HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.4 DB Revised Plan LineCITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
Planning Commission Meeting Date: March 7, 1988
SUBJECT:
Dublin Boulevard Revised Plan Line
(Donlon Way to Amador Plaza Road)
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
A) Resolution Recommending City Council Adoption of
Negative Declaration
B) Resolution Recommending City Council Adoption of
Plan Line
1) Proposed Plan Line
2) Environmental Assessment Initial Study
3) Negative Declaration
RECOMMENDATION:
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Open Public Hearing
Receive Staff presentation and public testimony
Question Staff and the public
Close Public Hearing and deliberate
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 plan line was established for Dublin Boulevard between Donlon Way and
Amador Plaza Road in 1984. Since the City Council adopted the plan line,
other studies and projects have revealed that future traffic on Dublin
Boulevard will result in unacceptable traffic volumes at peak hours. A
revised plan line which would widen Dublin Boulevard and provide additional
left and right turn lanes is proposed.
The need for revising the plan line was first apparent when conducting
the traffic study of the build-out of downtown Dublin and the traffic impact
study for the Hansen Hill Ranch project. These studies revealed that the
intersection of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road would experience future
congestion during peak hours with the existing plan line configuration. The
traffic impact study of the Hansen Hill Ranch recommended revised lane
configurations for the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road
that would also accommodate additional dwelling units in the western hill area
of Dublin. With the existing plan line configuration, the Vehicle/Capacity
(V/C) ratio during p.m. peak hour at the build-out of downtown Dublin and the
Hansen Hill Ranch property would be 1.15 or Level-Of-Service (LOS) F. With
the proposed revised plan line configuration, the p.m. peak hour V/C ratio
would be lowered to 0.88 (LOS D) at build-out. The build-out figures include
allowances for BART station traffic.
The major difference between the previous plan line and the revised plan
line is the provision of double right-turn lanes on the eastbound approach of
Dublin Boulevard to San Ramon Road and triple left-turn lanes on the westbound
approach lanes of Dublin Boulevard to San Ramon Road. There would also be
four westbound lanes on Dublin Boulevard at the westbound approach to Regional
Street. Consequently, the revised Plan Line involves modifying the lane
striping and the median location on Dublin Boulevard between Donlon Way and
Amador Plaza Road.
The provision of double right-turn lanes on the eastbound approach at
San Ramon Road would require the acquisition of right-of-way from the Shell
service station on the southwest corner of the intersection.
The provision of triple left-turn lanes plus a through lane and a
right-turn lane on the westbound approach at San Ramon Road would require the
acquisition of right-of-way west of San Ramon Road on the north side of Dublin
Boulevard for approximately 400 feet. Also, the acquisition of right-of-way
above and beyond that which is depicted on the existing Dublin Plan Line would
be required on the north side of Dublin Boulevard between San Ramon Road and
Regional Street. Between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive, the revised
plan line proposes the same right-of-way requirement on the north side of
Dublin Boulevard as the existing Plan Line; i.e., the acquisition of
additional right-of-way between Regional Street and 260 feet east of Regional
Street. On the south side of Dublin Boulevard, the revised plan line would
require the acquisition of additional right-of-way between San Ramon Road and
approximately 180 feet west of Regional Street and again between Regional
Street and Golden Gate Drive, whereas the existing Dublin Plan Line would
retain the existing right-of-way.
Although additional right-of-way is required for the revised plan line,
no significant structures would have to be demolished.
It is recognized that triple left-turn lanes are an unusual
configuration. In order to assess the potential for triple left-turn lanes to
operate satisfactorily given the proximity of the 1-580/Foothill Road
interchange, the destination of vehicles currently executing the westbound to
southbound left turn was observed. The destinations were fairly evenly split
between westbound on 1-580, eastbound on 1-580, and southbound on Foothill
Road into Pleasanton. Therefore, it would be feasible to erect overhead signs
above each of the triple left-turn lanes indicating that vehicles desiring to
arrive at one of these three destinations should be in a specific left-turn
lane. It is Staff's opinion that such signing would be necessary for the
smooth operation of the triple left-turn lanes, and to avoid unnecessary
weaving once the left turners are traveling southbound on San Ramon
Road/Foothill Road.
It should be pointed out that all of the lane widths in the proposed
revised plan line are of very high standards. It may be possible to slightly
reduce lane widths in some areas so as to decrease the amount of private
property acquisition required.
The revised plan line also includes two bus turnouts 84 feet in length.
The centerline of one turnout is located about 327 feet east of the centerline
of the Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive intersection on the south side of
the street. The centerline of the other turnout is located about 170 feet
west of the centerline of the same intersection on the north side of the
street. These turnouts are in front of Crown Chevrolet and Toys R Us
respectively.
IMPACTS: Impacts from the revised plan line are minimal.
Landscaping: Existing street landscaping will be removed when the
road is widened~ however, new street trees will be planted in their place.
