HomeMy WebLinkAboutNo PA#/Prpsd.PlanLine/NewRoad-2CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
Planning Commission Meeting Date: May 2, 1988
SUBJECT:
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) Proposed Plan Line
3) Description of Proposed Plan Line
4) Proposed Cross Section
5) Environmental Assessment Initial Study
6) Negative Declaration
RECOMMENDATION'
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
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
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'
A road parallel to and southerly of Dublin Boulevard is recommended in
the City's adopted Downtown Specific Plan (which is part of the General Plan).
The Plan Line for such a road between Regional Street and Amador Plaza Road is
the subject of this item.
Per the direction of the Commission and comments received from the
public at the Planning Commission meeting of April 4, 1988, this item was
continued to review two additional alignment alternatives, which are evaluated
in this report.
Alternatives
1) Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative, and is the alignment
discussed at the previous Planning Commission hearing. 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
File
edge of the right-of-way falling along the southern property line of Crown
Chevrolet, and connect to the land offered for dedication from the Enea Plaza
development (see Attachments 1 and 2).
As outlined in the Staff report for the April 4, 1988, Planning
Commission meeting, this alignment would remove 191 parking spaces (122 from
Unisource and 69 from behind Ross/Orchard Supply). Up to 150 additional
spaces can be provided for the Unisource building to mitigate the loss of
parking. No mitigation was deemed necessary for the 69 spaces from behind
Ross/Orchard Supply. Another impact identified in the Staff report is the
loss of back-up/maneuvering area for trucks using the loading dock at
Unisource. With a narrowing of the right-of-way in this area, a minimum llO-
foot area can be provided for trucks. This width is the minimum needed for
55-foot trucks to maneuver.
The cost for this 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.
A) The most significant problem is 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 sp~ces). However, there is not 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 could be planted along the right-of-way
edge to replace that which is lost.
E) The alignment along the creek is inconsistent with the
Downtown Specific Plan and would require a General 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 station.
H) This alternative does 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) The third alternative would place the road in the middle of the
block but it would be located further south 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
not separate the two parcels owned by Crown Chevrolet but would put the road
at the back (south side) of the vacant parcel owned by the Woolvertons and
would allow a direct expansion of Crown Chevrolet to the south. The estimated
cost of this alignment is $3.3 million.
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 result in the creation of a 1.06~ acre
parcel (adjacent to Enea Plaza) and a 1.29± acre parcel south of the
Alternative 3 road. While both of these lots could develop with commercial
uses, it is preferable to have a larger lots (as in Alternative 1) to allow
greater design and development flexibility.
C) Additional right-of-way would need to be acquired (over the
preferred alternative). The property adjacent to the Enea Plaza development
has been offered for dedication. Should the road be located further south,
the City would have to purchase the right-of-way and perhaps compensate the
owner for splitting an existing parcel.
D) This alignment would reduce the BARTD's usable property by
about 16,500 square feet.
Discussion
In order to evaluate the alternatives, Staff has 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 preferred
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 Enea and the need to compensate Enea
for severing the property. In addition, Alternative 3 results in the creation
of two parcels smaller than preferred for commercial areas on the Enea
property. West of Golden Gate Drive, Alternative 3 would require the
acquisition of about 16,500 square feet of BARTD property. This could mean
the reduction in 40+ parking spaces for the parking lot.
-3-
Costs
Preliminary estimated costs for the three alternatives follow.
Estimates include acquisition, design, improvement, and environmental
mitigation.
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
$3 million
$6.7 million
$3.3 million
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Co~nmission adopt the draft
resolutions which recommend the City Council adopt the negative declaration of
environmental significance and the plan line as described in Alternative 1.
Should the Planning Commission recommend Alternative 3, a new legal
description would have to be prepared for the selected alignment, and this
item would have to be continued one meeting to incorporate that description
into the Planning Commission Draft Resolution. Should Alternative 2 be
recommended, a General Plan Amendment would need to be initiated and the plan
line would have to return to the Planning Commission after an amendment is
processed.
-4-
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 March 28, 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 April 4 and May 2, 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 Cduncil 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 2nd day of May, 1988.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Planning Commission Chairperson
Planning Director
RESOLUTION NO. 88-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY 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 Downtown Specific Plan 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
April 4 and May 2, 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; 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'of public improvement;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission
does hereby recommend that the City Council approve the plan line as described
on the attached Exhibits A and B dated March 28, 1988.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of May, 1988.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Planning Commission Chairperson
Planning Director
0
®
Proposed Street Right-of-Way
SOUTH 0~~ 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 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 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 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 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 Dr ive, 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 prev i6us 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
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,
ATTACHMEN¥3
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 ~aid existing warehouse lying
within t~he Bedford parcel (82-193550); thence easterly parallel
with said 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.
