HomeMy WebLinkAboutNo PA#/Prpsd.PlanLine/NewRoad-4CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
SUBJECT'
Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 6, 1988
Proposed Plan Line New Road Parallel to and
Southerly of Dublin Boulevard (Between Amador Plaza
Road and Regional Street)
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
Exhibits
A) Resolution Recommending City Council Adoption of
Negative Declaration
B) Resolution Recommending City Council Adoption of
Plan Line
Attachments
1) Plan Line Alternatives
2) Cross Section in Downtown Specific Plan
3) Proposed Cross Section
4) Description of Plan Line Alternative 1
5) Description of Plan Line Alternative 3
6) Environmental Assessment Initial Study
7) Negative Declaration
8) Existing Parcels
9) Letter from Harvey Levine 5/2/88
10) Letter from John G. Enea 5/9/88
11) Letter from Harvey Levine 5/16/88
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Open Public Hearing
2) Receive Staff presentation and public testimony
3) Question Staff and the public
4) Close Public Hearing and deliberate
5) Take the following actions
a) Adopt Resolution Recommending City Council
Adoption of Negative Declaration
b) Adopt Resolution Recommending City Council
Approval of Plan Line
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:
The circulation plan for the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan includes
recommended changes to improve downtown circulation. One such improvement is
a new street parallel to and southerly of Dublin Boulevard connecting Regional
Street to Amador Plaza Road. The Downtown Plan shows the approximate location
of this road midway between Dublin Boulevard and 1-580. The precise alignment
for this new street must be established through the adoption of a plan line.
City Staff, including TJKM, the City's traffic engineer, has examined
the area and prepared recommendations for the plan line.
The Planning Commission previously held public hearings (April 4, 1988,
and May 2, 1988) on the plan line for this road. In addition, the Planning
Con~ission further deliberated on the item at the May 16, 1988, meeting.
ITEbl NO. go ! COPIES TO' Property Owners
File
At the May 16, 1988, meeting, the Commission considered a motion to
approve plan line alignment Alternative 1. That motion received a 2-1-2 vote
(2 for, 1 against, 2 absent or abstaining). The Planning Commission needs
three votes to approve a motion. Section 4 of the ordinance for establishing
plan lines states that before an action is taken by the City Council, the
proposal shall be referred to the Planning Commission for a recommendation.
The City Attorney has recommended, in light of the Commission's Rules of
Procedure and the plan line ordinance Section 4, that the Commission hold a
new public hearing on the item to send a specific recommendation to the City
Council.
Should the Commission not have three votes on a motion to recommend an
alignment, the Commission may take a vote on a motion which specifically
states that no specific alignment is recommended. If both of these attempts
fail to receive a majority vote, the item will then be forwarded to the
Council without a recommendation.
Need
A parallel road south of Dublin Boulevard would offer the following
benefits to downtown circulation and traffic flow.
1) Traffic conditions at major intersections along Dublin Boulevard
would be equalized. This cross-connection would allow alternative routes out
onto Dublin Boulevard and relieve congestion at the Regional Street/Dublin
Boulevard intersection.
2) Three long cul-de-sacs would be eliminated, facilitating movement,
especially for emergency vehicles.
3) Access from one cul-de-sac to another would be provided without
requiring travel on Dublin Boulevard.
4) Internal circulation would be provided in the area south of Dublin
Boulevard, which will encourage development of property consistent with the
land uses designated in the Downtown Specific Plan and provide additional
pedestrian links in the area.
5) Access would be provided to the future BART parking lot from three
access points rather than concentrating traffic at Golden Gate Drive.
In general, the road would have area-wide (downtown) circulation
benefits by providing an alternate route.
Size and Capacity
The Dublin General Plan contains Policy 5.1.F in the Circulation Element
which reads: "Connect existing cul-de-sac streets near proposed BART station
south of Dublin Boulevard." A new street is shown 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 (see Attachment 2), which would provide
two traffic lanes and a center two-way left turn lane (44 feet) plus parkways
on either side (15 feet and 6 feet). TJKM, the City's traffic engineer, has
evaluated the projected traffic for this road and has revised the optimal
section to be 68 feet (see Attachment 3), to include two eight-foot sidewalks
and two traffic lanes (20 feet each) and a center two-way left turn lane (12
feet). The 20-foot traffic lane could accommodate a 12-foot travel lane and
an 8-foot parking lane. The provision of on-street parking would be
determined during project design. Final design of the road, given a 68-foot
right-of-way, could still take advantage of a wider parkway on one side (e.g.,
12 feet on one side and 4 feet on the other).
