HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.2 PblcHrngROWLnStPtrkCITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
City Council Meeting Date: September 26, 1988
SUBJECT:
St. Patrick Way
Public Hearing: Establishment of Right-of-Way Lines
for a New Road Parallel to and Southerly of Dublin
Boulevard (Between Amador Plaza Road and Regional
Street)
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
1) Resolution Adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration
2) Draft Ordinance indicating denial of protests
3) Map of Proposed Plan Line Alternatives
4) Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
5) Existing Parcels
6) September 12, 1988, City Council Agenda Statement
(Without Attachments)
RECOMMENDATION :~21))
3)
s)
6)
Re-open public hearing
Receive Staff report and public testimony
QueStion Staff and the public
Close public hearing and deliberate
Adopt Resolution Adopting Mitigated Negative
Declaration
Enter names of any additional persons protesting,
waive reading and introduce Ordinance Establishing
Right-of-Way Lines.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
No direct financial impacts would occur from the
recommended action. Costs to the City as a result of
development of the road would depend on the financing
mechanism selected for this project. A separate
action would be required by the City Council to
authorize financing the project.
DESCRIPTION:
This item has been continued from the June 27, July 25, August 8, and
September 12, 1988, City Council meetings. Reference is made to the Agenda
Statements for such meetings, which statements are included as part of the
record herein.
On July 25, 1988, the City Council opened the public hearing to consider
a proposed negative declaration and establishment of right-of-way lines for a
new road south of and parallel to Dublin Boulevard.
The Council continued the July 25, 1988, hearing to give the property
owners, the City, and legal counsel an opportunity to meet and try to resolve
the issues related to the preferred alternatives. As a result of that
subsequent meeting, an additional concern was raised related to the traffic
effects the new road (Alternative 1) would have on access to the Crown
Chevrolet site. At the August 8th meeting, Staff requested a continuance to
the September 12th meeting in order to evaluate the potential traffic impact.
At the September 12th meeting, the Council re-opened the public hearing and
heard the Staff report. The Council did not support the alternative suggested
by property owners in the area. The Council continued the hearing to allow
the property owners another opportunity to meet and prepare a proposal.
The Council direction to the property owners was that the City should
receive the same conditions and benefits as in the existing agreement from the
Eneas. Mr. Harvey Levine, representative-for the Woolverton family, has told
Staff that he has not yet prepared a new proposal. Staff has not received any
ITEM NO.?~~~ COPIES TO: Property Owners
revised alternatives from the property owners. Staff still supports the
recommendation of Alternative 1 as the right-of-way alignment for the new
road.
The adoption of a right-of-way line for the new road parallel to and
southerly of Dublin Boulevard will reserve the area specified in the proposed
ordinance for a new road parallel to and southerly of Dublin Boulevard.
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 No. 44-87) and to require dedication of the right-
of-way under certain circumstances upon future construction (Ordinance No.
ll-8S).
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 recommends that the City Council (1) adopt the Resolution adopting
a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance with
Alternative 1 designated as the project (Exhibit 1) and (2) enter the names of
any additional persons protesting, waive the reading and introduce the
Ordinance Establishing Right-of-Way Lines.
-2-
KESOLUTION NO. -88
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIKONMENTAL SIGNIFICANGE
CONCERNING A EIGHT-OF-WAY OK PLAN LINE FOE 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 Environmental Quality Act, requires that certain projects be
reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental documents be
prepared; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et.