PARALLEL ROAD
SOUTH .OF_DUBLIN BOULEVARD
(REGIONAL _STREET TO AMADOR PLAZA ROAD)
~,~ //,'~2 WAY LEFT TURNI
OPTIMUM SECTION
cl:rY '
ENVI il:::::] ~D' N~EENTALi: AS S ES $ ~,,'3 EiF~T
'(Pursuant fo Pu~l!¢ Resources Code 5ection 21000 ef
Based on the project inform=lion submitted in Section I General DaiWa, the Plannl.ng 5toff
will use Section 3, Inlt[al Study, to determine whether a Neg=tive Declarbtlon or an
Environmental lmpac,.t REport is required° .-. :' -~
SECTION 3. INITIAL STUDY - - -
to be completed by the PL~JtNING STAFF
"Name of Proiect or Applicant: DUBLIN 'BOULEVARD PARALLEL ROAD '
'A~-- ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - Description of prOject site he[ore the pro[ecl, including
' information on: topograph~}; soll stcbillty; plants and anlm=ls.; hlstoric=It culturalt an=
scenic .'aspects; existing structures; and use of structures I~¥DUSTRIAL/¢0M~R¢IAL'AREkS
1/2 OF 'PR0$ECT SITE IS DEVELOPED AS PARKING & DRIVEWAYS. THE 0TItER 1/2
-IS UNIMPROVED LAND.
Description oF surrounding prcpertles, including in[arm, orlon em plcnts and =nlmals;
hlstorlca]! cultu;ol, end scenic aspects; h/pe end intensi~ cf Icnd use; end sc~Ie or
development. DEVELOPED AREAS WITH C0~IER~IAL RETAIL & OFFICE AS WELL AS
WAREHOUSE. NO SIGNIFICANT I~kTURAL FFATIIRES SUCH' ~g P!ii~'TS; ANIMALS: TOPO-
GRAPHY~ ETC.~ EXIST IN PROJECT AREA.
ENVIRONMENTAL I~PACTS Factucl ex?IcnaH.on.s cf =Il c:',s',vers excep,~ "no" ore re- .
qulred on ~ttached sheets.
1.0 WATER
1.1 }lydroroglc ~olonc~, .
ground ~¢r supplies?
%VIII COn~l~Ct~On ;mpcde Ibc natural d~;ncg= ~l/e~
or cause alteration oE sl~¢om channel ~orm~
%¥;1[ const~c~;on ;n an arco resu;/ ~n ~[or sed;m~nr
Influ~ ~nto a~[acent ~t.r bog;es7
No
·
1
X I ; 1
I
X ! I I
X I .I, ,I
I I t
I I I
I I I
I
ATTACHMENT_-5
A-5
federal ~tandards ?
. . Willfedemlrece;v~nDsta~ds?~/e~s fnll to m~t ]ocnl,
Will grou~ ~er ~Ifcr ¢on~mi~tlon
~epa~t, ;nrrm;~ oF ~lt or polluted ~te~
odiacent ~ter ~d;es or from anolhct
o~u;Fer? ....
;.o
2.1 ~;r Pol]ul;o~ . w;]] t~ere be genemtioa aM d[~ers;~
by pro,eot relot~ activ;ties ~ ;n p~ox;cir,
flow ~us;ng c~eling along cefta;~ corr~
~s)ruc~;on o~ w;nd movements?
3.1 Sl~e S~ility Are there ~entral dangers relo/~ tn :~: r=ii~es?
3.2 Foundat{on Su~mt Will there be r;~ to life or p~t~ ~:o~e
excess;ye deFo~t~on oF
excessive c~so:;do/;on of foundat;oc
3.5 ~;~;c Activ;~ Is there risk o; do~ge or loss re~lt;;~ l~ earth-
3.& Lique~act;~ Will the proiec/~use or be ~x~ ~ I;qu:[c:t~on
proiect preset adver:a co~;t;ons ,elat~ve tc
velopment of wellsT
3.10 M;neml Re~rces' Are Ihcre c~log;c dcposi:s oF potcnti.~l
' '
~lue c~os. lo ~e proiecr?