The proposed right-of-way would be able to accommodate about 17,500
average daily trips (ADT).
Alternatives
Three plan line alternatives were evaluated in detail. Attachment 1
shows all three alternatives.
-2-
1) Alternative 1 is the Staff-preferred alternative. This alignment
would fall approximately halfway between Dublin Boulevard and the 1-580
freeway. The road would be located between the large retail building which
houses Orchard Supply, Ross, Levitz, and others, and the warehouse where
Unisource is located. The road would proceed across Golden Gate Drive, with
the northern edge of the right-of-way falling along the northern property line
of the undeveloped parcel owned by the Woolvertons, south of the separate
Crown Chevrolet parcel, also owned by the Woolvertons, and connect to the land
offered for dedication from the Enea Plaza retail development (see Attachment
1). The Alternative 1 road would leave a 2.35~ acre buildable area on the
Enea parcel south of the road.
Due to limitations of space between existing buildings, the right-of-way
section would need to narrow to 64 feet for approximately 600 feet. This
narrower area between the rear of the existing Ross/Orchard Supply building
(APN 941-1500-44) and the Unisource building (APN 941-1500-47-2) would provide
a minimum 110 feet maneuvering area for trucks at the Unisource warehouse.
Issues related to Alternative 1 follow:
A)
The roadway would necessitate the removal of 191 parking spaces (69
behind Ross/Orchard Supply and 122 from the front of Unisource).
Mitigation measures could be included in the project to provide up
to 150 additional parking spaces for Unisource (see Initial Study
and Mitigated Negative Declaration - Attachments 6 and 7). The
reduced parking on the other parcel would not be considered
significant due to the low parking occupancy rate in Downtown
Dublin.
Depending on the final design of the roadway, the street may be able
to accommodate on-street parking which would further reduce impacts
from the loss of on-site parking.
B)
The project would also reduce the back-up area for truck loading at
Unisource from 121 feet to 110 feet. The 110 feet is considered
adequate for 55-foot-long trucks.
¢)
The right-of-way between Golden Gate Drive and Amador Plaza Road
would cross undeveloped property. There would not be any
significant impacts to existing development. The road would leave a
1.4+ acre buildable area on the undeveloped Woolverton parcel. This
size would be sufficient to accommodate a commercial or office use
as designated in the Downtown Specific Plan. The location of the
road at this location would preclude the contiguous expansion of
Crown Chevrolet onto the undeveloped Woolverton parcel to the south.
D)
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. They were not
designed as truck loading/unloading areas. The 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 Levitz 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 would 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
roadway.
The cost for this alignment alternative is estimated to be $3 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
Amador Plaza Road would each need to be extended. This 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 alignment follow.
-3-
A) The most significant problem would be that Caltrans has
indicated they need 100 to 150 feet of additional right-of-way in this area
(See Attachment 1) for the ultimate width of 1-580. The remaining comments
are made for completeness; however, they would be rendered moot by Caltrans'
need for the right-of-way.
B) Construction over the Flood Control Channel would be more
costly than construction on flat ground. In addition, if the ACFCD were to
grant approval to build over their facilities, they would require purchase of
the property. Flood Control (Zone 7) would not 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 open channel. For this
reason, Flood Control would require the City to take over maintenance
responsibilities for the underground portion, as well as the upstream portions
of the creek. In addition, any alteration to the channel, as it is a part of
Dublin Creek, would require review and approval from the Department of Fish
and Game and the Corps of Engineers.
C) The loss of parking spaces would be less than the preferred
alternative (95 vs. 191 spaces). However, there would not be the same
opportunity for on-site mitigation of the parking spaces lost. The Willow
Tree Restaurant would lose 20 parking spaces, and Howard Johnson's would lose
75 spaces. In addition, the roadway would result in dividing the Howard
Johnson's parking lot into two separate parking areas.
D) In addition to the loss of parking from the extension of
Regional Street, approximately 400 feet of mature landscaping would be
removed. However, new landscaping couldbe planted along the right-of-way
edge to replace that which is lost.
E) The alignment along the creek would be inconsistent with the
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan and would require a General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment before a plan line could be established.
F) Location along the freeway lessens the opportunity for a
landscaped pedestrian parkway which links the block from Regional Street to
Amador Plaza Road. Pedestrians would not be as inclined to use a road
adjacent to the freeway due to noise, nor would the location link retail
establishments frequented by pedestrians (see (I) below).