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 September 2, 1988, regarding:
1) Land Use
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review a proposed Negative
Declaration of Environmental 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
Environmental Significance, dated September 2, 1988, and considered it at a
public hearing on September 12, 1988 and September 26, 1988; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given as
legally required; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council determined
that the 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, includes mitigation measures resulting in a project that will
not result in the potential creation of any significant environmental impacts
identified in the Environmental Assessment;
EXHIBIT., i
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council finds
that the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance, dated September
2, 1988, with Alternative 1, as shown on Figure 1, attached to the
Environmental Assessment, designated as the project, has been prepared and
processed in accordance with the California Administrative Code and Public
Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq., and that it is adequate and complete.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 26th day of September, 1988.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST'
City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. -88
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ESTABLISHING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES FOR A NEW ROAD PARALLEL TO AND SOUTH OF
DUBLIN BOULEVARD (BETWEEN AMADOR PLAZA ROAD AND REGIONAL STREET)
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 No. 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-way lines;
and
WHEREAS, said hearing was continued to July 25, 1988, August 8,
1988, September 12, 1988, and September 26, 1988; and
WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was 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 Numbers 941-1500-44 and 941-1500-47-2,
which protests are hereby denied;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council finds and ordains that:
Section 1. 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:
Ail that c~rtain real property situated in the City of Dublin,
County of Alameda, State of California, described as follows:
Commencing at a point on the west line of Amador Plaza 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 Alameda County; thence northerly
along said west line of Amador Plaza Road 427 feet, more or
less, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence leaving said west
line of Amador Plaza Road a.long the arc of a non-tangent 30.00
foot radius cur~e, concave to the northwest, to a point on the
EXHIBIT
prolongation of ~ne north line of that certain parcel of land
described in the deed to Robert T..& Betty J. Wolverton
recorded December 20, 1978, as Instrument No. 78-248211,
Records of Alameda County; thence° on a course tangent tothe
previous curve westerly along said prolong_a~on of salad north
1 ine (78-248211) a distance of 285 feet, more or less, to the
northeast corner of said Wolverton Parcel (78-148211); thence
westerly along said north line (78-248211) and its prolongation
430 feet, more or less, to a point on the centerline of Golden
Gate Drive, hereon referred to as Point "A"; thence in a
southwesterly dir'ection 380 feet, more or less, to the
beginning of a tangent curve, con~ave to the north, having a
radius of 966 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 105
feet, more or less, to a point on the east line of that certain
parcel of land described in the deed to Peter B. Bedford
recorded November 21, 1982, as Instrument No. 82-193550,
Records of Alameda County, said point hereon referred to as
Point "B", lying South 4 feet, measured at right angles to, the
prolongation of the south line of an existing warehouse lying
on said Bedford parcel (S2-193550 ); thence westerly on a course
parallel with said south line of the. existing warehouse 330
feet, more or less, to the beginning of a tangent curve,
concave to the southeast, having a radius of 332 feet; thence
along the arc of said curve_125 feet,more or less; thence.on~.a~.
~course tangent~'to the prev ious;curv~-~s~o~b, we.s~.~er~ly~.13~-~feet',~
more~or less, to the begin~hing Of'a tangent curve, concave-to
the north, having a radius of 266 feet; thence along the arc of
said curve 120 feet, more or less, toga point on the south line
of said Bedford parcel (82-193550); thence on a course tangent
to the previous cur.ye along said south line (82-193550) a
distance of 165 fee~t, more or less, to the east line of
Regional Street; thence leaving said south line (82-193550)
southerly__~a~l_0_ng__sa_id east__line of Regional Stree~_t0_a_p~oi_nt.~68
feet south, measur'ed at right angles to said south line (82-
19~3550); thence in an easterly dir_ection parallel with said
south line (82-193550) 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,
northeasterly 130 re'et, more or less, to the eginning of a
tangent curve, concave to the south, having a radius of
feet; thence along the arc of said curve ~0 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-i'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 of 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 centerline 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
Wolverton 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 shown on that certain map entitled "MAP SHOWING
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES FOR ROAD PARALLEL TO AND SOUTHERLY OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD
BETWEEN AMADOR PLAZA ROAD AND REGIONAL STREET dated , 1988, and
filed in the office of the City Clerk on , 1988, which map is
hereby adopted as a precise plan of said right-of-way lines.
Section 2. The effect of said right-of-way lines shall be
governed by the provisions of Dublin Ordinance No. 44-87.
Section 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE. This
Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from 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) public places in the City of
Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of
California.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this __th day of
, 1988.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
~ILVO.
L
PARALLEL ROAD
SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVAFID.
BETWEEN FIEGIONAL STFIEET AND AMADOFI PLAZA I~OAD ........
~bI~NMBblT ~I~'fF~I~NA'I'IVF~
0 ~0
~ lliI
° J~evelopment Services
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
CITY OF DUBLIN
Plannin~Zoning 829-4916
Building & Safety 829-0822
Engineeriag/Publi¢ Works 829-4927
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR:
Adoption of right-of-way line for
PARALLEL ROAD SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD
(Regional Street to ~ador 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 Envirom~ental Assessment as
Alternative 1)
FINDINGS:
The project will not have a significant effect on the
environment.
INITIAL STUDY:
MITIGATION MEASURES:
The initial study ("Envirov~ental Assessment") is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference
(as are all documents referenced in same initial
study) as Exhibit A.
See attached "Mitigation Measures," attached hereto
and incorporated herein as Exhibit B, which are
included in the project.
PREPARATION:
This Negative Declaration was prepared by 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:
La~rence L. Ton~, Plannin~irector
DATE:
EXHIBIT
cITy OF
EXHIBIT i,&,, ' ";' "
Mitigated Negative Declaration
PAN
(Pursuant fo Public Resources Code SecHon 2]000 et seE.) '.