4.0 P~NTS AND ANIMALS
4.1 Plant and An:mai Species Are I~ere m~a ~ endang=~ed metres p~nt?
Ara tMere ~:c~e~ pre~n~ w~;~ ore
susctpffote ~o ~mpact from hu~n acti.~?
idcny f~ ~ hob[tot to important wild:ifc ~occles?
.
4.2 Veoetot;ve ~mmun;~' T~es Are there a~ ~usuaI populations ~ plnn:s that ~y
Are there vegeX/ire commun;~y ~pes v,~;ch ore
Are rh::c m~ior ~rees or moinr vcO~tntic,~ rh:r w{ll
ha c~l)' nffee.ted hy the proi-ct?
03 rcflecte~ in the n,,mbe, and ~pe ~ ~l--.t :r nc;~l
A-6
5.0 FACILITIES A,NID SERVICFS
'
Ist~ng ~ ~d Focal;ties ~n terms
Will ~ p~oject ~m~ct ~he p'~/l~c~e~ ~atZo ~
as to i~e ~he learning p~ess7
Is the ~1 lo~t~d su~ Ihot ;~ pre,nfs a ~rd~;p
fo~ a p~t~n of the enrollment ~ te~ms
'
5.2 ~erc;al FacMit;es Will t~ere ~e an inodeq~e ~ly of
th. ~, or th. p,oi,c~ w;,~o~ exeS;rig q~li~
Will I~ protect be ex~d to nu~nces
as~c~al~ wT~h ~ste~ter ~fmen~ plants?
5.4 ~lld Waste 'DT~I Is there ~d~te provh;~ For dT~I oF
5.5 Wo~ ~ly Is there ;~tc q~nt[~y ~ q~l~
do--strum fl~Zn9 and to meet F~eml State
:or ~te a ~l;ce ~:ord?
or o~ r~e, ;e~o~a on ;n~
or cr~te o ~re ~zard?
5.~ ~t;~ Will t~ proi,ct ~ve ~nad~te FacMit~es to meet
tho r,~t;~l .~, or ,~ .... ;~?
5.]0 Cul~rol FacMit~es WMI ~l~al fac~lit[es ~e uno~Moble
6.0 ~NSPO~TATION
6~ J Transtar;on Fac;lit;es Are the ~o[~;c ~e~s ~ o4ocent r~d, ~ren~ly
' of ~ aSove ~c;~y? If not, ~[I t~e ~;c gen~
e~t~ by f~e protect cause the o~ocent
r~c~ ~ exce~ co~c;~?
Are the ot~ ~n~tar;~ fac;iitTes ~;~ ~e the
project ;~d~te to accom~cte the pro~ec/'s
. ~ro.,~ e~,?
mg ar~ ~n~ accidents d~ ~ c~r~lot~ ~licts?
F.0.~A~TH
7.10d~, Will the proiec~ 5, ~xpos~ ~o or ge.crate any ~t~nsa
~ms?
7.20o~;ng o~ Oen/T~ Will Iht resTdents o~ users be exp~d
high den:;~ ;n their p~y,;col liv;~a env;r~ent?
7,3 Nul;nce~ Will Iht proi~ct be expo~ to ~ generate Eactors
~y ~, ~nsTder~ o, nu;~nces?
7.4 S/ruct~ol ~e~ Will deS{Dh and proposed cons~ruc~}~
to mea~ slo~e a~ local buMding c~es?
8.0 ~blS~
~u~m?
9.0 COMMUNITY CHARACII:K
?.l Communily Organization Will the project di~upt on exlst;ng ~t al'
~'goni'zot;ons or grouf,~s w;th~n tJ~, co.'~n~e~;ly?
9.2 Homogeneity ond D;vers;ty Will IJ'~e project c~nge the cRamcter OF the
·
Community in terms of d;slr;t~Jt~on
~0.0 v~smL Omu~
- ,
I10.1 VJe~ W;II res;denis ~ the smr~;n~ or~ ~ odver~J~
Will t~ project residents be odver~ly oF[ect~
v;~ ~ m ~r~ the ~rro~di~
~o~
Il.0 ,HISTORIC AND CULTL~J '
~so~c~s
I l. l Hh~r[: on~ Cu'hural Will t~ ~oj~ct ~n~lve th: ~ct~ ~ alter-
- · Will Ibc pro[cci introduce phys;~l,
'~'~
~ ~l~heric elements t~t ate noI in C~raCt~ W;Ih
12.0 ~ N~R GY
12.1 En~ R~urre~n~s ~'e/h~e ~tent~l pr~le~s w:~ the s~ply of
~r~ t~u;r~ f~ the project ?