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 Amador Plaza Road. The office buildings would be completely
eliminated, but the bulk of the Unisource building could be preserved. 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.
Environmental, fiscal, policy, and regulatory impacts from Alternative 2
would make this alternative undesirable.
3) Alternative 3 would place the road in the middle of the block but it
would be located further south than Alternative 1 for the area between Golden
Gate Drive and Amador Plaza Road. The length of the road in this area would
be only slightly longer than the preferred alternative. This alternative
would place the southern edge of the road along the southern property line of
the undeveloped parcel owned by the Woolvertons, and it would split the
remaining buildable area on the Enea Plaza retail development parcel. The
-4-
road would leave a 1.4+ acre buildable area on the undeveloped Woolverton
parcel, and it would maintain potential for contiguous expansion of Crown
Chevrolet onto the adjoining parcel to the south.
A) Minor differences in the impact to existing parking would
result. Mitigation measures proposed for Alternative 1 could still be
implemented with minor modifications.
B) This alignment would split the remaining buildable area on the
Enea parcel into two (2) areas, 1.06~ acres and 1.29~ acres in size. While
both of these areas could develop with commercial uses, it is preferable to
have a single larger area (such as the 2.35± buildable area in Alternative 1)
to allow greater design and development flexibility.
C) Additional right-of-way would need to be acquired (over the
preferred Alternative 1). Right-of-way on the Enea parcel has been offered
for dedication as part of a negotiated settlement for a lawsuit pertaining to
the Conditions of Approval for the Enea Plaza retail project. Should the road
be located further south, the City would have to purchase the right-of-way and
perhaps compensate the owner for splitting the 2.35~ acre buildable area.
D) This alignment would reduce the BARTD's usable property by
about 16,500 square feet. This could mean 40+ fewer parking spaces for the
future parking lot.
The estimated cost of this alignment is $3.3 million.
Discussion
In order to evaluate the alternatives, Staff contacted Caltrans, BARTD,
and Alameda County Flood Control. 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 than the road
adjacent to the freeway. Differences between Alternative 3 and Alternative 1
occur mostly in the eastern area (between Golden Gate Drive and Amador Plaza
Road). Alternative 3 would be more costly due to the need to acquire the
additional right-of-way from the Eneas. In addition, Alternative 3 results in
the creation of two areas smaller than preferred for commercial development on
the Enea property. West of Golden Gate Drive, Alternative 3 would require the
acquisition of about 16,500 square feet of BARTD property.
State Law requires compensation when a parcel is severed because of a
public taking. This law may require compensation to the Eneas if Alternative
3 is selected.
Timing
No precise schedule has been established for constructing the road. The
need for the road may become critical when BART develops their property and
may be tied into that schedule. Other, more intensive land development in the
area could also trigger the need for the road.
Costs
Preliminary estimated costs for the three alternatives follow.
Estimates include acquisition, design, improvement, and environmental
mitigation.
Alternative 1 - $3 million
Alternative 2 - $6.7 million
Alternative 3 - $3.3 million
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution
recommending adoption of the Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution
recommending the City Council approve Plan Line Alternative 1. Should the
Commission prefer to recommend Alternative 3, the Commission should adopt the
Resolution recommending adoption of the Negative Declaration and then adopt
the Resolution recommending Alternative 3.
-5-
RESOLUTION NO. 88-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING A 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 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 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 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
Environmental 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:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST'
Planning Commission Chairperson
Planning Director
RESOLUTION NO. 88-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE GITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISH A PLAN LINE
FOR 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 Downtown 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
WHEREAS, 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-__) for this project, as it will have
no significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Staff report was submitted recommending that the
Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the project
(Alternative 1); and
WHEREAS, 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
WHEREAS, 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
as described on the attached Exhibits A and B dated June 1, 1988.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 6th day of June, 1988.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Planning Commission Chairperson
Planning Director
' I
NEW TRAFFIC
WIDENING OF /,
DUBLIN BOULEV' ,A~,D'~'~/
NEW TRAFFIC
4GNAL
/
,/
!
--SAN RAMON ROAD
WIDENING
NEW STREET
SAN RAMON ROAD
OFF-RAMP hMPROVEMENTS
Circulation Improvements
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
Diagram 4
PARKWAY
2 TRAFFIC LANES & TURN LANE 44'
PROPOSED R.O.W. 65'
.io ' °.. ~
I PARKWAY 16'
STREET SOUTH OF DUBLIN BLVD.
