have ~o ?urchase the right-of-way and perhaps compensate the o~,~,er for splitting the 2.35E acre buildabie area. D) This a!ignmenn would reduce the B.~_KiD's usable property by abou~ 16,500 square fee~. This couId mean 40+ fewer parking spaces for the future oarkin~ lot. ~e estimated cost of this ali~n:nent is ~-~.q million. Discussion in order to evaluate the alternatives, Staff contacted Caltrans. BARTD, ~Oll~ro £ . and Alameda County Flood ' ~ ~ From discussion with these three agencies it appears that Alternative 2 (adjacent to freeway) is the least feasible as all three agencies have serious reservations for that alignment relative to their future plans and current policies· Alternative 3 presents far fewer impacts and reservations th:m the road adjacent to the freeway. Differences between Alternative 3 and Alternative 1 occur' mos[iv in the ea~'-euu area (betweeu Coldeu Cate Drive and Amador Plaza -5- Adoption of this ordinance will not result in immediate acquisition of any property; its effect is to prohibit construction of buildings in the designated area (Ordinance ~o. &4-87) and to require dedication of the right- of-way under certain circumstances upon future construction (Ordinance 11-88). An ordinance which reflects that protests were made on the.right-of- way line and denied is proposed to be introduced for Alternative 1. If this ordinance is adopted, the names of the persons protesting must be entered at the close of the hearing. Bud Lake presented a protest at the June 27, 1988, meeting; his name has been included in the.ordinance. Staff recomanends that the Cit7 Council (1) adopt the Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance with Alternative 1 designated as the project (Exhibit !) and (2) enter the names of any additional persons protesting, waive the readin~ and introduce the 6rdinance Establishing Right- of-Way Lines. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF EI~IRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING A RIGHT-OF-WAY OR PLAN LINE FOR A NEW ROAD PARALLEL TO AND SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD BETWEEN REGIONAL STREET AND AMADOR PLAZA ROAD, CITY OF DUBLIN WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended together with the State's administrative guidelines for implementation of the California Envirop~mentat Quality Act, requires that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that enviror~ental documents be ' prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq., a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Enviror~enual Significance has been prepared by the Dublin Planning Department with the project specific mitigation measures outlined in Staff's Initial Study of Enviror~ental Significance dated July 8, 1988, regarding: 1) Land Use WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review a proposed Negative Declaration of Envirop_mental Significance and considered it at a public hearing on June 6, 1988~ and WHEREAS, the Staff thereafter proposed revisions to the proposed Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the City Council did review the Negative Declaration of Envirop~ental Significance, dated July 8, 1988, and considered it at a public hearing on July 25, 1988; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said puWo!ic hearing was given as legally required~ and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council dete~mined that the project, adoption of a plan line (righu-of-way line) for a road parallel to and southerly of Dublin Boulevard (between Regional Street and Amador Plaza Road) in the area designated in the E~;iro~ental Assessmen~ as Alternative 1, includes mitigation measures resulting in a project that will not result in the potential creation of any si?.ificant environmental impacts identified in the Environs. onus! Assessment; NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council finds that the Negative Declaration of Enviror~enta! Significance, dated Ju!v 8, !9S$. with Alternative 1, as sho~. on Figure !, attached to the Envirop=~enta! Assessment, designated as the project, has been ore?ared and processed in accordance with the California AL~inistrative Code and Public Resources Code Section 21000 eh. seq., and than it is adequate and complete. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 25th day of July, 1988. AYES' NOES' ABSENT: ATTEST' City Clerk ORDIIIAI~CE NO. -88 A~ ORDIBAJ~ OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ESTABLISHING RIGHT-OF-WAY LIliES FOR A NEW ROAD PAP.~LLEL TO AND SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD (BETWEEit ~u~DOR P~ZA ROAD AND REGIONAL S~.EET) The City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows' WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Resolution calling for a public hearing to consider future right-of-way lines for a new road parallel to and southerly of Dublin Boulevard between Amador Plaza Road and Regional Street (Resolution :7o. 78-88) and set a public hearing for June 27, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. to hear objections to the establishment of said right-of-~ay lines; and ~EREAS, said hearing :~as continued to July 25, 1988; and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing ~as duly given; and WHEREAS, protests to establishment of said right-of-way line were made by the following' Bud Lake, representative of Bedford Properties, owners of Assessor's Parcel ~:~r. bers 941-1500-&& and 94!-1500-47-2, which protests are hereby denied: NO~, T..~R~FORn,u= = - the' City Council finds and ordains that: Section t. Right-of-way lines are hereby established for a new road parallel to and southerly of Dublin Boulevard between Amador Plaza Road and Regional Street as follows' All that certain real oro'=~tv, r-- situated in the City. cf Dublin, County of Alameda, State cf California, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the west 1 ine of Amador PIaza Road on the south line of that certain parcel of land described in the deed to Enea Plaza recorded December 19, 1980, as instrument No. 80-224805, Records of .'-.: ameda County; thence northerly a~ on~ said west line of Anadcr Plaza Road 427 feet, more or !ess, to the TRUE POINT CF ~=INNiJG~ thence leaving said west !'~ne of ~nador o: =~ Road =:~ the arc cf a non-tancent 30.00 foot radius curve, concave no the north;vest, to a ~o!nu on the prolongation of the north line of that certain parcel of land described in the deed tc Robert T..& Betty J. Wotverton recorded December 20, !97S, as Instrument No. 75-248211, , "' ' ~henc Records of Alameda Coun~}~ ~ e- on a course tangent tothe ~o ly =!one s~id oro~cncation o~ s=~d north previous curve wescor ~ . ~ ~ - 1 ine (78-248211) a distance of 285 feet, note or less, to the ~ "~ erton P-~ (78-248211); thence northeast corner ot said ,~v westerly along said north line (78-248211) and its pro!ongation o= Golden 430 fe~, more or less, to a point on the centerline Gate Drive, hereon referred to as Point "A"; thence in a southwesterly direction 350 feet, mo~e or less, to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave to the north, having a radius of 966 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 105 feet, more or less, to a ~oint on the east line of that certain parcel of land described in the deed to Peter B. Bedford recorded November 21, 195-', as Instrument No. 82-193550, Records of Alameda County, said point hereon referred to as Point "B", lvin~ _ South 4 feet, measured at right angles to, the prolongation of the south ]ine of an existing warehouse lying on said Bedford oa~cel (S~-~ ~3550); thence westerly on a course parallel wLth said south 14' '~ f the existing warehouse 330 feet, more or'~ ess, to t+~e., be~ innin,] of a tancent concave to the southeast, having a radius of 33'2 feet; thence along the arc of:said cuk-v=~ _I"~_ feet, course tangent to the pt-evious curve southwesterly !30 feet, more or less, to the beginning of a ta~:,_-.ent curve, concave to the north, having a radiu:x of 266 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 120 feet, more or less, to a point on the south 1 ine of said Bedford parcel (82-193550); thence on a course tangent to the previous curve along said south line (82-193550) a distance of 165 feet, mo~e or less, to the east line of Regional Street; thence leaving said south line (~2-19~550) southerly along said east 1 ine of Regional Street to a point 68 feet south, measured at right angles to said south line (82- 191550); thence in an easterly direction oarallel with said south line (82-!93550) a distance of 165 feet, more or less, to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave to the north, having a radius 334 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 90 feet, more or less; thence on a course tangent to the previous curve, ~ less to the eginning of a nor~n-asterly 130 tee~, mot- or , tangent curve, concave to the south, having a radius of 268 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 80 feet, more or less, to a point 68 feet south of, measured at right angles to, the prolongation of the.south line of said existing ~ warehouse lying within the Bedford parce!~(82-!93550); thence easterly parallel with sa~d prolongation 330 feet, more or less, to a point south 64 feet from Point "B"; .at the beginning cf a tangent curve, concave to the north, having a radius of 1034 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 105 feet, more or less; thence on a course tangent .to the previous curve, northeasterly 375 feet, more or less, to a .point on the center!ine of Golden Gate Drive, said point being South 68 feet from Point "A"; thence easterly on a course parallel with the north line of said Wo!verton parcel (78-248211), and its prolongation 735 feet, more or less, t'o the beginning of a tangent curve, concave to the southwest, having a radius of 30 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 40 feet, more or less, to a point on the west line of Amador Plaza Road; thence northerly along said west line of Amador Plaza Road 130 feet., more or less, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. all as more particularly sho;~, on ~na~ certain mao entitled "Y-~.? £HOW!:'~G ~,o,~=? TO A~ND SOUTHERLY OF DUBLi~J RIGHT-OF-WAY LI.NES FOR ROAD :-?-~--- - ...... B-~ .... ~ ~2.L%DOR PL%~% ROAD ~2~D REGiO_YAL STREET dated 19SS, and filed in the office of the City Clerk on , 1988, -~kich mao is hereby adopted as a precise plan of said right-of-ray lines. Section 2. The effect of said right-or-'gay lines shall be governed by the provisions of Dublin Ordinance No. Section 3. E?FECT!VE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE. This Ordinance shall ....~.~e effect and %e _- ~ force thirt'.' ~30) davs~ frcm and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) ?ublic places in the Citv of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Gover?~ent Code of she State of California. PASSED AND ADO~i~-~ tn~s th day of lCS~ AYES' NOES ' ABSEXT: ATTEST' City C "' \ 'L 1 I0O~ ~ PARALLEL ROAD SOUTH OF DUBLIhl BOULEVARD. BETWEEf,I REGIOIIAL STREET Alii) AMAfJOR PLAZA IIOAB ......... AbiShl PI'P_.NT /xbTCKNA~I~~ NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL-x WIDENING OF ,. DUBLIN BOULE .\ SAN ,-,,AMO N WIDENING ,xOAD SAN R,A?,toN ROAD OFF-RA,x/? I,\IPROVE.\tEXT~ Circulation Improvements DUBLIN DOWNTOWN ?LAN DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA NEW STREET 'lq .\- NEV'/ TRAFFIC IGNAL / I i Diagram 4 PARKWAY 2 TRAFFIC LANES [ TURN LANE 44" PROPOSED R.O.W. 65' f PARKWAY STREET SOUTH OF DUBLIN BLVD. Proposed Street Sections DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA Diagram 6 PARALLEL ROAD SOUTH_OF_DUBLIN _BO~ILEVARD .__(REGIONAL _STREET._TO AMADOR PLAZA ROAD).._ OPTIMUM SECTION -'-- .