Trees and shrubs on private property that are removed due to the road widening
will be replaced on-site if desired by the property owners.
Parking: Much of the land adjacent to the existing right-of-way
is used for landscape strips and parking. In some locations, the plan line
cuts through parking spaces, rendering them unusable. The parking in these
areas will be restriped at an angle (or as parallel parking) to preserve the
maximum number of spaces. Where appropriate, spaces may be designated for
small cars only.
COSTS: Preliminary estimated costs for right-of-way acquisition,
design, and construction of the road widening is $1.7 million.
-2-
RESOLUTION NO. 88-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY GOUNGILADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING DUBLIN BOULEVARD REVISED PLAN LINE
(DONLON WAY TO 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, an initial study was conducted finding that the project,
as proposed, would not have a significant effect on the environment; 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 for this project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance and considered it at a public
hearing on March 7, 1988; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given as
legally required; and
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 7th day of March, 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 PLAN LINE
FOR DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION FROM DONLON WAY TO AMADOR PLAZA ROAD
WHEREAS, the Dublin Downtown Plan was adopted by the City Council
of the City of Dublin by Resolution No. 55-87 on July 21, 1987; and
WHEREAS, the Downtown Plan identified the need to study the plan
line along Dublin Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the 1987-1988 Capital Improvement Program adopted by the
City Council by Resolution No. 44-87 on June 23, 1987, authorized a plan line
study for Dublin Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on
March 7, 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 or 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 Exhibit A dated March 2, 1988.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 7th day of March, 1988.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Planning Commission Chairperson
Planning Director
I i I
0
C
C
GOLDEt
DR.I
REGI
S'
(Pur:u~nf fo PuEl;c Resources ~e Section 2]000 ef
Based on fee protect in{armor[on submitted in Section ] General Dote, the Planning
will use Section 3, Initial S~udy, to determine whether a Neg:tive Declorbtion or
Environmental Impa~ R~port is required..-.
SECTION 3. INITIAL STUDY
to be completed by the PLANNING STAFF
"Name oF Projec~ or Applicant: DUBLIN BOULEVARD REVISED PLAN L%NE (Donlon Way to Amador
L ' Plaza Road)
A.-- ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - DescripHon oF proiect si~e be,~ore the proiect, including
· information on: topography; soll stability; plants and animal.s; hlstoriccl, cultural, and
scenic aspects; existing structures; end use oF structures
Description oF surrounding properties, including information Ch: plants and cnimals;
historical, cultural, and scenic aspects; ~pe end intensify oF land use; and scsle or
development. Surrounding properties are retail
station, and other similar uses.
ENVIRONMENTAL I~PACTS - Fc:ctual explonati0nS OF C!I answers except "no" are re- .
qulred on 6ftoched she ....
.0 WA T[_____~R
1.] Hydrologic Balanc.
1.2 C~'ound Water
1.3' D~plh to ¥/at~sr Table
'l.4 Drain,age and ~onnel Fo~m
1.6 Fl~in9
logic balance?
Will the pro{oct aft'act the quolih/or q~nt[l~ o[
Will the rote oF ~ter v, hhdra~l chan~e tRe deptN '
or gradient oF the ~ter tablet
or cause alteration oF stream channel ~o~m?
~Y;lI construction in an orca xesu[~ ;n ~[or $e~men~
InFlux into adiac~nr ~ter bod;e~7
Will there be r{& o[ loss oF life or propcr~ due
t~ fiji.q7
NO
A-5
QUAT
1-..4
t f
I I 1
I I 1
I I 1
I I I
I .I I
i i I
I 1
1.7 Water Qua'lily Does drinlcing water supply fall to meet state or~l
federal ~tonda~ds?
Will ~9e be i~,~toly occo~ated and
' federal sta~rds?
~[II ground ~ter suffer con~m~naHon
~epa~t, ~nlrus~ of ~lt or polluted ~ter
adjacent ~tcr ~;es or ~rom another
~.0 A~
2.1 Air PoltuHon . Will Ihere be generation and 4;~ers;o~ of p~llutants
by project relat~ activ;t;es ~ ;n prox~c;r,
2.2 Wind Alteration Will st~cture and terrain'impede pre~:;l;r~ win4
flow ~us;ng c~nneJ;ng aloud cerra;~ ~orr;~
~.0 E~TH
-
3.1 Sl~e S~bil;~y Are there ~en*lnl dangem relat~ ~o ~ [a;l'Jres~
3.2 Foundation Su~ort Will t~re be ri~ to I~Fe or properS/~au:e
excessive defo~aHon of ~erlols?
3.3 ~n~llda~i~ Will t~ere be rls~ ~ life or propcrP/~eca-'~
excessive c~so)idot~on oE ~oundat;~r
with the project?