Proposed Street Sections
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
Diagram 6
ATTACHMENT
., PAFIALLEL '.ROAD
SOUTH OF_DUBLIN BOULEVARD
. _(FIEGIONAL _STREET_TO AMADOR PLAZA ROAD).__
WAY LEFT TURN
OPTIMUM SECTION
Proposed Street Right-of-Way
SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD BETWEEN
AMADOR PLAZA ROAD AND REGIONAL STREET
All that certain real property situated in the City of Dublin,
County of Alameda, State of California, described as follows:
Commencing at a point on the west 1 ine 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 along the arc of a non-tangent 30.00
foot radius curve, concave to the northwest, to a point on the
prolongation of the north line of ~hat 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 prolongation of said north
line (78-248211) a distance of 285 feet, more or less, to the
northeast corner of said Wolverton Parcel (78-248211); 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 direction 380 feet, more 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 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 (82-193550);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 previous curve southwesterly 130 feet,
more or less, to the beginning 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, to a point on the south line
of said Bedford parcel (82-193550); thence on a course tangent
to the previ6us curve along said south 1 ine (82-193550) a
distance of 165 feet, more or less, to the east line of
Regional Street; thence leaving said south line (82-193550)
southerly along said east line of Regional Street to a point 68
feet south, measured at right angles to said south line (82-
193550); thence in an easterly direction 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,
'ATTACHMENT
A/..T. I
northeasterly 130 feet, more or less, to the beginning of a
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 parcel. (82-193550); 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. ~
Proposed Street Right-of-Way
SC~I~OF~NP/J3LEVARDBEIWESN
AMADORPLAZAROADANDREGI~STREET
Ail that certain 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 167 feet, more or
less, to a point easterly of the prolongation of the southern
line of that certain parcel of land described in the deed to
Robert T. and Betty J. Wolverton recorded December 20, 1978, as
Instrument No. 78-248211, Records of Alameda County, said point
being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING for this description; thence
continuing northerly along said west line of Amador Plaza Road
to a point 68.00 feet north measured at right angles to said
south line (78-248211) and its prolongation; thence westerly
parallel with said south line and its prolongation a distance
of 775 feet, more or less, to the centerline of Golden Gate
Drive; thence leaving said centerline, on a course deflecting
5.6 degrees to the right. 180 feet, more or less, to the
beginning of a tangent curve, concave to the north, having a
radius of 266.00 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 145
feet, more or less, to the beginning of a reverse curve, having
a radius of 334.00 feet; thence along the arc of said reverse
curve 180 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 "A", lying South 4 feet, measured at right angles
to, the prolongation of the south line of an existing warehouse
lying on said Bedford parcel (82-193550); 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 332.00 feet;
thence along the arc of said curve 125 feet, more or less;
thence southwesterly on a course tangent to the previous curve
130 feet, more or less, to the beginning 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, to a point on the
south line 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, more or less, to the east line
of Regional Street; thence leaving said south line (82-193550)
southerly along said east line of Regional Street to a point
68.00 feet south, measured at right angles to said south line
(82-193550); thence in an easterly direction parallel with said
south line (82-193550) a distance of 165 feet, more or less, to
,TTACHMENI
the beginning of a tangent curve, concave to the north, having
a radius of 334.00 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 90
feet, more or less; thence northeasterly on a course tangent to
the previous curve, 130 feet, more or less, to the beginning of
a tangent curve, concave to the south, having a radius of
268.00 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 80 feet, more
or less, to a point 68.00 feet south of, measured at right
angles to, the prolongation of the south line of said existing
warehouse lying within the Bedford parcel (82-193550); thence
easterly parallel with said prolongation 330 feet, more or
less, to a point south 64.00 feet from Point "A", at the
beginning of a tangent curve, concave to the south, having a
radius of 266.00 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 142
feet, more or less, to the beginning of a reverse curve, having
a radius of 334.00; thence along the arc of said reverse curve
175 feet, more or less; thence southeasterly 183 feet, more or
less, to the centerline of Golden Gate Drive, said point lying
west of the prolongation of the southern line of said Wolverton
parcel (78-248211); thence easterly along said prolongation of
said southern line (78-248211) a distance of 778 feet, more or
less, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
E ~.%lVI F:~ ~ ~ p/-j. F_. F~ TA L('
(Pursuant to Pub. lie Resources C~de Sect[an 21000 et se~.)