Based on the protect in[armor[on suomltfe,., in Section 1 General D~ta, the PJanning Sta~:F
will use Section 3, Initial Study, to determine whether a Negctive Declaration or cn
Environmental Impact' Report is required. -
SECTION 3. INITIAL STUDY - - - to be completed by the PLANNING STAFF
Name oF Proiect or Applicant:
DUBLIN'BOULEVARD PARALLEL ROAD ZAdoption of Plan Line
(Right~of-way Line) _
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - Description of pro;oct site before the project, including
information on: topography; soil stability; plants and animals; historical,
cultural, and scenic aspects; existing structures: and use of structures.
Project site is located in a relatively flat ind~$trial/commercial area. Soils in
this area are stable. No known historic or cultural resources exist in the pro,ecl
area. Site provides no scenic resources. No structures are located on the proie~:t
site. Western 1/2 of project site is developed as parking and driveways, and
supports no plants or animals beyond a narrow landscaoing strip adjacent to parkinz,
structures to the north have retail stores, to the south are a bank and a warehouse.
Eastern 1/2 is unimoroved land suooorting weeds and [rasses and minimal wildlife
(e.g., ground squirrels and some birds may forage there), structures to the norlh
have car dealership_and retail, to the south are office buildings.
Description of surrounding properties, including information on: plants and animals;
historical, cultural, and scenic aspects; type and intensity of land use; and scale
or development. "
Develooed areas with commercial retail and ~ffice as well as warehouse. No
significant natural features such as plants, animals, topography, etc., ex~st in
surrounding area.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - Factural explanations of all answers except "no"
on attached sheets.
are requl~ed
1.0 WATER
1 .~ C~'ound Water
1.4 Drm;noge and C~annel Form
1.6
Ioo;C
Will ~he protect a[fcct ~he qvol;~ o~ q~"~;~ of
will the rote o[ ~cr v, hhdro~[ c~an~e the deprg
or grad;tnt o[ th= ~er table?
[n/lu~ ;n~o od[acen~ ~otcr bo~;es?
W;I~ there be ri~k of Io~ o~ l;~ er propcr~ due
tn
NO
1
I
I 1
I 1
I
.I
I
I
SOURCE
(1)
2.0
2.1 Air poi!ut;on .
2.2 V/~n,"~ Alteration
3.0 EARTH
3.2 Foundation ~uppart
3.5 ~hmlc ActN;~
~.6 L~que/ac~on
3.10 ~v~.ineral Resources
4.0 PLANTS A~O Ai'41N',ALS
federal ~andards?
Will ground ~ler su/[cr conrom;no~ion ~7 ~u:e
adjacent ~rer ~]es or from another
Will there b~ generat;on o.~ ,,lispcr$;¢r
by pro~ect re~or~ act~v;ties or in
flo~ causing c~eling along certa;~
~truc/;on O[ wind movements?
4.3 D[verslty
",'/ill lh~re
Will the pm~cc} c:~ or be ~osc5
oF ~;Is ;n sJc~e~ cr un,hr
Will lhcre ~e s.~smnt;ol loss of ~;~ d'= ~o c~n-
vel=pm=nS of wells?
~lu= close ~o th= pro~ect?
Is ~4erc vegetcr;~
Are there vtg::at[ve
Arc thzrc ~[cc
species p'e~en; or the ;h,e:t-d;m,:nsinnc:l
o;r pi=hi h'~ecles present?
C, LFgT.~
NO
' t
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
· i
i
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
'
SOURCE
(7)
(7)
(7)
(2) (6)
J (1) (3)
(2)
(i) (2)
.(1)(2)(4)
(i) (~)
(7)
, (2)
(2)
(4)
(4)
(3)
(S) (4)
, (3)
(3)
(3) (~
(3) (t)
(3) (:~
(3) (~
A-6
5.0 FACILITIES AND SERVICES
5.1 Educational Facilities
5.2 C,~mmerclal Facilities
5.:3 Uquld Waste Diyma!
.Solid Waste Diq>osal
Water Supply
Storm Water Drainage
5.7 ?oUt.