-. $o ION No'. .... ' OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN REC01t~ENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCILADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRON-MENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCEKNING A PLAN LINE FOR A NE~ ROAD PARALLEL TO AND SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD BE~FEEN REGIONAL STREET AND AMADOR PLAZA ROAD, CITY OF DUBLIN WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended together with the State's administrative guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and City environmental regulations, requires that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 seq., a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been prepared by the Dublin Planning Department with the project specific mitigation measures outlined in Staff's Initial Study of Environmental Significance dated May 25, 1988, regarding: 1) Land Use WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and considered it at a public hearing on June 6, 1988; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given as legally required: and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the project, Parallel Road South of Dublin Boulevard (Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road) Plan Line has been changed by the Applicant and/or the Applicant has agreed to provide mitigation measures resulting in a project that will not result in the potential creation of any significant environmental impacts identified in the Initial Study of Environmental Signficance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the Negative Declaration of Enviror~ental Significance has been prepared and processed in accordance with State and Local Environmental Law and Guideline Regulations, and that it is adequate and complete. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 6th day of June, 1988. AYES: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack, Tempe! and Zika NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: Planning Director~ RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNGIL ESTABLISH A PLAN LINE PARALLEL ROAD SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD FROM REGIONAL STREET TO AMADOR PLAZA ROAD WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan, incorporated into the record by reference, was adopted by the City Council of the City of Dublin by Resolution No. 12-85 on February 11, 1985; and ~ WHEREAS, the General Plan contains a policy in the circulation element regarding a new street south of Dublin Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Dublin Do,~ntown Specific Plan, incorporated into the record by reference, was adopted by the City Council of the City of Dublin by Resolution No. 55-87 on July 21, 1987; and WHEREAS, the Specific Plan contains an objective in the vehicular circulation plan to develop a plan line for a new street south of Dublin Boulevard connecting Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on June 6, 1988; and WHEtLEAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, this application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been recommended for adoption (Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-036) for this project, as it will have no significant effect on the environment; and Wq~EREAS, the Staff report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the project (Alternative 1); and WHEILE3~, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; and WHEREAS, the plan line is appropriate for the subject property in terms of being compatible to existing and proposed land uses and conforming to the underlying land use designation and it will not overburden public services] and WHERL~S, the plan line will not have a substantial adverse effect on health or safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or public improvement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve the plan line Alternative 1 as described on the attached Exhibits A and B dated June 1, 1988. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 6th day of June, 1988. AYES: Commissioners Barnes ~ ~' , kac~, Tempel and Zika NOES: ABSLNT: Commis s ione r Burnham None ' P'fanning Commission Chairperson Development Se,wices P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 CITY OF DUBLIN Plannin~Zoning 829-4916 Building & Safet~j 829-0822 Engineering/Public Works 829-4927 NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR: Adoption of right-of-way line for PARALLEL ROAD SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEV~ (Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road) (Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. and 14 California Administrative Code Section 15071) LOCATION OF PROJECT: New road located approximately midway between Dublin Boulevard and 1-580 between Regional Street and Amador Plaza Road (See attached map for location of project) PROJECT PROPONENT: City of Dublin DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Adoption of a plan line (right-of-way line) for a road parallel to and southerly of Dublin Boulevard (between Regional Street and Amador Plaza Road) in the area designated in the Environmental Assessment as Alternative 1) FINDINGS: The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. INITIAL STUDY: The initial study ("Envirop~ental Assessment") is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (as are all documents referenced in same initial study) as Exhibit A. MITIGATION MEASURES' See attached "Mitigation Measures," attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B, which are included in the project. PREP.~%TION ' This Negative Declaration was prepared bv the City of Dublin Planning Staff, (415) 829-4916, pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, of the California Administrative Code and Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et. seq. SIGNATURE' Laurence L. Tong, Ptan-i~g~'° DATE: Development Services P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 CITY OF DUBLIN Planning/Zoning 829-4916 Building & Safety 829-0822 Engineering/Public Works 829-4927 NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR: Adoption of right-of-way line for PARALLEL ROAD SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEV~3~ (Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road) (Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. and 14 California Administrative Code Section 15071) LOCATION OF PROJECT: New road located .approximately midway between Dublin Boulevard and 1-580 between Regional Street and Amador Plaza Road (See attached mad for location of project) PROJECT PROPONENT: City of Dublin DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Adoption of a plan line (right-of-way line) for a road parallel to and southerly of Dublin Boulevard (between Regional Street and Amador Plaza Road) in the area designated in the Environmental Assessment as Alternative 1) FINDINGS: The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. INITIAL STUDY: The initial study ("Environmental Assessment") is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (as are all documents referenced in same initial study) as Exhibit A. MITIGATION MEASURES: See attached "Mitigation Measures," attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B, which are included in the project. PREPAF~&TION: This Negative Declaration was prepared by the City of Dublin Planning Staff, (415) 829-4916, pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, of the California A~inistrative Code and Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et. seq. SIGNATURE: Laurence L. Tong, Plan,.i g~irector EXHIBIT "A" OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF .PbtDLt~ (Pur:uanl' fo Public Re-¢ources Code Sec,~[cn 2]0,.30 e[. se~f.) · ' ......... PlcnnM.': ¢' ': Be:ed on ['he .... ' - r.o[__, informc['[on sucre:ire= in Secflon I C- ....... D=~c, ,ne " Sec,~[cn 3, In,riel S['uc{7 [.o c~_?erm:r,:~ wnerner c h:eccr:ve Declor=hon cr En,;~ronmen;c! Im,sccf Repor,~ is requ[red. -- - ] STUDY S:CiIO~' 3. INITIAL to 5e csmpleted b'! :he PLAHNI,,G STAFF Name oF ?rciec, DUBLIN EOL%EVARD PARALLEL ROAD 2Adoption cf Plan Line (Righn-of-way Line) EN-VIRO)LME}~TAL 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· Proiect site is located in a relative!v flat industrial/commercial area. Soils in this area are stable. No kno~% historic or cultural resources exist in the oroiect area. Site orovides no scenic resources. No st~actures are located on the oro~ect site. Western 1/2 of oro~ect site is deve!ooed as oarkinz and drive%ars, and suooorzs no olants or animals beyond a narrow la~dscaoinz strio adjacent to o=,~ ..... structures to the ~orth have retail stores, to the south are a bank and a warehouse. Eastern 1/2 is unimoroved land suo=oruinz weeds axd zrzsses and minima! wildlife (e.z.. zround souirrels and some birds may foraz~ there), structures to the north have car dealershio and retail, to the south are office buildinzs. , .... o..a~lon on: plants and an!maAs Description of surrounding properties including ~: ~ '' ' ' ' ' historical, cultural, and scenic aspects; type an¢ intensity of land use; and scale or development. .... --~=~ ....= ~o Deve!ooed areas with commercial re-:~ and office as ~el! as ~ ........ e. si==¢~:~-~* natural features such as o!ants, animals, tooozraohv, etc.. exist in surroumdln~ area. E>Fv' I RC%?iENTAL I?[PACiS on attached sheets· Factura! ex3ianamions of all answers exceo; *no" are reculred SC.ZLE CF 7T_'._i:AC-2 ' t il ' I ~u L (11 (Il 2.1 A;¢ pollul;on . 3.0 EARTH 3.2 Foundorlon Support 4.0 ?L~TS AND A,~hV, AL£ 4.1 FIcni' cnd .An;mol 4.3 Diversity Will ~e,-ago be ;na-Jeq..~tely a-..comrr~4:ted and treated? Will rece;v;nrJ .,,,~tcrs fnll to mec. t federal /ta,~atds? ~epa~-t, ]ntrus~of ~]t or poIluted adjacent ~er b~;es or from Are there potential c~cn.~ers rclatcE ?n :~:~:e [:[lures? w;ll t~,ere be r;& to ];;e or p-opera/~::a'~e a[ 1~ thsre risk of ~or gr~n~ su~si~,:nc. ~nc ~c~c4 wirh the pro~ec?? Is there risk oF do--D= or loss res, d:(:~ q~e actlvi~? Will ~he pro[cc~ ccus~ or ~c ~xDosc~ oF ~;l~ in slcpe~ cr un~r Will th:re 5e s.~Wantial [os~ cf ~;[ d'~ ~: c~n- s~ruct;on Will the permcc~;l;ty of ~;ls osco:ar ~[ w;:~ t~ velopmcnt of we;Is? cIose to the Are there ~eCleS pre:e~t w~;c~ are ~':~c'~;cr'.Y ~ ~ :usceptFolc to ;m~ac~ f:~ ~u~n act;v;~? ~ ,-~re ~Kete any unusual populaGons o~ p~n~:t ~:: may ~ be of scicntiHc ;ntcre:t ? I I I I I I i i I I 1 I I t I I I I ! , I i ' i I 1. I I I I t I I t I 1 I 1 i i i i I I ! SOURCE (7) (7) (7) (1) (3) (2) (~) (2) (1)(2)(4) (~) (4) (7) (2) (2) , '(4) (3) (~) (3) (4) (3) (4) (3) (4)., Are here veg2:ative c=mmun[ty ty,'"~'...'...~;c}~ ore partic-jIarl), su,:cepHb(c to redact f;~ l~v~ ccHv;~ ~ oF whicn w, [acny faO~ 0r ko.,~ r,, ~ , - ..... '.~h',.i f t 1 I , I I I ~ ~ ~ (3) (4) --- I I 1 ~ ~ ~ (3) (~ I I I · I I I I ! I 1 I I I !. i ! I 1 I I ! , I ,, (3) (~) A-6 (1) (2) (6) ,,. ~ I~L'I'S SCATF. OF IMP~LT SOURCE I I ~.O FACILITIES ~ND SERVIC~ Will th~ p~oject in.ct the p.~il/~eacker r~t[o so J dlstanc.> or mfety ~::rds? I ~ ~ ~ , ~sres gene~at~ ~y lha pro~ct? , or olher feazes gen~a~a an ~n~-~ in fire services i i I (2) 6.0 T~NS?CKTAT!CN I I J j ~ro[ect ;nod~tc to acc=tamed:Se the project's J J 6.2 ' Circulation ~Ml;c~s V/ill de~;g~ oF the pru[ect er c=,~D[ons ;n the su~rou~-: ~ I I I ' ,7.0 HEALTH I J J 7.10dor~ Will ~he protect be ~xoos~d to er ~eneror, :n~ intense '- high d~.:;~ ;n their phys;ca~ I;~;"O cnv[renmcnt? J J I l noi~e levels? j J J ~ ~. (2) (Initial Study/Part 2) 6.0 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. 6.4 Will the proposal result in generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? 6.5 6.6 Will the proposal result in effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? Will the proposal result in substantiai impact upon existing transportation and traffic systems? 6.7 Will the proposal result in alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? 6.8 Will the proposal result in .alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? 