PA N~
Based on the pro[ect';nFormction submltte4 in Section 1 General Da. ia, the Plann[.ng StaF£
will use Section 3, Inlt[a[ Studyt to determTne whether a ~eg=t[ve Declarbtion or,m
Environmental impc~c,.t R~por't is required. ;. ;'..
SECTION 3. INITIAL STUDY - - - to be completed by the PL~JtNING STAFF
"Name o~ Proiecf or AppJi. cant: DUBLIN 'BOULEVARD PARALLEL ROAD '
· A.-- ENVIRONMENTAL SETi'IN G - DescrJptlon oF project site J~e,~ore the projectt including
· |nFormaHon on: topography'; soT1 stcbiJ;ty; plants and animals.; historical, culturalz anH
scenic :aspects; ex[sling structures; and use oF structures [~USTRIAL/C0M~RCIAL'AREkS,
1/2 OF 'PROJECT SITE IS DEVELOPED AS PARKING & DRIVEWAYS. THE OTHER 1/2
-IS UNIMPROVED LAND.
DescripHan oF surroundina properties, including inForm..aticn em plants chh cnimals;
historical, cultural, ~nd scenic a~ects; tyFe end intens[~ o~ land use; ~nd scale or
development. DEVELOPED AREAS WITH COFDfER~IAL RETAIL & OFFICE AS ~LL AS
WAREHOUSE. NO SIGNIFICANT N[~TURAL FEATURES SUCH-~ PI~ANTS; ~NI~IS. TOPO-
GRAPHY, ETC., EXIST IN PROJECT AREA·
ENVIRONMENTAL I~PACTS - Factual explcnc:t':.on.s c~ all c:',swers excep,~ "no" are re-.
quJred o~ c,'tcched sheets.
WIll construct;on oF thc proiec.~ alter thc Sydro-
Jag~c
Will the rote
or cause alteration
will thzre be r{~k o[ Joss of life or p~ due
tn tl~;nq?
A-5
~z?. OF ~.C"2
NO
X
X
I
I i
1
I !
, !
I I 1
I ! I
I I !
1 I t 1
X I .I I
I ! 1
I I I
I ! i
ATTACHM[I -,
Will race'vinO ~?ers fn;I la m~t Io:~], st~'e a~
~epa~t, ;nfr~;~ of ~lt or ~lluted ~ter [r~ i ! I . '
adjacent ~ler ~es or f~om onothe~
' .. I I I
.... ! ! !
' by proiect relat~ act;vii;es m ~ prox~
q~lity ~rds?
I I I
~ I I I
3.2 Foundation Su~t Will there be r;~ to life or p,~e~ ~:a'~ of
excessive d~o~t{on of ~terlats? ~ ' I ~ -.
3.3 ~n~l~dar~on Will there be ri~ m Ji~e or prapcr~l he:=~,~
excessive c~sa:idot;on of [oundat~r
q~e octivi~'?
struct;~
pro[ecl preset odver~ carillons ,elotive
; velop~nt of wells?
3.9 L~q~ F~t~es ! Will any ~que Seol~ical features b~ do~ed '
' or des~)'zd by project act~v[ties?
3.10 Mineral Re,ureas'. Are~luetherecloseS~toglCto ~e pro;err ?dcp°sits o~ potcnth~l
, I
I I I
4.0 p~NTS AND ANIMALS
4.1 Plant and Ani~l Species Ara there ~rc ~ endang=r~ ~ec;es
Are there ~c~es pre~nt w~;ch ore ~'t~c,Jlorly
susctpl~le to impact fr~m hu~n oct;v[~?
deny f~ ~ habitat to important wild:ire ~pccics?
Are there nu;~nce ~ccies of pla~t or
b~ c~..~r~ly nffe¢.te4 hy rh~ pmi'ct?
· · I I I
' · ' o~,'::'--.~=~:~k'.' X ! ! 1
species, or to o :ubsh:nl:ol nu,m~e'
4.3 Divers;fy Is there s~bstantinl d~versity in t~: n-~"~ ~m~,n~t'/ I
I I I
I I I
I i
I I I
oo
5.0 fACILITIES AND S£~VlCES
'
5.1 lrducotional Facilities Will pro[ect*d enrollments odv~ly offect the *x-
as fo ;~a the I~rning pr~ess?