NO
Will proiectrd[ en~allments adv_=r:ely artec; the
Will th~ p~o~ect ~m~c~ tho p.~[:/~eac~er r~o ~o
as to ~mpede the learning
Is lhe school located such thnr ;t ~re~en/s a
~or a pad'on a~ the ~nrollmenr ~n terms of ~rave~
tho needs aE t~e pro~oc~ whhout exc=~n~
Will Ih~ ~ro~ect be ex~:ed to nui~nc~s a~ ~ors
Is l~cre ~nad~fa provision lot ~l o~ ~d
~stes generat~ ~y ~he
Is there inod~tc q~nt;ty ~ ~lhy o~ ~ter
~ply Io meet the ne~s al ~k~
'~;ll storm ~ter dro~na~ be ;nc~e ~o p~ev~t
do--strum [1o~[ng ~nd to mee~ F~crai ~tare and
Will the project's addlt~o~l popu:at~, F=cillr~es,
~ ocher Fe~es ~en~at~ an ~ncr~se ~n ?oi~ce scrv~ce~
~ OF ]2~PACT
QL1Z-T,TF'T_I~
NO
SOURCE
(7) '
(7i
(7)
(z)
(7)
(7)
(7)
(7)
(2)
1-
(2)
I
I
5.9 Recreatlo~
5.10 Cultural Facilities
6.0 T.;LA N SPO.~TAT!O N
6. l TranspOrtation Facilities
; 6.2 ' C~rcu~ation Con,rl~c~s
6.3 Rood ~ofe~ and Dcslgn
G.4 - 6.g (attache
Will the proiec: have inade-q, uot¢ [acilitles to meet
i~he recre~tlona[ neec~s oF the res;c'ents?
Will cuhural Facillt;es be unavoi!a~le ~a ;he proiecl'
res[dents?
Are the tra}'."ic demands on adjacent roads c/~'renlly
at or a~av~ ce.=,ocity? IF not, will
crated by the pro;e-ct cause the a..Siacent rc, c:6s to
re, ach or exceed c:paclh/?
Are the oh~eF tr~n .-.~c:.,'tot;on Facii[t;es ~,-hic.~ ~erve the
prelect ~nod~'<tu'ate to accommo~=te th: pre,cot's
travel d e..-nonds 7
VI;ii des;.9'~ oF tho pru[ec,~ or co.",d;t;ons ;n
~n9 creo ina. reuse accidents due ta c~rcu[etion
,c~cldcnt risks dun to raoclwoy an:l s.~r~c,~ ~¢s~n or lac~
~c~ trcfFic ccntrols7
7,0
7.1
7.2
7.3
:7.4
H.CALTH
Odo,s
Cro,~ in,3 end
Nut.noes
Suuctural
.N~)ISE
No;se Levels
Vi6ro)ions
Will the proiec: be ~xposJd to er genera:* cny intense
',Viii t~e regiments and users be e~o:~eJ ~o cro~;ng ~
high dcn:i~ ;n ~hc;r phyiical Ii-in0 cnv;renment?
~y ~e considered o~ nut.noes?
~o meet s~at~ a~ local bu;ldin9 c~J=*7
,K
(7)
(7) ·
(2)
~ (2~
Ct,
(2)
(2)
(Initial Study/Part 2)
6.0 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
6.4
Will the proposal result in generation of
substantial additional vehicular movement?
6.5
Will the proposal result in effects on existing
parking facilities, or demand for new parking?
6.6
Will the proposal result in substantial 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?
NO
X
X
YES ~. o
X
X(ben%fickal)
X ~
(1)
(2)
)_
(2)
(6)
(2)
TJIO
(7;
(9'
9.0 COMMUNITY C}'t/,2ACTER
9.1 C~mmunlr~ Or~an;zai'ic~
9.2 ~.omagene;~ and Di,,erdi'y
~.3 Communi~' ~c;a~;ID'! and
Phy,lcol Cand iHons
10.0 VISU.~L CU~LITY
lO.1 View,
10.:2
1.0 HISTCRIC AND C'JLTL~AL
RESOL~C':S
1.'l Hh)or;c :nd Cuhur~:l
I1.2 ArchOeo!og;c=l Shes
· and 5lructu'res
12.1 Energy ~.equ~rcmen;s
I3.0 L~ND USE
1~.3 ~n~Cry
13.4
Will Ihe pro[act bo e~pos~ Ia cr generate on
area of p~r ¢~b;I;~ and pk~,;c:l co~;,;~s?
¥t;ll'res~cnls of i'he s'..~'s'ounciin'~ of ca ~e cd~ersely '
~;cws or ~ ~rom thc ~rroun4;nD n~? '
Will Ibc project be expose~ Ia o, gen~ate excess;ye
Viii I~v~_ proi--ct involve 1'4c destruction or alter-
Will thc project re~ulr ;n
WiJI Ihu pro,ecl introduce pkys;caJ, v;s~J, aud~oJe
Do cern;ti;ns of the ~;tc,
o[ insecurity o.d ~hysicol thr~r :~n.~ thc fcs;:J~.rs
no;sc, oir, or ~,srfac~ or,4 ~rc~nd ~cr ?o;:ution
~V;:I t;,c p~o~cc~ affect or~ exist;nD .c:cr--~y rh~oug~
NO
QAD.LIFIED
NO
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
.i
I
I
I
!