6.9 Will the proposal result in increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X YES I X ~ z X(beneficial) (2~ (1) (2) (2) '(6) :i (2) (2: ?.0 COMMUI',IITY C',4.A~-ACTE~ 9.2 ~.omogeneh'y and Diver~i~,, CommunD'f Slag'il;h/and Physical C_.,:~na itlons lO.O VISUAL C~UALITY 10.1 Views 10.2 Shodo',,,'s 11.0 HISTORIC/,,ND CULTL~,AL RE soLr,(cE S I1.1 Hhtorlc and cultural 11.2 Arc}-,oeo!og;c=! Shes · end <:trucl'~es 13.0 L-k N C) orgonJzntlons o,' groups ,,,,hMn Ih~ co~y? Will lhe pro,eot change the c~orocfer al the . of in.me, ethnic, hous[ng, or age g~o~? W;ll'res;cienls of the s~round;n9 area be od,,ers¢ly ' of,retted ky v;ew~ o~ or from lhe pro~ec~? Vgl II'~e pro[--ct involve the desbuction or a|ter- of =n ercko~[o:[col resource? Will ~he pro~ct result ;n is~laH~ cf cn crc~eoJog~col W[i; tk~ Fro~ect ~n~r~uce physical, v~:u~J, audible ~ al~Kerlc eJem~nls ~hat are hal ~n c~rac~cr w;Ih Ar':- t~..':_,r.-- ~---.otent{al problems w;;k !'.k,e ~-..'g~y of en:;C.y requ{r-"d for the proiec.'? Will th--- .-nero)' reRu{remen:: oF :he service u Nhv c=m?cny? ':,¥i[1 t,here bco ncr inert, ate in ~ner_,~'. use'.[ For the project com?:rcJ to the no proi':c! Doo~ :he preicct planning an.-J d?siL~ in{i ,'o inCJ',.~e aricns~ ~d us:rs? .5._ ~ OF IMPACT NO C~.T,TFIED j ~ YES ~0 , ~ × I f I I I ! I l I I I I I I i l I I I ' I I I I I- I I i 'l 1 ~ 1 I I t t I I I I I I~ 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I l I I 1 I I I I I I I l I I l I I l I I I .I I I (~) (3 (3) ~) (3. (3) (4' 73) (4 (3)(4 (3)(4 (2) (7) (7) (2) i (2) (4) ~)(~ · (2)(3 (7~ (2) (. A-8 'ODMPO~ ~_Mpi~L-~IS ~ ~ OF IMPi~LT SOURCE I i 1 13.5 Will the project affect the I I 1- I 1 use of property ~hSch would ! result in inpacts.to the ~General Plan or Zoning Ordinance? I' [ t ' I .1 I C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SiGNIFiC&NCE (7) (2) (3) (4) Does the projec~ have the potenl'ial to degrade the qualib/oF the envkanmen,~, substcn.qclly reduce the habitat oF a t:Jsh cr wildlife species, c:use a Fish cr wildlife po?ulatjon to drop below selF- sush::inJng levels, threaten to eliminate a plant the ' or cn~mc] ccmrnuni~'y, reduce ' nu~er or restr~c~ the rcnge oF a rare or end'angerec] pJcnf or anTmaJ or eJim[nafe impotent ex.m'nples oF the maior periods or CaJ,rornJa history cr pren, .... Does the project h=ve the potential to achieve short- n,eS~ oF [on?term, environmental term, to the disadva ~ ° ~ocis? ~' ~roiec~ hove irnoocfs cra ,na,v,duoJ[y Does ,ne , limh'ed ~ui' cumuioi'e;ve]y considerable".;. (A proieci' may impcc~ on two or mare separate resources where the impact on each resourze is rela,~ively small, b'ut where the eFFect o~¢ the total e£ those [m?ac,~s on the environment is slgniFiccnt.) Does the project have environmental eFFects which will cause substantial adverse effects en human beings, either directly or indirec,~ly? , (2) (2) (2) I (2) A-9: MITIGATION MEASURES Discussion of the ways to rn;t[sa'e ~ne significant effects ~dent]~ed, it: any: Provide additional on-site parking, compensate property owners for separation of property, a.s necessary (see attached M~tjg~ Negative Declaration). E. DETC~RMIN:%TION - On the bask of this init[al evaluaHcn: ~ The C]ty of Publih l:~nds that there will no~ be any significant effect. The par- ticu]ar char~c~er[sHcs of this project and the m~t[Ga~]cn measures incorporated ~nto the design of the projec~ provide ~he factual ~cds Jar the finding. A NEGAT[~ DEC~RATJON ~S R~QUIRED. ~ The C~ of ~b~ in ~in~s thct the propose~, r.o!__,~.~ '~ MAY have c s~gn[iic~n~ eFFec~ on the environment. AN ENVIRONMENTAL iMPA~ R~PORT IS REQUIRED** Signc'ture and da~ ~ ~ soURCE NOTES: (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Determination based on location of project. Determination based on staff office review.- -: Determination based'on field review~ Determination based on the Dublin General Plan Ba~kgroun~ .Studies and EIR. Determination based on the Dublin Zoning Ordinance... Determination based on Downtown Specific Plan Background Studies and Ne9 Dec. Not applicable Other (state data) TJKM (City of'DublinDownto~ Improvement Plan S~of traffic and parking constraints, February 25, 1986) *~NOTF-: Where a project' is revised in respcnse to an lni,~ial Study so tho.~ po.~e:~.~{al o,~4vers~ effects c:re mi~ga,~ed to a point where no signifiom~ env.:ronmental effec.~s would occur~ o " revised tn[~ial S.~udy -,viii be prepared an-d a Negative Dec!arctlon. will be rc~qu'.'red i~s~eod of on E tR. July 8, 1988 RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE FOR PAllALLEL ROAD SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD (REGIONAL STREET TO AMADOR PL;~_A ROAD) INITIAL STUDY B. Environmental Impacts Factual Explanations This project is to establish a right-of-way (plan line) for a road parallel to and southerly of Dublin Boulevard between Regional Street and Amador Plaza Road. Three alternatives were examined for the project. Alternatives 1 and 3 are assessed in detail in this initial study. Alternative 2 is discussed more generally (at the end of this document) due to the environmental constraints which would make the project undesirable. The attached exhibit (Figure 1) shows all three alternatives. Unless otherwise indicated, discussion of impacts refers to both Alternatives 1 and 3. This initial study (environmental assessment) has been prepared using several sources for information on potential impacts (See Page A-10). The Negative Declaration prepared for the Downtown Specific Plan is incorporated, by reference, into this initial study. 2.1 Air Pollution Temporary construction-related air quality impacts will occur by increasing dust, especially if existing paved areas need to be removed. Construction techniques should include watering exposed areas to reduce dust, especially during windy periods. Project will improve traffic circulation in the vicinity which will result in fewer idling vehicles, having a positive benefit to local air quality. 5.2 Commercial Facilities Project will improve access to commercial properties. 6.1, 6.4, 6.6, 6.7 Transportation Facilities Traffic studies prepared by TJX! (City Traffic Engineers) for the Downtown Specific Plan indicate that traffic demands on vicinity roads and intersections in the Downtown Area are projected to approach the design capacity by 1995 (with a BART parking facility and other build-out of the area). Pages 18 - 20 of the Do~to~,~ Specific Plan Negative Declaration (incorporated herein by reference) discuss transportation facilities, including improvements such as this new four lane street south of Dublin Boulevard (between Regional Street and Amador Plaza Road) needed to allow the new development outlined in the Specific Plan while maintaining reasonable intersection levels of service. This Parallel Road project will help equalize some of the traffic at the Regional Street, Golden Gate Drive and A~nador Plaza Road intersections with Dublin Boulevard (to peak hour levels of service D, E & D, respectively). Traffic studies prepared during the preparation of'the Downtown Specific Plan examined different intensities of land use. The adopted land uses were selected as they permitted the highest intensity of development that could be accommodated without significant adverse impacts to the surrounding circulation system. This project, the "parallel road", was included to mitigate potential conjestion impacts at the Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive intersection that would result from the proposed intensity of land use for the area south of Dublin Boulevard between San Ramon Road and 1-680. The parallel road will result in minor decreases in level of service, while maintaining acceptable levels, on two intersections (Regional Street and Amador Plaza Road) but will mitigate an unacceptable level to an acceptable level of service on one intersection (Golden Gate Drive). TJKM (City Traffic Engineers), studies indicate that the calculations of the intersection levels of service in the Downtown Traffic Study included the parallel road. Without the road, the peak hour levels of service would be closer to C, F, and C in 1995. This project will not substantially reduce overall traffic volumes on Dublin Boulevard but will relieve projected conjestion on the wors~ of the 3 intersections by equalizing traffic. A small amount of short distance traffic will use the new road rather than Dublin Boulevard. Project will have a beneficial impact of providing an alternate route between three long cul-de-sacs. This change in circulation is particularly beneficial in emergency situations. 6.5 Parking The project involves the potential for acquisition of property currently used for parking and driveways. In one case (APN 941-1500-47-2 Unisource), parking will be reduced below the amount that is required per the Variance and Conditional Use Permit for Unisource (PA 85-024) and zoning requirements for a warehouse. Zoning normally would require 300 spaces~ however, the Variance/Conditional Use Permit specifies 187 spaces, with annual review to determine if additional spaces should be provided up to 236 spaces. The project would remove 122 existing spaces, leaving 65 spaces. Areas allocated for the additional 49 future parking spaces are not affected by this project (see Figure 2). The project will also result in reduced back-uo space for the truck loading and parking area for this same parcel. Currently, 121 feet is available. The resulting 110 feet is the minimum back-up required for 55- foot tractor-trailers. The largest trucks currently using the site do not exceed 55 feet in length. 7.1 Odors Temporary construction related odors may be associated with the project. Adjacent uses are commercial or industrial, which are not considered sensitive receptors for these odors. Impacts would be temporary and would not be considered adverse impacts. - 2 11.2 Archaeological Sites and Structures Much of the project site previously has been disturbed with no evidence of archaeological resources. Occasionally, resources are discovered in previously disturbe'd areas. Project will include condition that construction will be halted in the event that archaeological resources are discovered in order that a qualified archaeologist can examine the find. 13.5 Land Use The zoning and Site Development Review (PA 83-069) for APN 941- 1500-44 (Orchard Supply Hardware and others - see Figure 3) requires 619 spaces (which have been provided). This plan line would remove 69 spaces for this property. The Downtown Specific Plan indicates that traffic/parking area 5 (in which APN 941-1500-44 is located - see Figures 4 and 5) had a peak parking demand for 26% of the spaces provided. Even if all of the 242 parked cars identified in the survey for traffic/parking Area 5 were parked on the Orchard Supply, et. al., property, the peak demand for Orchard Supply, et. al., would have been for only about 40% of the parking spaces. The parking that will be removed is used primarily for employees. Upon construction of the road, they will be displaced to parking at the front of the building. Due to the low occupancy rate of parking spaces for Parking Area 5, the reduction of 69 available parking spaces is not considered significant. The new road will provide a landscaped walk~ay, thus meeting one of the goals of the Downtown Plan to provide more landscaped areas among paved surfaces. The project will also limit access to the rear of the building containing Ross, Krause's, Levitz, and others. Three doors on the east side of the rear of this building are for pedestrian use and were not designed as truck loading/unloading areas. The proposed roadway location would limit the use of the doors to pedestrian use only. Loading for the Ross and Krause's stores would have to be from the front of the building. With the project, the Levitz customer pick-up, with a roll-up door, can be used for pick-up and deliveries, although vehicles must park parallel to the building and cannot back up to the opening (only smaller trucks can currently back in to the 12± foot high opening). The changes to access to the rear of the building are not considered significant adverse environmental impacts, and therefore no mitigation is required. Three alternative routes were considered primarily for the purpose of assessing alternative economic effects (see Figure 1). The environmental effects unique to each of the alternatives are discussed below: Alternative 1 This alternative would result in the separation of two properties currently under one ownership (Woolvertons - see Figure 3). Crown Chevrolet on the northern parcel would not be able to expand their operation directly to the southern parcel if this project is approved. A resulting parcel of 1.4+ acres would be created. This size is sufficient to accommodate- development of a commercial or office use, as designated in the Downtown Specific Plan. The separation of two lots under one ownership because of a public taking may be eligible for severance compensation. The property owner would have to demonstrate the loss in value of the property to receive such compensation. This potential loss of vaiue does not constitute an environmental impact. Alternative 3 This alternative would result in the splitting of one buildable area into two smaller pieces (Enea property, see Figure 3). The resulting pieces of 1.06+ and 1.29+ acres can develop with commercial and/or office uses; however, it is preferable to have a larger area for greater development flexibility. State Law requires compensation to a property owner when a public taking results in the severing of a property. The need for compensation must be evaluated by the public agency effecting the taking. Alternative 3 would require about 16,500 square feet of BARTD vacant property. This property is planned to be used as a parking lot to support a park-and-ride facility and possibly a future BART station. 