Is ~e ~ol I~t~ ~ Ihat ;r pra~nts a
for o p~tion oF the enrollees ~ t,rms oF ~avel t~me,
. . c~rcial racilil~es ~ the proiect?
he needs oE the p~o[ecI ~t~t ex--lng
as~ated w~lh ~ste~ter ~tm~t ~lonts~
~/tes generor~ by ~e
'
do~s~m fl~lng end to meet F~ml State
I0~I sta~ards?
5.7 Pol~ce , Will ~ proiecPs ~dit~o~l ~latr~, racillt;es~
5.8 Fire Will I~e pro[ecrUs ad~Ho~l populoti~, ~acili~es,
or ot~ [ea~es gen~te an ~n~ ~n Fife s~vlc~s
5.10 Cul~eal Fodllt~es Will ~l~ral facillr;es Be u~[Ioble Io the
6.0 ~NS?O~TATION
6~ T/an~r~t[on Facilities Are the ~[Hc dc~s ~ ad[ac~t t~ds
emt~ by lhe pro~ect ~use the a~ocent r~ds lo
. ,Are the oth~ ~n~tot;~ rocilltles ~h;ch ~e the
'proiect inod~te ~o accomm~cte th= proiec~'s
6.2 'Circulation ~H{cts Will design oF the pmiect ~ co~{l{~S in Ihe ~ro~-
6.3 R~d ~fe~ and Design ,ng~%;illar~p~[ect res;dents and us~s ~e expo~d lo in~s~
acc~dcnt r~sks d~ to r~y and s~act design ~ lac~
7.0 ~ALTH
~ ' ' '
7.3 Nul~nces ,Will the p,oicc, be expo~ to ~ generate factors
~y be cons~der~ as nu;~nccs? . .
7.4 Struct~al ~fe~ [Will design and proposed construct~ technsq~s
re meet state a~ local build'nD c~es?
8.1 Noise Levels Will th~ project be cxpo~d tn ~r Dentate
nohe levels?
8.2 Vibrations Witl the pr~icct 6o c~pos~ to v~,ati~s nnnoy;ng
NO
?.0 COMMUNITY CHARACTER
I ! I
9.2 ~ene;~ a~ D;vcrs;~ Will t~ project ~e lhe ~mcler of lbo . j j j
~un;~ ~n tcrms o~ ~str~ul~ ~ c~centrot~
o~ ;n~mc, ethnic, h~s;~, m age g~oup? ~ J J I
, I
lo.o V~S~L ~L~ I I I
I I !
10.1 Vla~ Will res;danls o'f lhe s~r~lng a,~ be ad-er~ly J J J
af[ect~byv;e~of~ ~ J~project? · ' ~ ' J J J
Will I~e project residents be a~e~ly affected by J J J j
v~e~ or ~ ~r~ Ihe ~ro~d;ng ar~ ? ' * X J J J
~o~ X i i '
11.0 HISTO~ICAND CULT~L ' J J J
I I
ra~rc~ [rom irs s~ro~ing anv;r~cnl ? ~ J J J
I I I
~ atmo:p~erlc elements t~t ore nat ;n c~:acter w;~ ~ j j j
~ al~Ner;c eJem~ts ~t a~e ,ol in cNo~act~r w;t~ J J J
I I
~r~ ,eq'atr~ f~ the project? ~ I I I
j I
Will there be a net incr~se in ~er~ ~ for the J J J j
13.0 ~ND USE I . ! I
.. I I .I
I I 'l
13.1 Si~e H~::rds Do co~itlons oF the she, ~s~ s~te development, .. j j j
or ~rou~[ng or~ ct~al~ poren:;olly ~:ardous silu- j j j
at ;nsecu, hy and physical I~l o~ng the ~cs[d~nts j j j
13.3 ~n;~ ~ndFiII Will :he project b~
fillin~, drag[nD, dro;n;,~g, culvurGng, ~:te dis- J J J
I I I
I I I
I ! I
I I i
I I I
.I I I
A-8
I I I
LAND USE Will the project affect the X J ! I
· o !
use of property w~ich would I I. !
result in impacts to
general plans or local ~ '~ I ,,
ordinances?
.' .- i I !
"
~. ! .I I
.. J J ,j
I ! !