I
i. I
I
I
I
I
i i
i i
,
!
1
I
I
I
'1
'1) (2
~) (3.
(3)
(3)
1) (3
3) (4
(3)(4
(3)(4
(3)(4
(2)
(7)
(7)
(2~
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
!
(a)
J ~)(3
(2)(3
(7)
(2) (
A-8
' CflMPO~IE~ :4P~L-TS SC'~ OF Z~ACT SOURCE
I~1 Ia
I 1
o .!
i I 1
I I I
~3.5 {'l~ the.projec~ a~ec~ ~he I I I
use o~ property ~hich would I. I (~) (6)
result in inpacts.to the i
:~eneral Plan or ZoninC
Ordinanc~ i I ~ ~ '
13.6 Will the project affect ex- i
isting facilities in a manner
which would result'in impacts'
to the use of the property?
I .I I
I I I
C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SiGNIFiCANCE
NO ~qO
(i) Does the proiecf have the potential to degrade the
qua]if'/of the env[ronmenl', subsfcn,qclly re~uce
the hcb[fa~ of a Fish cr wildli£e species, cause a'~
fish cr wildlife population to c,c.p be:ow self-
sush=[n~na levels, thre.oten to eliminate a plant
or ~nlm¢l community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or end'c~ngered plcnt or ~nimal
~e
or e][minate impcr~nf ex.-u..'nples of ~' mc[or parlays
or California his~ary cr prehistcry?
I
~' eroiect h~ve i'ne pote.qr~l to achieve short-
(2) Does.ne,, . ~- ~ . ~ . . ~.~!
t
term, to tne d:saavan,cSe or [c..?rerm, env:ronmen:~ I
~ocls? . ·
(3)
Does the ?rojec~ have impac.~s which are individually
-limited bu[' cumulafeively cons!c:ercble? (A projec~
ma}' impcc.* on two or more separate resources where
the impact on each resour:e is relatively small, b'u,~
where the effect of the total eF those impacts on the
environment is significant.)
Doe'. fha project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
be~nFs, either directly or indirectly?
A-9:
(4)
(2)
(2)
(:.:)
(2)
M[TIGAT1ON MEASURES Discussion of the ways to miti~a'e :ne significant effecl'~
ident[fied, ir any: Provide additional on-site parking, compensate property
owners for separation of property, as necessary (see attached M~tig~
Negative Declaration).
E. DETERM[N.'\TION - On the bas['~ of this initial evalucHon:
The Cii'y of ]Publih
Nome end title: · Eaurence L. Tong, Pla~o ~
Finds thc? there will not be cny'significant eFFec,~. The par-
tlculcr chcrcc,&erlstics of this project and the mitigo,~icn .measures incorporated .into
.the design of the pro]ec~ provide ~ha factual b~is for the finding. A NEGAT[~
DEC~RAT!ON ~S REQUIRED.
pr~lec~ MAY hove c signfflc~n~ eF~ec~
The C[~ of ~ub[im finWs }hot the proposed
on theenv[ronment. ANENVJRONMENTALJM?A~R~PORTISR~QUIRED**
Directnr
SOURCE NOTES:
(2)
(3) .'
(4)
(5)
(6)
(?)
(S)'
Determination
Determination
Determination
Determination
Determination
Determination
based on location of project,
based on staff office review,. ': '
based' on field review,.
based on the Dublin General Plan Ba~kground .Studies amd EIR,
based on the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, ..
based on Downtown Specific Plan Background Studies and Ne~ Dec,
Not applicable
Other (state data)
TJKM (City of'DublinDcwntcwn Improvement P!anSummaryof
traffic and parking constraints, February 25, 1986)
**NOT2: Where a project is revh~_d in res?cnse to an ]ni,~ial Study so th~: po.~e:~.~[al a~4ver.~a
%
effects are mirage,ed to a point where no s;gnffic~nt environmental effec,~s ~'ould occur~
revised Inltlai S.~udy ',viii be prepared an"'d a Negative Dec!arction will be requ'.'red
an E IR.
September 2, 1988~
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE FOR
PARALLEL ROAD SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD
(REGIONAL STREET TO AMADOR PLAZA 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
;nnador 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 ~ositive benefit to local air
quality.
5.2 Commercial Facilities
Project will improve access to commercial properties.