W;I] I~ encr~ r~u;r~ents exce~ the ca~c~ty
12.2 ~s~t;~ Mea~res D~s the ~ojcct planning o~ d~srCn foil to ;ncl~e'
l~.0 ~ND US~
'
~r ~to~ing or~ cr~alc porcn:;oll~ ~zordous
of in.curtly and physical I~r a~ng the rcs;dents
13.3 ~ni~ Landfill Will th= protect be ex~s~ ~
]3.4 ~Vater~ys Will N~p~[ecl affect an ex;st;n
filling, dr~g;ng, drain;nD, culvurr;ng, ~q:~e dis-
ch~cs, loss o~ v;s~l q~ljty ~ o~r land use
.... ~;~,~
--
A-8
· .
':
LAND USE Will the project a££ect
,
use o~ proper~y ~ch wou~d
result in impacts to
~eneral plans or local
ordinances?
-
C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
(])
Does the pro]ecl have the potenHal to degrade the
qua[ih/of the envlronmeni', substantially reduce
, .. ,. wildli{e-~pecies, c=u-~e a
the ha~,ro, of o Fish cr
Fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to e][minc.~e a plant
or on[mol community, reduce the number or restrJc.~
the range of a rare er end'angered ?Jcnt or animal
or eJimlnote impor~nt examples of the rnaicr periods
or CaliForn;a history cr prehistory?
(2) Does the proiect h,~,:e i'he poteni'ial to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, envkonmento]
.goo [ s ? ·
(3) Does the proiec~ have impacts which ere individually
· limited but cumulatelvely considerable? (A proiect
may impact' on two or more separate resources where
the impact on each resource is relctively small, b'ut
where the effect o,c the total of those impacts-on the
environment is slgniFic:nt.)
(4) Does the proiect, have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
belngst either directly or indirectly?
KO
Dw
MITIGATION MEASURES - Discussion of the ways to mit?ga'e the significant effects
E. DETERMINATION - On the basis of this initial evaluatlcn:
~ Th~ City of D~bli~ £1nds that there will not be any'significant effect.
Signa'ture and date:
Name and title:
The par- -
tlcular characteristics of this proiect and the mlt[gaffon measures incorporated .into
' .the design of the project pro'ride .~he factual basis for the t:indlng. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION iS R~QUIRED.
o
The City of ]~b[ in Finds that the proposed pro[ec,~ MAY have a significcnt effect
on the environment. AN ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED**
**NOTF.: Where a proiect is revised in response to an Inltio1 Study so !ha: po.~en:ial adverse
effects are rnlt[gated to a point where no slgn[flc~nt envkonmsntal effects would occur, a
revised Initial. S.~udy will be prepared an-d a Negative Declaration will be requ!red i~s~eacI of
an EIR.
........................................................ ~-ln', .......... ,- ~ ,-- .......
March 23, 1988
PARALLEL ROAD SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD
(REGIONAL STREET TO AMADOR PIAZAROAD)
INITIAL STUDY
B. Environmental Impacts Factual Explanations
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
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.
- 1 -
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 ~he 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.
- 2
Development Services
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
CITY OF DUBLIN
Planning/Zoning 829-4916
Building & Safety 829-0822
Engineering/Public Works 829-4927
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR: PARALLEL ROAD SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD
(Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road)
(Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.)
LOCATION:
PROPONENT:
DESCRIPTION:
FINDINGS:
INITIAL STUDY:
MITIGATION MEASURES:
PREPARATION:
New road located approximately midway between Dublin
Boulevard and 1-580 between Regional Street and Amador
Plaza Road
City of Dublin
Plan line for a new road with a 68-foot cross section
at the above location.
The project will not have a significant effect on the
environment.
The initial study is available with a brief discussion
of the following environmental components: Air
pollution, transportation facilities, archaeology, and
land use.
See attachment.
This Negative Declaration was prepared by the City of
Dublin Planning Staff, (415) 829-4916.
SIGNATURE:
La~ P~l~~c tor
DATE:
ATTACHMENT
PARALLEL ROAD SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD
(Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road)
Mitigation measures included in project to-~liminate 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.
-i- I
!
I
a-
o
II
/:::r:l I::I.LS 'I~'N Ol~)31d