16,500 square feet could provide about 40 parking spaces. As the property is currently vacant, there would be no impact to existing land use and no mitigation beyond compensation for property acquisition would be required if this alternative were adopted. Alternative 2 This alternative was considered as an alternative to the proposed project as it would minimize the acquisition of private property. As the alignment of Alternative 2 does not share any of the same land as Alternative 1 or 3, the discussion of land use impacts for Alternatives 1 and 3 does not apply. Some of the traffic issues also would be different. Land Use Issues: Future plans of Caltrans would require an additional 100-150 feet of right-of-way for the freeway (I-580). If the parallel road was constructed prior to Caltrans expansion, Caltrans could, in the future, ® © acquire the land, which would necessitate relocation of the road. This, in turn, would require the road go through an existing warehouse and two existing office buildings. - 95 parking spaces would be eliminated without an opportunity for on-site mitigation. - 400 feet of mature landscaping would be removed, however, new landscaping could be provided along the right-of-way. Locating the road along the creek is not consistent with the location specified in the General Plan or Downtown Specific Plan and would require an amendment to both paths. The Alternative 2 location would not promote the goal of a landscaped pedestrian parkway as it is not generally desirable to stroll near a freeway. Traffic Issues: - This alternative would not provide an incentive for interior circulation, and would not improve emergency access. - 5 - DUI,IL. IN IBL,VO~ 'L ' I-ISBD PARALLEL ROAD ,~OUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD. BL-I'WEEN REOIONAL STREET AND AMADOR PLAZA ROAD ........ ~,bI~NM~NT' Ab-F~.RNAI' IVD~ ROSS ORCHARD SUPPLY IlO' TRI-VALLEY UNISOURCE III ALAMEDA COUNTy FLOOD CONTROL BART Property PARALLEL ROAD PLAN LINE i 'INITIAL~'STUDY 3~23~88 I~LOOO C]O N'lre Woo Lv~"rvfl PARALLEL ROAD ,~2)UTH OF DUDLIIq BOULEVARD. BETWEEtt REGIOHAL STREET AHD AMADOR PLAZA ROAD '"SXIsT[N6 STUDY INTERSECTIONS TRAFFIC/PARKING ZONES Study Intersections and DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA 15 Traffic/Parking Zones Diagram 3 16%. \\ Peak DUBLIN DUBLIN, Off-Street DOWNTOWN CALIFORNIA December 14, 1985 12:00-4:00 p.m. Parking Utilization Summary PLAN 23 Diagram 7 EXHIBIT "B" OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION MEASURES Adoption of Right-of-Way Line for PARALLEL ROAD SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD (Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road) Mitigation measures included in project to eliminate impacts or reduce impacts to a level of insignificance. Land Use Additional parking shall be provided on-site for ~3N 941-1500-47-2. Annual review of the number of employees and parking demand will determine how many spaces are needed, to a maximum indicated below. The additional parking can be accomplished as described below (see also Figure 1). 1. Restripe driveway along west side of building to provide 90° parking and a drive aisle (net gain of 12 spaces). 2. Build new parking area west of building (47 spaces). 3. Restripe front area to preserve 17 standard size spaces and 5 handicapped sized spaces. g. Provide the parking spaces shown on the variance permit at the rear of the property as expansion parking (49 spaces). 5. Encourage a 7,2002 square foot property exchange between this property and the B~RT property to the east. The exchange will furnish an area of sufficient dimensions to provide 42 spaces, plus will provide the BART property with direct street frontage on the new road. The total 122 spaces which will be removed as a result of this project can be replaced with 108 spaces, with an additional 42 available if the property exchange is executed (total of 150). The City is currently preparing an ordinance that would provide a conforming status to properties rendered non-confo?ming due to a City action such as condemnation. If this ordinance is enacted, it should be applied to this property. If a new business wants to locate at the Unisource site, the parking will have to be re-evaluated, considering that the parking may be less than the standard requirement due to the loss of available parking area. Appropriate compensation for splitting property or loss of parking shall be made to affected propers? o~ers. SUPPLY ..... -- ,-- PLAN ,LINE TRI-VALLE¥ UNISOURCE ii IlL II I I ALAMEDA COUNTy FLOOD CONTROL BART Property PARALLEL ROAD PLAN LINE nUllLIN IILVD, ,2 k C PARALLEL ROAD SOUTH OF DUBLIhl BOULEVARD, BETWEE[t REGIOIqAL STREET AND AMADOR PLAZA ROAD '-' 8)qISY~N6 PARcpL© 300 Mr. Waseca stated that he had contacted his neighbors but had ,. have the automobiles ~emoved. Cm. Barnes closed the publlic hearing. On motion by Cm. Mack, seco~a and a 4-0 vote (Cm. Zika ~bs:e~:)rm~~her ty Road. SUBJECT: Proposed Plan Line for New Road Parallel to and Southerly of Dublin Boulevard to consider establishment of plan lines for new road between Regional Street and Amador Plaza Road. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Tong presented this item regarding the proposed parallel road to the south of Dublin Boulevard connection Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road. Mr. Tong stated that a parallel road south of Dublin Boulevard will offer benefits to downto'~a circulation and traffic flow such as, 1) traffic at major intersections along Dublin Boulevard will be equalized; 2) three long cul-de- sacs will be eliminated, facilitating movement; 3) access from one cul-de-sac to another can be provided without requiring travel on Dublin Boulevard; 4) internal circulation will be provided south of Dublin Boulevard, which will encourage development and additional pedestrian links in the area: and 5) access will be provided to the future BART parking lot from three access points. In general, the road will have area-wide circulation benefits by providing an alternate route. Mr. Tong stated the right-of-way of 65 feet would provide two traffic lanes and a center two-way left turn lane (&4 feet) plus parkways on either side. Due to limitations of space between existing buildings, the right-of-way will need to narrow to 64 feet for approximately 600 feet. Mr. Tong stated the roadway will necessitate the removal of 174 parking spaces behind Ross/Orchard Supply and 122 from the front of Unisource. Depending on final design of the roadway, the street may be able to accommodate on-street parking to reduce impacts from the loss of on-site parking. The project will also reduce the back-up area for truck loading at Unisource. Mr. Tong stated with regard to'timing and costs that no precise schedule has been established for constructing the road and estimated costs for sthe road are about $3 million. Mr. Thompson, City Engineer, elaborated further with regard to the proposed roadway and showed on a map the principal property o~,~ers and route suggested. Regular Meeting ,.pril 4, 1988 · Burnham questioned if the main reason for the roadway was for BART. · ~ Tong stated that the roadway would benefit B~3,T, but it would also help with the congestion problem that additional development in the area would add to. Mr. Thompson stated the roadway would also allow for a second emergency exit. Harvey E. Levine, Attorney, 720 Knoll Center Par~ay, Pleasanton, representing the Woolvertons and Pat Costetto (Crown Chevrolet) stated the Woolvertons were not happy with the recommendations for the roadway. He stated that equalizing traffic, development in the area, and BART were of no benefit to the Woolvertons. Mr. Levite asked that an alte_~native route for the roadway be researched that would be more of a benefit to the Woolvertons and Mr. Costello. Sharon Slater, P.O. Box 1267, Lafayette, CA, Bedford Properties, was concerned with the fact that the road was very clos~ to the Unisource building, and stated she would like to ask for a continuance for a more thorough review. Cm. Burnham asked why the roadway was planned using this particular route. Mr. Thompson stated several alternatives were considered and that this was Staff's recommendation. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. Sharon Slater, stated she had just received the Staff recommendation and would like more time to review the report that there could possibly be a problem with future tenants in that particular building. Mr. Thompson stated he had met several time with Pan Fell, Bedford Properties and she said she would rather have the City propose an alignment. Cm. Burnham stated that due to the Enea property settlement we seemed to be stuck with the road location. Mr. Tong stated that TJ~i had reviewed the road location along the Flood Control Channel and found it difficult to access along Regional Street and Amador Plaza Road and that it would be developed on only one side. Cm. Burnham stated he felt the roadway needs more study. Cm. Barnes felt the alignment of the road was not good for Cro~m Chevrolet, and that it needed more study. Cm. Tempel felt there should be more study. Cm. Mack also felt the issue needed more stud)'· Regular Meeting PCM- 8 - 64 April 4, 1988 On motion by Cm. Tempel, seconded by Cm. Mackf and a 4-0 vote (Cm. Zika absent) it was moved to continue the roadway item to the May 2, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. ER BUSINESS Mr. '~g stated that the Shell Oil Sign Variance Appeal and Howard Johnson Sign V~nce Appeal will be heard at the .next City Council meeting. pLANNING COMM~..ONERS ' CONCERNS. Cm. Tempel had no ~C~rns. Cm. Burnham questioned~e sign ordinance and if there was any way to keep from having ~rob!ems' wit~rtain type signs and the possibility of adapting to these types of signs. Mr. Tong stated a survey can. be~ade of surrounding cities with regard to "st~ signs" an_d ~.'hat z~eing done in other jurisdictions with regards to these types of signs. Cm ~mpanies do not~sent sign at the time of application. Mr. Tong asked what types of signs the Commis~. ~as interested in seeing. Cm. Barnes stated stock signs from parent compani~..~, Cm Wack had no concerns. Cm. Barne,s questioned the status on the access agreement~.