6.1, 6.4, 6.6, 6.7 Transoortation Facilities
Traffic studies prepared by TJ~M (City Traffic Engineers) for the
Downtown Specific Plan indicate that traffic demands on vicinity roads and
intersections in the Downto~ 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~town 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
Amador Plaza Road intersections with Dublin Boulevard (to peak hour levels of
service D, E & D, ~espectively). 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 ParkinE
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 Perm%t 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-up 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 disturbed 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 and 13.6 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. ~he 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 f~r traffic/parking Area 5 were parked on the
Orchard Supply, et. al., property, the p&ak 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 walkway, 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 envirom~ental
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 value does not constitute an
environmental impact.
This alternative would locate the parallel road along the southern
property line of the parcel developed with Crown Chevrolet. There is an
existing driveway near the proposed future intersection of Golden Gate Drive
and the proposed parallel road (off of Golden Gate Drive - see Figure 6).
This driveway would be located too close to the future intersection to be
safe. Relocating the driveway northerly along Golden Gate Drive would
improve safety for passenger vehicles but would be unusable by delivery
trucks. A new (additional) driveway on the proposed parallel road would
provide access for trucks. To maintain the security of the area near the new
driveway a new gate would be needed. The net result of these modifications
(relocating existing driveway, providing a new driveway and gate) would be
the loss of one parking space along the western portion of the site and the
loss of vehicle storage area (3 to 4 cars) along the southern boundary of the
site. In addition, the parking area along the western edge would not
function as efficiently; any vehicles parked south of the new driveway would
need to exit from the new driveway. The loss of parking and vehicle storage
is not considered a significant 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 woul~ 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 freeyay (1-580). 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 Downto,~ Specific Plan
and would require an amendment to both paths. The Alternative 2
location would not promote the goal of a landscaped pedestrian
par~ay as it is not generally desirable to stroll near a
freeway. '~
Traffic Issues:
o This alternative would not provide an incentive for interior
circulation, and would not improve emergency access.
OUOI-IN
I~LVD,
L
PARALLEL ROAD
.~)UTH OF DUBL. II'I BOULEVARD.
BETWEEr,I REGIOI',IAL STREET AND AMADOR PLAZA ROAD
O MO 300 ~d~l~lll~
80 ZOO FP,~T
ROSS ORCHARD
SUPPLY
TRI-VALLEY
UNISOURCE
BART Property
.l.I
ALAMEDA COUNTy FLOOD CON~FROL
PARALLEL ROAD
PLAN LINE
"INITIAL STUDY
r, 3/23/88
IZZ
r~uI]L. IN
I~LO00
P'Rmmw^y
PARALLEL ROAD
SOUTH OF 13UBLI/I BOULEVARD.
BE'FWEEt~ REGIOHAL. STREET At,ID AMADOR PLAZA ROAD
P p, CF LS
J
· STUDY INTERSECTIONS
1 TRAFFIC/PARKING ZONES
Study Intersections and Traffic/Parking
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN
DUBLIN, CA[I[ORNIA
15
Zones
Diagram 3
//
Peak Off-Street Parking
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
23
December 14, 1985
12:00-4:00 p.m.
Utilization Summary
Diagram 7
EXHIBIT "B"
Mitigated 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 APN 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.
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).
~he
3. Restripe front area to preserve 17 standard size spaces and 5
handicapped sized spaces.
4. Provide the parking spaces shown on the variance permit at the rear
of the property as expansion parking (49 spaces).
Encourage a 7,200+ square foot property exchange between this
property and the ~ART 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-conforming 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.
Modify the driveways for APN 941~1500-15-5 (Cro~,~ Chevrolet) to improve
safety and provide adequate access for trucks and to maintain security.
The modifications can be accomplished as described below (see also
Figure 2).
1. Relocat~ driveway on Golden Gate northerly approximately 100 feet.
2. Install a new driveway on the new road at a location which will
align with the main access aisle for Crown Chevrolet.
3. Install a gate at the new driveway.
C. Appropriate compensation for splitting property or loss of parking shall
be made to affected property owners.
SUPPLY ,
_. -'"~/~-PLAN .LINE
TRI-VALLEY
UNISOURCE
ALAMEDA COUNTy FLOOD CONTROL
I
BART Property
PARALLEL ROAD
PLAN LINE
DUBLIN
I~l'O0 r'~
PARALLEL ROAD
~OUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD,
BETWEEN REGIONAl. STREET AND AMADOR PLAZA ROAD
P RCRLS
m
m
't
GITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
City Council Meeting Date: September 12, 1988
SUBJECT:
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
Public Hearing: Establishment of Right-of-Way Lines
for a New Road Parallel to and Southerly of Dublin
Boulevard (Between Amador Plaza Road and Regional
Street)
1) Resolution Adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration
2) Draft Ordinance indicating denial of protests
3) Map of Proposed Plan Line Alternatives
4) Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
5) Existing Parcels
6) Letter from Harvey Levine dated August 11, 1988
RECOMMENDATION: 1)
2)
s)
6)
Re-open public hearing
Receive Staff report and public testimony
Question Staff and the public
Close public hearing and deliberate
Adopt Resolution Adopting Mitigated Negative
Declaration
Enter names of any additional persons protesting,
waive reading and introduce Ordinance Establishing
Right-of-Way Lines.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
No direct financial impacts would occur from the
recommended action. Costs to the City as a result of
development of the road would depend on the financing
mechanism selected for this project. A separate
action would be required by the City Council to
authorize financing the project.