I I I
- C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Does the pro]es,' have the potential to degrade the
quality oF the environment, substantially reduce
hsD,re, oF c ' ' wildlife spec[es, c=use a
the .... t:~sn cr
Fish er wildlife population to drop below self-
sus~?nTng levels, threaten to el{mlncte a plant
or enlmal communi~, reduce the number or restrict
· ' , animal
the range oF a rare cr endangeree ~Icnt Dr
or el,.'mlnate impcr~nt examples of the maior periods
ar CaliFornia his,~cry cr prehistoq~?
(2)
(3)
(.4)
Does the project have ~'he paten;ici to cchieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-terror environmental
goals?
Does the proiect have impacts wn,cn ere indivTdualiy
· limited but cumulatelvely considerable? (A project
may impact on two or more separate resources where
the impact on each resource is relatively small, b'ut
where the eFFect o,e the total oF those impacts-on the
environment is slgnificc',nt.)
Does the project, have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
MITIOATi .O,N MEASURES.- D[scussion or the way. s ,o mit[ga~e the s[gnir[cant e.,ffects
E. DETERMINATION - On the basis oF this initial evaluation:
l~ Th~ City oF Pu. b tih
finds that there will not be any'slgni~'icant effect. The par-
tlcular characteristics or thJs project and the mltiga,'ion measures incorporated .into "
the design or the project prov[de :he Factual'basis for the rlnding. A NEGATIVE '
DECLARATION tS R~-QUIRED.
The City or 'Publ. ir~ finds that the proposed project MAY have a slgn:Jic~nt effect' ..
on the environment. AN ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED**
SJgna'ture and date:
Name and t[tle:
**NOT.':-~ Where a project [s revised [n response to an lnj,'jal Study so tho: po:e:~.~jal adverse
effects are m,t,ga,ed to a point where no s[gn]r[c~nt environmental effects would occur~ a
revised Initial S:udy w;ll be prepared a~d a Negative Declaration will be requ:.red i~s'ead oF
an EIR.
A--1~1 "* "
May 25, 1988
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 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 due to the environmental constraints which would make the
project undesirable. The attached exhibit shows all three alternatives.
Unless otherwise indicated, discussion of impacts refers to both Alternatives
1 and 3.
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 Transportation Facilities
Traffic demands on vicinity roads and intersections are projected to
approach the design capacity, offering Levels of Service D or E. This
project will help alleviate some of that congestion.
11.2 Archaeological Sites and Structures
Much of the project site 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 Land Use
The project involves the 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
- 1
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.
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.
The zoning and Site Development Review (PA 83-069) for APN 941-1500-44
(Orchard Supply Hardware and others) requires 619 spaces. This plan line
would remove 69 spaces for this property. The Downtown Specific Plan
indicates that this area had a peak parking demand for 26% of the spaces
provided. Even if all of the 242 parked cars identified in the survey were
on this property, the peak demand would be only about 45%. 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.
This reduction in available parking 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, atthough~vehicles must park parallel to
the building and cannot back into the opening (only smaller trucks can
currently back up to the 12± foot high opening).
The changes to access to the rear of the building are not considered
significant adverse environmental impacts, no mitigation is required.
Alternative 1
This alternative would result in the separation of two properties
currently under one ownership (Woolvertons). Cro~ 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 developmen~ of a
commercial or office use, as designated in the Do~town 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
- 2
compensation. This potential loss of value is not specifically an
environmental impact but should be included in final project land acquisition
considerations.
Alternative 3
This alternative would result in the splitting of one buildable area
into two smaller pieces. 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 is no impact to existing land use and no mitigation beyond
compensation for property acquisition is required.
- 3 -
® ~
-'!- I
lB=It:liS "IVNOiO=IEI
0
0
0
...I
0
.I
!
I-.
rr'
m
.L3314 J. S 'lVNOI~)::IEI
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
N~.GATIVE DECLARATION FOR:
PARALLEL ROAD SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD
(Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road)
(Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000~ et seq.)
LOCATION:
New road located approximately midway between Dublin
Boulevard and 1-580 between Regional Street and Amador
Plaza Road
PROPONENT:
City of Dublin
DESCRIPTION:
Plan line for a new road with a 6g-foot cross section
at the above location.
FINDINGS:
The project will not have a significant effect on the
environment.
INITIAL STUDY:
The initial study is available with a brief discussion
of the following environmental components: Air
pollution~ transportation facilities: archaeology~ and
land use.
MITIGATION MEASURES: See attachment.
PREPARATION:
This Negative Declaration was prepared by the City of
Dublin Planning Staff, (415) 829-4916.