~en Target and Alb rtson sMr.eTongstated that there was another meeting scheduled with t~.~.!brary and Target. Regular Meeting PCM-8-65 April 4, 1988 Ms. O'Halloran noted that it is Staff's position that directory signs for properties located on major arterial streets ~uch as Village. Parkway or Boulevard should be single faced signs situated perpendicular to the si She further stated that if the Commission did not want to restrict signage in that matter the Condition should be modified. Ms. O'Halloran stated that the sign area, height and 1, are all items which should be considered when taking action on a Development Review application for freestanding Directory Signs. Cm. Tempel stated he did not see ~he diffe between single-faced and double faced signs. Cm. Tempel sees no problem with ~licant's sign request. Cm. Barnes indicated that would like perpendicular sign and that she was in opposition to a sin Pace 4'x8' sign° On motion by Cm. seconded by Cm. Mack and by a vote of 3-1 (Cm. Tempel oppose Cm. Zika was absent) a Resolution, with an amendment to Condition The Plannign Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 88-024 APPROVING PA 87-122 HUCKE SIGNS SITE DEVELO.P~--~N~ ILEVIE~ REQUEST FOR A C-2-B-40 SPECIAL EASE-~IENT DIRECTORY SIGN AND SIGN PROGRA~M FOR WALL SIGNS AT 7016-7150 VILLAGE PAR!C~AY Commision took a short break. SUBJECT: Proposed Plan Line - New Road Parallel to and Southerly of Dublin Boulevard (Beu~een Amador Plaza Road and Re~iona! Street) Mr. Barger provided background comments on the proposed plan line for the parallel road. He mentioned that at The Planning Commission meeting of 4/4/88 a request was made by the Commission to provides ~o additional alignment alternatives. Trudi Ryan presented the Staff Report for this project. Ms. Rvan made reference to all three alternatives and comments on Alternative 1 which was discussed at the 4/4/$8 meeting. She reviewed impacts and mitigation to 191 parking spaces being removed and reduced vehicle maneuvering area. The cost of Alternative #1 is estimated at $3 million. Ms. Ryan described Alternative ~2 with an estimated $6.7 million cost. She 'commented on the Caltrans projected need for additional right of way. She , described ACFCD requirements for building over a channel and subsequent maintenance responsibilities. She indicated that fewer parking spaces would be available if Alternative 1 was used but there would be no opportunity for on-site mitigation. She commented that the Willow Tree Restaurant and Howard Johnson's would be affected by the loss of existing parking spaces and landscaping. The Alternative 2 a!igp~ent would be inconsistent with the Downto~n Specific Plan. Regular Meeting PCM-8-83 May 2, 1988 Ms. Ryan indicated that Alternative 2 would result in the reduced likelihood of pedestrian usage of area and the s~paratio~ of the proposed BART parking lot from the freeway and the future station. Ms. Ryan described Alternative 3 which ~ould place the road in the middle of the block, located further south than Alternative 1 in the eastern portion of the road. The road length would be slightly longer than the preferred alternative. She indicated that parking impacts and proposed mitigation measures for Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 1. Smaller parcels would be created south of Enea Plaza. Additional right of way would be needed since the property adjacent to Enea Plaza (Alternative 1) had already been offered for dedication. Ms. Ryan commented that the BART property would be reduced by about 16,500 square feet for this alternative. Ms. Ryan stated that Alternative 3 would have fewer impacts and reservations than Alternative 2, but would be more costly than Alternative 1. Alternative 3 results in two smaller parcels being created and the need for a portion of the BART property, reducing potential parking by 40 spaces. Ms. Ryan discussed Staff's recommendations to adopt resolutions for Alternative 1. Cm. Mack refered to page A-7 (initial study) with questions regarding mitigation of odors. Ms. Ryan stated that there will be temporary conszruction related odors, but no mitigation measures are required at this time since no construction activity is proposed. Harvey Levine, of Howell & Hatlgrimson law offices in Pleasanton, representing the Woolvertons and Crown Chevrolet, commented on thoroughness of the review and appreciated the work done. He made comments that the project should not go through Woolverton property if at all possible. Property o~ers would like to have all the property available for development and further use. He questioned the timing on road development. Lee ~aompson says there is no time set yet for construction. Har~'ey Levine stated that it is premature to have the plan line and questioned who should decide on the location of the proposed plan line, suggesting it should be property o~ers and developers. Mr. Levine commented on the Negative Declaration. He questioned if it accurately identifies traffic problems associated with the project and stated that traffic impacts on Dublin Boulevard have not been identified. Mr. Levine commented that the road would be needed when BAAT was built and questioned if that would ever happen. He discusseed item #13 (Land Use) in the initial study and stated it does not address how the project would affect the Woolverton/Crown property. He believed that the project is inconsistent with Do~town Plan which calls for retention of Cro~m Chevrolet. Regular Meeting PCM-8-84 May 2, 195S Marianne Payne, BART, 800p Madison STreet, Oakland, discusses BART's intention to construct a station in Dublin since funding will be available becuase of' the recent passage of Measure B. Bedford Properties representative, Judy Dimation, indcated that Bedford I Properties opposed alignment Alternatives 1 and 3. ~ne commented on future plans, premature decisions, adverse impacts on tenants and requested a continuance of this item in order to allow them time to tell tenants of proposed alternatives to give them time for their comments. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. Cm. Tempel asked Staff if there waas any reason for urgency to adopt a new plan line. Mr. Thompson indicated that it would have been desirable to have the plan line adopted prior to development in the area. That way, property owners would have a plan line to use in preliminary development decisions. Alignments can be modified later, if required. Cm. Burnham indicated that the alignment should be done now. He asked Staff if this property was commited for a BART station. Mr. Barger indicated that the General Plan shows B~_~T at this site and that this plan would be followed unless it is amended. Cm. Burnham asked Staff if the City is locked in=o Alternative 1 becuase of the agreement between the Enea's the the City. Mr. Barger indicated any change in the agreement with the Enea's depend upon Enea's willingness to revise the agreement. Cm. Bu_-nham asked Szaff if there would be problems with a street which does not go straight through, but jogs at Golden Gate. Mr. Thompson indicated that for efficient traffic flow it is better to have a straight through sureet. Cm. Tempel commented on not waiting until its too late to establish a plan line. He indicated that this could lead to financial problems. He asked for cost comparisons between Alternative 1 and Alternative 3. Ms. Kyan explained the cost differences. Alterna=ive 3 could cost $300,000 more than Alternative 1. Cm. Burnham questioned how Suaff came up with a A0 parking space deficiency in regards to Alternative 3 on the B~T site. Ms. Kyan explained that about 40 parking spa9es could be built on the 16,500 square feet of the B.%KT size that would be needed for Alternative 3. The City would need to compensate o~ers for the loss of laud. Regular Meeting PCM-8-85 May 2, 1988 On motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Tempel, and by a vote of 3-1 (Cm. Burnham opposed, Cm. Zika absent), the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 88-026 RECOMMENDATING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCE~NING A PLAN LINE FOR A NEW ROAD PARALLEL TO AND SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD BETWEEN REGIONAL STREET AND AMADOR PLAZA ROAD, CITY OF DUBLIN Cm. Tempel suggests Alternative 3. Cm. Burnham indicated that he would like some input from the City Attorney regarding the Enea agreement with the City. However, he suggests using Alternative 3. Cm. Burnham asked Staff if they have discussed the issue with the Eneas. Mr. Thompson responded that the Eneas do not like Alternative 2. Cms. 'Barnes and Mack indicated their preference for Alternative 3. Ms. Ryan suggested that if Alternative #3 is to be recommended, the item should be continued to allow Staff to prepare a legal description. She clarified that the public hearing has been closed and that only the action on a recommended alignment is to be continued. Ail commissioners agreed to continue item to next meeting and direct Staff to prepare a legal description for Alternative #3. SUBJECT: PA 88-020 - Lyon's Brewerw Conditional Use Permit advised that the Applicant has submitted an application for a CUP for at the Town & Country Shopping Center. Ms. Rvan center initi permitted uses. that due to the low occupancy rates the owner of shopping amendment to the specific plan which expanded the were added to the list of conditional uses. bis. Ryan advised that t beverages. Food and sale of primary use. used primarily for serving alcoholic d liquors would be accessory to the Ms. Ryan commented on the proposed 1 noise, traffic and parking situations relative residential areas. tavern as well as the ne other buildings and Ms. Ryan advised that traffic and parking would peak at ~t hours from retail uses in the center and traffic from the tavern and ad ant would coincide. She advised that parking and traffic problems were anticipated. Regular Meeting PCM-8-86 May 2, 19SS Cm. Zika asked if this.permit was for three ye.ars .... -._. Ms..' O'Halloran indicated that the approval would be fo~ three yearsa possibility .of an extension if it is determined the findings and were still applicable. · ~ '- '~ Baxter's was told they did not have a permit. The Applicant stated that there was a change in and that he had not received the letter. He indicated that it was ement error. He stated that at that time they had lost their nine days and there was a profit loss. -' Cm. Mack closed the Public Hearing. _ On motion from Cm. Burnham, sE by 'Cm. Tempel, and a vote of 4-0 (Cm. Barnes was absent) the Commission adopted - · ..:.. ........ R_ESOLUT NO. 88-029 APPROVING PA 88-~29 BAXTEi{'S .. S AmUm' Co. A ) ._ · TO A COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL FACILITY (DANCE FLO0~) AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AT 7300 AMJJJOR PLAZA ROAD Cm. asked how many other dance facilities were there in Dublin. indicated that he was not sure; however, there were 4 or 5 sites that contacted by the police department. Ms. O'Halloran stated that police department had indicated that Bs_xter's was the first to date to apply. NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS SUBJECT: Prooosed Plan Line - New Road Parallel to and Souther!v of Dublin Boulevard (Between Amador Plaza Road and Regional Street) (continued from meetinzs of Aoril 4 and May 2, 1988) Ms. Ryan indicated that public hearings for the proposed plan line were held on April 4 and May 2, 1988. Ms. Ryan stated that at the May 2, 1988 meeting the Planning Commission considered three alternatives and indicated their preference to Alternative 3. She indicated that the Staff had recommended Alternative 1 and the Staff did not prepare legal descriptions for the other alternatives. She indicated that at that time, The Planning Commission requested Staff to prepare the legal description for Alternative 3. Regular Meeting PCM-8-92 May 16, 1988 Ms. Ryan indicated that Staff prefers Alternative ,1. and that Alternative 3 would be more costly as it requires the a~quisttion of additional lands and may require compensation for splitting the Enea's buildable area. She indicated that the right-of-way that has been offered for dedication was part of a negotiated settlement for a lawsuit pektaintng to the Conditions of Approval for the Enea Plaza project and that the estimated cost for Alternative 3 is $3.3 million, which does not include additional compensation for splitting the butldable area. Ms. Ryan indicated that Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend Alternative 1 to the CiT/ Council. She indicated that the legal description for Alternative 1 and 3 are attached to the Staff Report and that the resolution can be filled in with the Commission's recommended alternative. Cm. Zika asked if the $3 million included all property acquisitions and if the $3.3 million did not include all property acquisitions. Ms. Ryan indicated that it included the property acquisition, but does not include the cost of splitting the Enea's property. She indicated that this requirement is separate for the right-of-way and the owner would be compensated based on the value. She indicated that with the Alternative 1 road alignment, there would not be a splitting of the remaining buildable area on the Enea property. Mr. Tong pointed out the alternative alignments of the road on the plans posted on the wall. Cm. Zika asked if Alternative 3 violates the out-of-court agreement with the Eneas. Mr. Tong indicated that, while it may not violate the agreement, it would not be consistent with it. Cm. Zika asked if Alternative 3 was approved, would the Enea's get additional compensation. Mr. Tong indicated that the City would have to determine just compensation for the Enea's. Mr. Tong reviewed the effects on the Enea property. With Alternative 1, a 2.4+ acre buildable area would remain; with Alternative 3, a 1.!~ acre area wou~d be north of the road and a 1.3+ acre area would be south of the road. From a Planning perspective, the lar~er buildable area is preferable over the smaller buildable areas. Cm. Tempel asked about Crown Chevrolet. Mr. Tong advised that two parcels were owned by the Wolvertons. He ~ndicated that 1.4+ buildable acres would remain under either Alternative 1 or 3. Pat Costel!o stated that he had a problem with the deliberation proceedings and that the public hearing was closed. Regular Meeting PCM-8-93 May 16, 1988 Cm. Mack indicated that at the last meeting the Commission did not have a legal description and had closed' the public hearing and continued the item for Planning Commission deliberation. Cm. Burnham asked for clarification regarding the T~o parcels, being that there were two parcels owned by 1 person. Mr. Tong indicated that the Wolvertons/Crown Chevrolet had two legal divided parcels. Mr. Costello asked if he could prqvide additional comments. Cm. Mack asked if there was a desire to hear the Applicant's additional comments. Cm. Zika indicated that he would. Cm. Mack reopened the public hearing. Mr. Costello, Crown Chevrolet, proceeded to pass out letter from his attorney which indicated his attorney's comments. He indicated that Crown Chevrolet had problems with the future expansion. He suggested that they should sit down and work this out together. He indicated that Staff was contradicting the previous Planning Commission approval. Cm. Mack stated the Staff was not contradicting the previous Planning Commission meeting direction. Pat Costello indicated that Crown would want to be compensated. He indicated that Staff mentioned the lot might be used as a "Used Car" lot and he stated that this was ridiculous. He indicated that someday Crown might want to move there. Mr. Tong indicated that since the Commission had reopened the public hearing then anyone could make additional comments. Cm. Burnh~ asked if both property owners have been corresponding with each other. The Planning Commission asked the Applicant if he had talked with the Eneas and discussed the idea. The Applicant stated that yes they have. Robert Enea indicated that they have only had preliminary conversations. He indicated that he had submitted a letter opposing Alternative 3 which would put a road right through the center of the Enea's remaining shopping area. He indicated his need for a larger parcel in order to get a tenant to occupy space. Regular Meeting PCM-8-94 May 16, 1988 Cm. Burnham asked if the Eneas could compromise with Crown Chevrolet. Mr. Costello indicated that Crown was not been given an opportunity to comment. Ms. Ryan clarified that the Planning Commission indicated their preference for Alternative 3; however, no motion was ever made and the Planning Commission never voted on Alternative 3. Cm. Mack indicated that the Planning Commission'had agreed to continue the item as shown on the previous Pla.nning Commission meeting minutes. Cm. Burnham indicated that he had difficulty making a recommendation. He indicated his preference for an agreement with the Eneas; however, he was not familiar with the agreement with the Eneas and the City. He indicated that this'should have been worked out a long time ago. Mr. Tong indicated that if the Planning Commission felt they could not make a decision or recommendation, the Planning Commission could pass the item onto the City Council for their action. Cm. Burnham commented on his confusion regarding the alternatives and that the Planning Commission was faced with finding the lessor of two evils. Cm. Zika indicated that he was in agreement with M~. Ryan's comments and that he would have to go with Alternative 1. Cm. Tempel indicated that he shared Cm. Zika's recommendation and that it was the lessor of two evils. He indicated that Alternative 1 was the least offensive. Cm. Mack asked for a motion. Cm. Zika motioned for approval of Alternative 1. Mr. Tong indicated to the Chair that Cm. Zika was not at the last Planning Commission meeting and had not reviewed the tapes. In that situation, he advised that Cm. Zika abstain from voting. Cm. Zika abstained. Cm. Tempel motioned for recommendation of Alternative 1. Cm. Burnham seconded the motion just to get the issue going. On the motion, the Planning Commission voted 2-1-1 (Cm. Mack opposed; Cm. Zika abstained). Cm. Mack stated that she voted no because she would like to see it go to the City Council without a recommendation. ~ Mr. Tong asked if the Planning Commission would like to collectively make a motion to forward the item to the City Council without a recommendation. Regular Meeting PCM- 8- 95 May 16, 1988 Cm. Burnham asked for clarification. ' Mr. Tong stated that at this point, the 2-1-1 vote means no recommendation and that three votes would be needed for a recommendation. Cm. Zika indicated that he was unable to vote. No further action was taken. OTHER BUSINESS Cm. Mack asked if there was any other business. el Tong indicated that copies of the Draft Hazardous Waste Management Plan available which were very detailed and complex. He stated that the County Planning Department was requesting comments and that the City eed to amend the General Plan to adopt a hazardous waste ~uagement He indicated that the report was prepared by consultants. Mr. Tong they would 7:00 on July ed that the Planning DeparTment was notified by the library that the Planning Commission meeting to start at 7:30 instead of which is a Tuesday. Cm. Tempel in¢ had no problem with the time change. Cm. Zika indicated he no problem with the time change. pLA~NNING COb~MISSIONERS' Cf Cm. Zika stated that he wishes he vote. Cm. Tempel indicated that Cm. Zika's Cm. Tempel asked about the status of the Village Park-way. Mr. Thompson indicated that it was out-to-bid. Cm. Burnham indicated his conce~n regarding the traffic onto Village Park~'ay in the Kentucky Fried Chicken area. was difficult getting out of that parking lot and the Mr. Thompson indicated that there would ultimately be a stop right turn at this intersection. have know, he would not be allowed to were appreciated. signal project au Lewis & ,blems ~arning right indicated that it ere in the way. Ld of a free Regular Meeting PCM- 8- 96 May 16, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: Proposed Plan Line - New Road Parallel to and Southerly of Dublin Boulevard (Between Amador Plaza Road and Regional Street) Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. Ryan indicated that the Planning Commission previously held public hearings and that no decision was made at'the previous meetings. She described the ordinance which requires the Planning Commission to make a recommendation before any action can be taken by the City Council. She indicated that the City Attorney recommended that a new public hearing be held so that the Planning Commission can make a specific recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Ryan indicated that a parallel road South of Dublin Boulevard is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and Dublin Downtown Specific Plan and would be beneficial to downto'~n circulation and traffic flow. She indicated that there were three plan line alternatives discussed in the previous public hearings. She described the three plan line alternatives, while Lee ~ompson pointed out these areas on the plan attached to the wall. Ms. Ryan indicated that in order to evaluate these alternatives, Caltrans, BARTD and Alameda County Flood Control were contacted. She indicated that these agencies suggested that Alternative 2 was the least feasible, that Alternative 3 presented fewer impacts and reservations, and that Alternative 1 had the fewest impacts. Alternative 1 allows for the continued use of existing businesses. Ms. Ryan indicated that these agencies stated that the differences between Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 occured mostly in the eastern area, that Alternative 3 would be more costly due to additional right-of-way requirements. In addition, Alternative 3 would require the acquisition of about 16,500 square feet of BA~RTD property. She indicated that there is no precise construction schedule established for the plan line. She indicated the need to tie the schedule into B~RTD development or other land development in the area. Ms. Ryan indicated that Staff recommends the adoption of the Negative Declaration and the adoption of the recommendation for Plan Line Alternative ! for City Council approval. Cm. Zika asked if Alternative 1 was recommended, might the Woolvertons be eligible for severance compensation. Ms. Ryan indicated they might and that Libby Silver would be able to explain the legal situation in regards to the two parcels. Regular Meeting PCM-11-100 June 6, 1988 Ms. Silver indicated that the property would be acquired either through condemnation or through dedication. She indicated that if the property was acquired, it would be at fair market value and there maybe severance damages. She indicated that this may or may not occur, depending on the situation at that time. Cm. Zika asked if we chose Alternative 3 if we would have any liability for severances on the Enea property. Ms. Ryan stated that there may be severance if one property is split by a road. Cm. Tempel asked why Alternative 1 was $3 million and Alternative 3 was $3.3 million. Ms. Ryan indicated that the higher estimate was based on the cost of acquiring the land for the right-of-way. Cm. Tempel asked why Alternative 3, on a net basis, was less expensive. Ms. Ryan indicated that the costs for design and construction would be similar; however, Alternative 1 had already had right-of-way offered. For dedication, Alternative 3 required the acquisition of additional right-of-way. Harvey LeVine, representative for Woolverton, explained his concerns. He indicated that Alternative 3 was the better alte~.ative and that Alternative 1 was not desirable to them. He indicated that Woo!verton needed alternate uses and that the larger area had more design and development flexibili~/. He indicated that Alternative 1 may be more desirable to the Planning Staff; however, Alternative 1 would reduce the Woolverton's flexibility. Mr. LeVine indicated that the cost figures for this project were premature and that the 10% difference was not a big deal. He indicated that the plan line was premature, that BARTD's situation was still up in the air and that a traffic study was needed. He indicated that a decision should not be made with inadequate information, such as the traffic study or EIR. He indicated that when BARTD is established, there will be more traffic and that we should acquire more information from B~_RiD in regards to traffic impacts. Mr. LeVine summarized by indicating that Aternative 3 was preferred; however, the money factor was premature and B~RTD's situation was speculative. Bud Lake, Bedford Properties, indicated that he was looking over the Dublin Do~town Specific Plan and that we should be looking at future road and future right-of-way situations. He commented that Unisource is a light industrial area and is an interim use. Mr. Lake indicated that timing was not right and that traffic conditions and congestion should be considered. He stated that B.