DESCRIPTION:
This item has been continued from the June 27, July 25, and August 8,
1988, City Council meetings. Reference is made to the Agenda Statements for
such meetings, which statements are included as part of the record herein.
On July 25, 1988, the City Council opened the public hearing to consider
a proposed negative declaration and establishment of right-of-way lines for a
new road south of and parallel to Dublin Boulevard.
The Council continued the July 25, 1988, hearing to give the property
owners, the City, and legal counsel an opportunity to meet and try to resolve
the issues related to the preferred alternatives. As a result of that
subsequent meeting, an additional concern was raised related to the traffic
effects the new road (Alternative 1) would have on access to the Crown
Chevrolet site. At the August 8th meeting, Staff requested a continuance to
the September 12th meeting in order to evaluate the potential traffic impact.
Crown Chevrolet Driveway
There is an existing driveway on Golden Gate Drive near the proposed
future intersection of Golden Gate and the "parallel road" Alternative 1 (see
Figure 6 of the revised Initial Study). The location of the driveway could
present some safety problems as it would be too close to the proposed
intersection.
The City's Traffic Engineer, TJKM, met with the property owner and
evaluated design modifications which would make the driveway safe once the
parallel road (Alternative 1) is constructed. These changes include moving
the driveway approximately 100 feet north. This relocation will eliminate
ITEM NO. ~
four parking spaces and replace three of them in the old driveway location,
for a net loss of one space. However, the new location would make entry to
the property difficult for delivery trucks. Adding a driveway along the new
road would provide easier access for trucks. The new driveway from the new
road would eliminate outdoor vehicle storage area for three to four vehicles.
The loss of one parking space for employees and visitors and the loss of
storage for three to four vehicles are not considered significant adverse
environmental effects. Accordingly, the negative declaration has been revised
to include mitigation measures to improve the safety, maintain security, and
provide access for trucks. In addition, the mitigation measure requiring
compensation for loss of parking would apply (see Negative Declaration Figure
2 Mitigation Measures).
Woolvertons and Eneas Proposal
The Woolvertons, property owners of the Crown Chevrolet parcel and the
vacant parcel to the south, support Alternative 3, which would locate the
southern right-of-way line along the southern property line of the vacant
property. Alternative 3 would allow them to expand Crown Chevrolet onto
contiguous property. Alternative 3 would bisect the Enea property (to the
east) in a manner which creates two small (1.06 and 1.29 acre) areas. The
Eneas submitted a letter in support of Alternative 1.
At a meeting with the property owners, Staff and legal counsel, the
Woolvertons and the Eneas made.a two-phase proposal (see Attachment 6) with
the following provisions:
Phase 1:
A. The City would initiate a rezoning of the Enea property on the east
side of Amador Plaza Road. The new Planned Development (PD) rezoning would
allow additional retail commercial (C-l) uses (such as retail stores, theater,
and hotels) to the existing mainly Administrative Office (C-O) uses.
B. The Eneas would apply for a modification to the PD on the west side
of Amador Plaza Road to allow a directory sign on Dublin Boulevard west of
Amador Plaza Road.
C. The Eneas would dedicate up to four feet of property on both sides
of Amador Plaza Road if required by the land use approval. No street
improvements would be required.
D. The City could set a limit on the square footage and building height
as part of the PD rezoning as mitigation for potential traffic effects.
E. The City and the Eneas would agree on a three-year maximum time
frame for constructing the parallel road on the Enea property.
If the City approves the PD rezoning and directory sign request as
conditioned, the Eneas and the Woolvertons would agree to Phase 2 as follows.
Phase 2:
A. The City would adopt the Alternative 3, rather than Alternative 1,
alignment.
B. The Woolvertons would offer to dedicate 1/2 of the Alternative 3
right-of-way, up to 34 feet in width, along the southern half of the alignment
on the Woolverton property.
C. The Woolverton offer of dedication would have a six-year time limit.
After six years, the offer would expire.
D. The City would agree to not require any additional dedication or
improvements for the parallel road with any future development of the
property.
E. The Woolvertons would be allowed to base a development proposal on
the pre-dedication site.