SIGNATURE:
Laurence L. Tong~ Plan~ Director
DATE:
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. 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.
4. Provide the parking spaces shown on the variance permit at the rear
of the property as expansion parking (49 spaces).
5. Encourage a 7,200~ square foot property exchange between this
property and the BART 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 project.
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 separating
properties shall be made to affected property owners.
ROAD
Law Offices of
Howell & Hailgrimson
A Professional C~r~oralion
File No
W213-001
KE'CEIVED
f4A¥ 0 $1988
DUBUN .ANNIN
702~ ~Ca~le¢ Parl~w~, Suila 142
Pfe~aamo~, California ~4566
Tete~'x~e 415 462 2424
Market $1re,~! Su,le 9t/J
5o~:.e.. CahfornJa g5113-239~
T~'s~ 408 275 63F.,0
R-. ~//..-~ 408 275 03~5
May 2, 1988
Planning Commission
City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Blvd.
suite 205
Dublin, CA 94566
Re: Proposed Plan Line - New RoadlParallel to
and Southerly to Dublin Blvd.
Agenda of May 2, 1988
Item Ho. 8.2
Honorable chairperson and Planning Commissioners:
On behalf of Betty Woolverton, 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 unfo~unate 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.
$'e.l_m, L Ha,~r:macr.
D xsn iq..
Jc<_.e_~.n P. D~C;ucc.o
Er c Wcng
Rc,;e: R E:anccn
Da,~ A Mar~,n
L'r. ca M Lycn$
Ja,'e F ReJyea
I = :,re~.ce L Lccar"c
Da.~c C Burgess
~,crra
_'~n S Pas:o Jr
D=_-~e j Mash
3'---mas O.
L=~.:rerce R
J=- 0
ATTACHiViENi'
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 Planning 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 neighbor
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 Amador
Plaza Road, the staff should go back and look 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 BkRT property.
An access from the mid to rear of the BART parking
lot could traverse some more southerly route.
In summary, it is unnecessary for your commission to
make the hard decision now as to a plan line, when
the only party truly affected by its placement 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 the establishment of
a road from Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road
will have significant impacts on the properties 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. At a
minimum a traffic study should be done to measure
those impacts so that your recommendation to the
city Council can be based on appropriate data.
Respectfully submitted,
HOWELL & EALLGRIMSON
vi
HEL/alp
7450 DUBLIN BOULEVARD DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA 94566
PHONE {415) 828-4401
May 9, 1988
Planning Commission Members
Dublin, California
Re: Proposed Plan Line - New Road Parallel to and Southerly of
Dublin Boulevard (Between Amador Plaza Road and Regional
Street.
Dear Sir or Madam:
Pursuant to the above referenced Proposed Plan 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 developmen~ than two
separate parcels consisting of a 1 and 2 Acre parcel divided by
the proposed road. One larger parcel would allow for a larger
development and increase our chances of attracting an anchor
tenant which is critical to 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.
/'2
G, gnea
JGE/kh
cc: Robert S. Enea
ATTACHM£NiI' io
Law Offices of ~
Howell & Hallgrimson
A Professional Corporation
7020~Center Pad<way, Suite 142
Plealanton, California 94566
Telephone 415 462 2424
File No
W213-001
San Jcce Office'
60 S,'-.,ulh Markel Slreet SusIe 300
San Jose. California 95113- 2363
Tee. phone 408 275 6300
Te'. ec,':,~er 408 275 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
report 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.
SJeven L HaJgrmsor.
D,xon R Howe;I
Jcsepn P D C~ucc;o
Er:c ';long
Roger FI BranCcn
Dav,O A. Manor~
Howard S M,Uer
Lmda M Lyons
Jar. e P Re,yea
Lawrence L LoCateD
Harvey E. Lewne
Roraid I. Ra,ney
David C Bcrgess
Donna Becket
Mark L H~rsCn
Jcmn S Pasco jr
Jo Ann geqdvo
D~;e, J Mas~
T~omas D Mun~a
P~r.c:a A We:c~
Narcy L Branct
Je~e? ~ Hare
L3..,rence R Je~ser
Jan O Nea
C' Cc,~nse
Ca .'.d H
A P,c, fess ¢2a, Ccrc?°a: z-
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,
HOWELL & HALLGRIMSON
,, /
By ~:LO'.~,~ ~ ~ ~~
~ar~ey E~ Levine
HEL/alp
ATTACHMENI' IL