~KTD's plans were not kno~ and that BARTD would be the controlling factor. Regular Meeting PCM-11-101 June 6, 198S Mr. Lake made reference to the previous Liberty House store now leased to other businesses and gave pictures to the Commissioners. He indicated that the 5-year leases would rollover and that the plan line would affect the uses in that area. He indicated that the Levitz loading area would be affected and that the plan line was premature. Mr. Lake made reference to the Lafayette Bart Station and commented on the pedestrian plaza core versus having the street in the center. Cm. Zika asked if BARTD asked for input on their station plans. Mr. Tong indicated that BARTD was in the process of selecting consultants for preparation of an EIR and that the Staff had spoken with some of the potential consultants. Mr. Tong indicated that there was a parking lot proposal but the precise design had not been worked out. He indicated that BARTD is relying on the City to determine where the alignment should be. Cm. Zika asked if there was a time limit on the right-of-way settlement situation. Mr. Tong indicated that there was no time limit. Cm. Burnham indicated that he agreed with Bud Lake ~nat the plans were premature. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. Mr. Tong indicated that establishing a plan line could be lengthy and that Staff wants to avoid problems when development starts moving along. He indicated that Staff would like to avoid duplicating past mistakes. He indicated that if there are major development proposals, Staff could modify the plan line at that time. Cm. Zika asked if there were any reasons why we could not change the plan line later. Mr. Tong indicated that there would be a new public hearing and it would go through a similar process at that time. He reiterated that Staff recommends Alternative 1. Cm. Tempel stated that he had observed a similar situation in Southern California and that he was not notified of plan line changes. He indicated that something needed to be done now. Cm. Mack concurred with Cm. Tempel's comments. Cm. Zika 'asked if they could make a tentative guide on where the road was going. Regular Meeting PCM-11-102 June 6, 1988 Ms. Silver indicated that this cannot be done. She indicated that the plan line needed to be recorded and the property owners needed to be notified. She indicated that a plan line needed to be adopted and an amendment could be recorded later if an amendment was needed. On motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Tempel and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCILADOPT A EITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRO~tMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING A PLAN LINE FOR ANEW ROAD PARALLEL TO AND SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD BETWEEN REGIONAL STREET AND AMADOR PLAZA ROAD, CITY OF DUBLIN Cm. Tempel asked what the problem would be if Alternative 1 was established in regards to Enea Properties 2.5 acres. Mr. Tong indicated that whatever alternate was adopted, that alternative will control the route through proposed development. On motion by Cm. Tempel, seconded by Cm. Mack and with a vote of 4-1 (Cm. Burnham opposed), the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 88-037. RECO~MENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISH A PLAN LINE FOR PARALLEL ROAD SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD FROM REGIONAL STREET TO ~MADOR PLAZA ROAD SUBJECT: PA 88-015 Kaufman & Broad Conditional Use Permit request for a Special Easement Sizn at 6379 Clark ~zenue Cm. opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Barger ~ated that Kaufman & Broad has requested a Conditional Use Permit for a S' 1 Easement Sign to identify their administrative offices. He indicated that & Broad has not been able to provide legal evidence of an existing ea Mr. Barger indicated that recommends that the Planning Commission continue this application to Planning Cc~--nission meeting on June 20, 1988, in order to give Kaufman & more time to provide the appropriate doc,~ments. Cm. Zika asked why the Applicant was not Mr. Barger indicated that it was not necessary for since this item would be continued and since the .. action would be taken on the item. Applicant to bepresent is aware that no Regular Meeting PCM-11-103 June 6, 19SS L~w OIIk:e, of Howell & Hallgrimson A Professional Cr.,rl~oration F3e No W213-001 May 2, 1988 FE'CEIyED I AY 0 5 1988 DU~JN PLANN~G.' 7020 I~! ,~ PBrlrw~y, ~ulte 142 F~.~nl~., ¢lil/omla ~45r~ Tele--~ne 415 462 2424 C~forma ~5113-2~T) 408 27§ 408 275 0315 Planning commission city of Dublin 6500 Dublin Blvd. suite 205 Dublin, CA 94566 Proposed Plan Line - New Road~Para!le! to and Southerly to Dublin Blvd. Agenda of May 2, 1988 Item Ko. 8.2 Honorable Chairperson and Planning Commissioners: On beha!f of Betty Woolver~on, Steve Woolverton, and Terri Costello, I am again addressing you regarding the proposed plan line south of Dublin Boulevard. We have reviewed your staff report dated May 2, 1988, regarding the issues raised at your last Planning Commission meeting. We would like to first take the opportunity to thank' you for having your staff review the alternatives to the proposed plan line that were raised at your April 4 hearing. It is unfortunate that alternative two, discussed at some length in the repo~, is apparently not available due to plans by Ca!Trans to use the same property. On the other hand, we were pleased to see that alternative three, which would have less impact on the property owners, is roughly the same cost as the proposed plan line. We again reiterate, however, that the roadway should not go through the Woolvertons' property if at all possible. , It also seems clear to us that approval of a plan line at this time 'is premature. The need for the roadway between Golden Gate and Amador Plaza is in large part due to the proposed BART parking lot on Golden Gate Drive and it is not yet finally confirmed that B.~RT will indeed use the property for that purpose. Dublin Planning Commission May 2, 1988 Page 2 Secondly, the Enea property to the east has not yet had its plan reviewed pursuant to its PD Zoning. It~- is appropriate for the Plann°ing Commission, in reviewing the Enea plans to decide at what point the road should cross that property and approve the development based on the appropriate placement~of the road. it is possible that the Eneas and the Woolvertons could agree to a right-of-way that would'have the minimum impact on both property owners in "good neigkbor discussions," or that the Planning Commission might find that our proposed route could be consistent with a development on the Enea property. If it turns out, however, that there is no acceptable single roadway between Regional Street and kmador Plaza Road, the staff should go back and lcok at alternative methods of moving traffic between these cul-de-sacs. Perhaps one street is not the only or even the most effective way of creating the needed traffic flow between those streets. The connection between Golden Gate and Amador Plaza, for instance, need not line up with the front of the B)~T property. An access from the mid to rear of the B.~KT parking lot could traverse some more southerly route. In summary, it is unnecessary for your cc~._nission to' make the hard decision now as to a plan line, when the only party truly affected by its placenent is the owners of the Woolverton parcel. The Eneas have yet to receive approval for design of their property to the east. BART has yet to finalize its development plans to the west. If your Commission feels strongly, however, that it is now appropriate to establish a plan line, the proposed negative declaration is inadequate. The environmental impacts caused by %he es~abli~hment of a road from Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road will have significant impacts on the prope~ies on both Golden Gate and Amador Plaza. They include the Dublin Planning Commission May 2, 1988 ' ' Page 3 additional traffic from Regional Street and the impact of BART traffic in and around the area. minimum a traffic study should be done to measure those impacts so that your ~ecommendation to the city Council can be based on-appropriate data. Respectfully submitted, HOWELL & HALLGR!MSON ~rgey E.~evine HEL/alp At a Howell & Hallgrirr,.,on A Professional Cocporalion File No. W213-001 ' rater Pmtcw~f, Suite 142 CallfomiB 415 462 2424 San Jose Ollice: ~ 5'3~1h Marl(el Slreet. Su~'e 900 San Jose. Calilornia 95113-2~3 ~n~ 408 275 6300 Te~ec.~c~er 408 215 0315 May 16, 1988 Planning Commission City of Dublin 6500 Dublin Blvd. suite 205 Dublin, CA 94566 Re: Planning Commission Meeting May 16, 1988 Item No. 9.1 Honorable chairperson and Planning Commissioners: On behalf of Betty and Steve Woolverton, and Terri Costello, I am responding to the Planning Staff's repo.rt on tonight's agenda. At the May 2 Planning Commission meeting, Alternative 3 was selected as the preferred alternative by each of the Planning Commissioners. Planning staff was directed to modify the resolution adopting the Plan Line, and to prepare the appropriate legal description allowing for selection of Alternative 3 for the Plan Line. Staff has redrafted the legal description for Alternative 3. In its report, staff continues to argue for Alternative 1, despite your Commission's preference, and your closing of the public hearing. We believe Staff's action is inconsistent with the direction of your Planning Commission and unreasonable given the two public hearings already devoted to this subject. We would hope that, without further debate, your Commission will adopt the resolution attached to the Staff Report, inserting the number three (3) in the blank on the last line of the resolution. If, however, additional discussion is to be made a part of the record, you should renotice the public hearing and provide an opportunity for all those who wish to make comments. We would oppose any attempt, this evening, to reopen this matter for any purpose~other than adoption of the Alternative 3 Plan Line. Very truly yours, $~even L D,,~on R Howeil Joseph P D,C,ucco E~.c Wcng Rc~er R. Rranccn L,nCa M. Lycn$ Jar. e P ReJyea La :,~ence L Lcd:arCo Harvey E. Lewne Ro~alcl I. Ra~ne¥ Day,el C. Eu~C3ess Donna Eecker Mark L Hi~scn Jcc. n S Pasc'~. J~ Jo Ann DePuvO Dat..et J Mash T~.cmas D h_?cy L. Je",e.~, B Hare La..,,ence R Jecsen Jar' O Nea~ C~ C0~nsel A ?rofessic.~al Ccr~'r =.', .'