F. Prior to dedication, the City would allow the Woolvertons to pave
the offered area for storage or parking.
-2-
G. The Eneas would offer to dedicate 1/2 of the Alternative 3 right-
of-way, up to 34 feet in width, along the southern half of the alignment on
the Enea property. The City would release the Eneas from the existing
recorded offer of dedication along the Alternative 1 alignment.
H. The Eneas' offer of dedication would have a six-year time limit.
After six years, the offer would expire.
I. The City would agree to not require any additional dedication or
improvements for the parallel road with any future development of the
property.
Analysis of Proposal
Staff has the following concerns with the proposal:
1. POTENTIAL LAND DEVELOPMENT:
The proposal to use the Alternative 3 alignment would not have the best
potential for land development because the Enea parcel would be left with
smaller areas of 1.06~ and 1.29± acres. With the Alternative 1 alignment, the
City has an existing irrevocable offer of dedication from the Eneas which
would leave a 2.35+ acre buildable area on the Eneas' parcel.
Regarding the directory ~ign proposal on Dublin Boulevard, there are the
two existing "Enea Plaza" free-standing signs at the corners. Staff would be
concerned about a third sign meeting the'intent of attractive and effective
identification.
Regarding the paving on the Woolverton property, the Applicant should
obtain the necessary permits as required by ordinance.
2. LAND USE ENTITLEMENT WITHOUT FUTURE EXACTION:
The Eneas are requesting a broad range of land use entitlements with a
limit on the amount of dedication and without any potential for future
exactions. If the City grants the commercial Planned Development rezoning
with the limited amount of dedication, the City would give up the ability to
review the impacts of the future specific development proposal and request
additional mitigation measures related to that proposal.
Similarly, on the Woolverton property, the City would give up the
ability to review the impacts of any future specific development proposal and
request additional mitigation measures related to that proposal.
3. SIX (6) YEAR OFFER AND THREE (3) YEAR CONSTRUCTION TIME LIMIT VS.
IRREVOCABLE OFFER:
The proposal includes six-year offers of dedication from the Woolvertons
and the Eneas and a three-year construction time limit on the Eneas' property,
as compared to the existing irrevocable offer of dedication on the Enea
property, which contains no time limit. The new road may or may not be needed
within six years.
4. OFFER TO DEDICATE 4' WIDE STRIPS ALONG Ab~DOR PLAZA ROAD:
Depending on the type and amount of development that will occur on the
remaining Enea properties, 4' strips might not be adequate to address the
traffic impacts of the future development.
TJKM reviewed the proposal to change the use of the property to include
a wider variety of commercial uses. Their preliminary evaluation is that the
new land uses would degrade or worsen the traffic levels-of-service at Amador
Plaza Road and Dublin Boulevard and may require widening of Amador Plaza Road
and some improvements to Dublin Boulevard. With the proposal, the City would
not have the ability to review the impacts of future specific development
proposals and request additional mitigation measures.
-3-
5. COST TO THE CITY:
The estimated cost to the City with Alternative 1 is approximately
$3 million. That includes potential acquisition costs on the Woolverton
parcel.
The proposed changes in dedication of right-of-way from 100% dedication
across the Enea property (Alternative 1) to 50% dedication across each
Woolverton and Enea properties (Alternative 3) would change the amount of
right-of-way offered for dedication. Alternative 3 as proposed in Mr.
Levine's letter would result in about 3,026 square feet (net) additional
property offered for dedication. Additional land offered for dedication would
change the estimate for Alternative 3 by about $50,000 (i.e., from $3.3
million to $3.25 million). Alternative 1 is more cost-effective than the
proposal.
In addition, if the Woolvertons or their successors process a
development application on the undeveloped parcel prior to the road being
needed, a to-be-determined portion of the Alternative 1 right-of-way could be
required to be dedicated to the City. The City would save that acquisition
cost. Under the proposal, the City would lose the potential for future cost
savings.
Recommendation
Based on the stated concerns with the proposal, Staff supports the
recommendation of Alternative 1 as the right-of-way alignment for the new
road.
The adoption of a right-of-way line for the new road parallel to and
southerly of Dublin Boulevard will reserve the area specified in the proposed
ordinance for a new road parallel to and southerly of Dublin Boulevard.
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 No. 44-87) and to require dedication of the right-
of-way under certain circumstances upon future construction (Ordinance No.
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 recommends that the City Council (1) adopt the Resolution adopting
a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance with
Alternative 1 designated as the project (Exhibit 1) and (2) enter the names of
any additional persons protesting, waive the reading and introduce the
Ordinance Establishing Right-of-Way Lines.
-4-