- HOWELL & HALLGRIMSON / HEL/alp Law Otlic~ o! Howell & Hailgrimson A Professional Corporation File No W213-001 7020 Ko,. .,nter Parkway. Suite 142 Ple~on, Callfm'nla 94566 Telephone 415 462 2424 Cal,lr~n~ ~5 I' 3- 2'~ ;3 408 215 ~3Or, June 6, 1988 Planning Commission city of Dublin 6500 Dublin Blvd. suite 205 Dublin, CA 94566 Re: Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 1988 Item No. 8.1 Honorable chairperson and P!anning"Commissioners: On behalf of Betty and Steve Woolverton, and Terri Costello, I am addressing Item 8.1 on your agenda this evening. As noted in the Staff Report, we have visited this issue a number of times and have not yet reached a decision by your Planning Commission. My clients are particularly troubled by the actions of the staff on May 16, 1988. On May 2, the Planning Commission had indicated its preference for Alternative 3 as the Plan Line decision. Staff was to bring back a resolution and legal description to allow the Planning Commission to take action to adopt their preference. Rather, the staff reopened the issue bringing in a new staff report, without preparing the re.cuired notices for a public hearing. This was particularly frustrating since I specifically asked staff after the May 2 meeting, whether or not I need be present at the May 16 meeting. I was assured that the item would be merely the adoption of the Planning Commission's decision of that evening. However, we are here to discuss the Plan Line issues once again. I have included as an attachment to this letter our previous submittals for the record. I will summarize our position as follows: 1. The best alternative for the Woolvertons' properties (Crown Chevrolet site and the Woolvertons' southern parcel) is Alternative 2, although according to staff this is clearly the most expensive if available at all. 2. Between Alternatives 1 and 3, Alternative 3 allows maximum flexibility to the Woolvertons, in that it would allow the remnant parcel to De used in conjunction with the Crown Chevrolet site now and in any future development on that acreage. This is consistent with your general plan for area which emphasizes the importance of future development on that site and the need to support the existing use in the meantime. 3. The cost of Alternative 3, according to staff, is approximately $300,000.00 greater than Alternative 1. However, staff has not taken into account the potential damages that the Woolvertons would claim if the remnant parcel were separated from the Crown Chevrolet parcel. Nor, has the staff attempted to negotiate with the Eneas in order to determine whether they would be willing to revise their existing agreement with the City regarding the needed right-of-way across their property. 4. It is the view of the Woolvertons that ~he action of the Planning Commission is premature at this time since an EIR to dete-~mine the significant impacts of each of the alternatives has not been done nor will the information necessary be available until BART prepares the EIR on their site. In s~mary, your Staff Report shows that ~he only significant difference between Alternatives 1 and 3 is the savings due to the dedication previously made by the Eneas. The planning concerns favoring Alternative 3 are too important to be rejected due to a minor economic savings created by actions taken outside of the Plan Line approval process. Thank you for your continued attention. HOWELL & HALLGRIMSON Harvey E. ~Aevine HEL/alp ?450 DUBLIN BOULEVARD DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA 94566 PHONE~ (41'5) 82~,-4401 May 9, 1988 Planning Commission Members Dublin, california Re: Proposed Plan Line - Mew Road p~ralle! to and Southerly of ~ Dublin Boulevard (Between Amador Plaza Road and Regional Street. Dear Sir or Madam: Pursuant to the above referenced Proposed ?lan Line location, we would like to go on record opposing any realignment of the proposed road that would alter its current location across our property. Since completing our irrevocable dedication agreement with the City of Dublin, we have spent a significant amount of time and money planning for the second phase of our shopping. center. Due to its proximity from Dublin Boulevard, we feel a 3 Acre parcel would lend more flexibility for site development than two separate parcels consisting of a 1 and 2 kcre parcel divided by the proposed road. One larger parcel would allow for a larger development and increase cur chances of attracting an anchor tenant which is critical tc the successful development of this property because of its location off the Dublin Boulevard thoroughfare- In conclusion, we oppose any realignment of the proposed roadway across our property for the above referenced reasons. ~~r~ly, /~ j~qn G. Enea ;: JGE/kh cc: Robert S. Enea BEDFORD PROPER71, June 27, 1988 Mayor Linda Jeffery and Members of the Dublin city Council CITY OF DUBLIN 6500 Dublin Boulevard Dublin, CA 94566 Establishment of Right-of-Way Lines for a New Road South of Dublin Boulevard Agenda - June 27, 1988 - Item 6.2 Dear Mayor Jeffery and Members of the City Council: While staff has not had time to complete their report on the project and is recommending the item be continued to the City Council meeting of July 25, 1988, I thought it would be best to present some of my concerns in writing for your consideration. Since the Council Staff Report is not available, I will be commenting on the Staff Report prepared for the Planning Commission meeting of June 6, which took action to recommend Alternative 1 to you for your approval. This alignment (Alternative 1) has a significant impact on our properties: the existing retail building in the front (APN-941-1500-44) and the Unisource Building to the rear (APN-941-1500-47-2). Development of these two properties would be considered as part of the overall BART Block development. The Specific Plan calls for this general area to consist of "regional transit activities or transit-compatible commercial uses". Interim development standards set out in the Specific Plan call for "an Overall Master Plan emphasizes a mix of commercial uses for long-term change for the area prior to the approval of any additional structures or uses" It is our plan to follow the Specific Plan guidelines, which we consider sufficient to control, any future development in this general area until BART becomes a reality and creates the significant impact which would justify the alignment and the development of a parallel road and improved circulation at that time. As our engineers, Stedman & Associates, who have studied the proposed plan line and discussed the item with your staff and with BART have concluded, taking action at this time is premature. lk'dford Prol,crties, Inc. ..\ Di','e~ siflcd Real Estate De,,'etopmt'nt anti N l,mag,,ment Company M '~i lng Address EO. Box 1267 Lafayette, Califo. 94,54° Mayor Jeffery and Council Members Page 2 June 27, 1988 Specific impacts on our properties by setting the alignment for future construction of the road along the proposed plan lines would be: The removal of 191 parking spaces, which would significantly reduce the value of the property. Reducing the back-up area for truck loading from 121 to 110 feet, a minimum distance, which could impact our ability to extend the lease on the Unisource building. Eliminating access to the rear cf Orchard Supply, Ross, Krause's and Levitz stores, all large users who need to consider both delivery and custcmer pick-up in the rear of the building. As you know, the initial occupancy by these tenants took advantage of the space that was vacated by Liberty House without any major changes. Expanded or even continued use in the future would require more rear loading. As the Planning Commission Staff Report indicated, "the !ccation of the roadway adjacent to the rear buildin~ sidewalk would preclude the use of these doors for other than pedestrian traffic." Loading for major users in the front of the store is not practical. Tke alignment wcu!d not just reduce the access, but would eliminate it. During the development of the Specific Plan, a preliminary layout of a mixed-use retail, office and parking plan for the parcels adjacent to BART was developed that accommodated pedestrian circulation without the interference of vehicular circulation. A similar approach has been developed in Lafayette in connection with our Lafayette Town Center project. This would be the most logical development pattern for a Dublin Town Center project, once a BART station becomes a reality. Bedford Properties would like to remind the city of Dublin that as staff has indicated in their report to the Planning Cemmission, the state la%~ requires compensation when a land is taken or when a parcel is severed because of a taking. Severing our t~¢o parcels that would preclude the most logical type of development and limit the mix of uses described in the Specific Plan, would most likely be a taking. Furthermore, adopting the Mayor Jeffery and Council Members Page 3 June 27, 1988 plan line could have some serious impacts on our ability to lease the buildings to existing users when their leases come up for renewal and significantly reduce the value of these parcels. Since these users make a valuable retail sale tax contribution to the city of Dublin, we would encourage you to consider the Guidelines that are in place in the Specific Plan for both interim and future uses as being sufficient planning controls at this time. It does not make sense to take an "engineering approach" that would dictate what development could take place and limit or preclude the development potential available both to the city and the property owners when BART eventually .builds their transit facilities. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, BEDFORD PROPERTIES, INC. Bud Lake Vice President BTL:cek · Stedman &Associates, Inc. 1646 N. California Bl~'d. Suite 240, Walnut Creek California 94596 415.9.?.5-9140 Civil Engineering Land Planning Land Survqing June 24, 1988 Job No. 3027-82-06 Mr. Bud Lake Bedford Properties 3470 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 200 Lafayette, CA 94549 Subject: Proposed Plan Line, Dublin Dear Bud: I have reviewed the City of Dublin proposed Plan Line for a new road parallel to Dublin Boulevard between Amador Plaza Road and Regional Street. The proposal will be presented to the City Council, Monday June 27th for their consideration/adoption. After meeting with the staff and reviewing the staff report, I believe that adopting the plan line (any of the three alternatiVes) is premature. The proposed road will serve the future development at the BART Station and surrounding properties and will be a key component of the overall circulation/parking scheme for the BART block. Since BART has just recently begun the process of consultant selection for their planning phase, it is apparent that they have no plans to indicate where the future road would best serve their needs. The roadway alignment should not be adopted until the best route can be ascertained based on the future development of the BART block. The future development and the circulation/parking should be planned together so the future needs of the area are best served. There is no need for the road until the BART block develops. BART will be the first property to develop with the development of the other properties centering around the BART development. It is improbable that the "best" alignment can be set at this time without knowing what the future land plans and circulation needs will be. Stedman C4 Associates, Inc. 1646 N. Cai(fi,mia Bb~rl. .~uilr 2't(L [t;t/~lttl (;al~,rnia 94556 415-935-9140 Mr. Bud Lake Bedford Properties Page 2 June 24, 1988 Job No. 3027-82-06 If the City Council adopts the Plan Line as recommended by staff and the Planning Commission, there will be significant impacts on the properties owned by Bedford Properties. The proposed right-of-way will take away some employee parking and eliminate the ability to have customer loading and deliveries at the rear of the buildings (see enclosed pictures of existing loading operations). This may also have serious impacts on the ability to lease the buildings. In summary, I believe that the Plan Line Proposal is premature and that the Land Planning and Roadway Planning should be done together in a cohesive manner. Please don't hesitate to call if you have questions. Yours sincerely, STEDMAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS David P. Carlson Vice President DPC:kj Enclosure