3.5 ~;~;c Act;v;~ Is there ris~ of do,ge or loss reu,lt;ng From ~arth-
3.6 L;que~actl~ Will t~e project ~use or be ~xpo~d ~n I;qu:~act~on
o~ ~;ls in sl~es ~ under foundations?
3.7
Er~;];~
str~f;~ proct;ce~?
3.8 Pem~b;I;~ Will the permeability of ~;ls os~c:at~ w;~h the
F~tures Will any ~;que geological ~eaturesbe do~sed
3.9
or des~oy~d by project nct~vities?
3.10 M~neml Re~urces' Are there g~logic deposits of potentlnl c~mercial
~lue close to ~e pro;ecl?,
4.0 P~NTS AND ANIMALS
'Are thee ~tcles pre:hr ~Sich ore ~l~culorly
"suscept~lc to ;m~ct from hu~n
Are there nu~nce ~ec~es of p]a~ or a~;m=[s
whic~ co~iHons will be improved ~y tFe proiecl?
'Are there any ~usuaJ populoHons of prnnts that
4.2
VeoetoHve
Are there veg~t;ve community ~s v,~;ch are
:art;culorl), su:cepHble to impel ~r~m ~u~n ~C~;v;~?
ho c~:~ly nffc~.tc4 h7 th~ proi~d?
' ' Ar~ thc:~ ~g::at;~'~ rnmmun;ty typ~s ~-~-~r.
o~ which will deny ~od or haSlta' r~ ;-?~'*an~
spec;es, or to a :u~st,:nt;al num~' o~ ~" m~: Ch:mai:':
4.3 Diversity Is Ihere substan:[~l diversity in tl~ ~:"m~ ~',n~:7
a3 reflected in the number and ~pn ~ n~nt
of plant ~ec;e~ present?
A-6
5.0 FACILITIES AND SERVICES
·
' 5.1 Educational Foc;lities Will projected enrollments adversely affect the ex-
Istlng or p~oposed [ocillties in lerm$ o[ s~acing for
all act~v;r;es~ Including clas~s, recreational
or~s, c~ staffing needs?
Will the project ;m~ct the p'~il/teacher ratio so ~
as to ;mp~e the learning process?~
Is the school located such thor it pre,nfs a hard~;p
for o poet;on oF the enrollment ;n terms o[ travel time,
distance, or ~[ety ~zords?
5.2 ~mmerc;al Fac;lit;es Will t~e,e be an ~nadeq~te supply of and access to
' com~tc~al [at'lilies For the project?
5.3 Llquld Waste D~I Are provisions [~ ~De ~poc;~ [nadcq~te for
Will th~ pro,eot be ex~d to nut.noes a~
5.4 ~lld Waste D;~I Is thc,e inod~t, proves;on for ai~l oF
~stes gene,of~ by ff,e project2
s~ply ~ meet th= needs of the project?
5.6 Stem Water Dra;~ge ~;1~ storm ~ter dro~no~ be ;~d~te to prevent
do--strum [Io~;ng and lo meet F~erol State o~
Io~1 sto~ards?
5.7 Pol~ce Will ~ project's oddiHo~l population, [oc[llt~es,
~ o:her [~t~es gen~ote an incr~se in police service: ~
or ~,te o pol~ce hazard?''
5.8 Fire Will the project's additional popu{ati~,
or olh~ feazes gen~ore on ~ncr~ ;n [~re services
or cr~fe a fire ~zard?
5.~ Recr~t~ Will t~e pro~ect have inad~te [oc;Ht~es to meet
t~e relational needs of the residents?
5.~0 Cultural Focillt~es Will cullural Fac~li~[es be una~lable ~o Ihe project
res[~ents?
~6.0 T~NSPORTATION
~6~ Tran~rmHon FacJlJt[e, Are the ~a[fJc demands on adjacent r~ds c~,ently
.
ot ~ a~ove ca.city? I[ nog w[ll the ~ffic genz
erot~ by lhe protect cause the o~ocent r~ds to
r~ch ~ excc~ co~c~?
proiect lna~e to occomm~a~e th~ proiecPs
travel de~s?
~ng ar~ Jn~ accidents d~ ~ clrcuJot~on copilots?~
6.3 R~d ~[e~ and Design
Will p~o[ect residents and users be expand to Jn~sed J
acc~denl r~s~s due lo r~y and slrcct design ~ Jack ~J
oF tr~f~ controJs?~
~.0 ~AL~
' ~
7.1 Odor, W~ll the project be exposed to or generate any ;nlense temporarY
7.2 Oo~[ng o~ Oens]~ Will I~c residents on~ users ~e exp3:ed to ~o~ing ~ ~
~[g~ ~c~[~ [n t~e[r phy~icol I[v[~g environment? -~
7.3 N~lmnc~: Will ~ project be expo~ ~o or gcnerole [octors t~t '~
~X be cons;aer~ os nu;~nc~s?~
7.4 5/rucluraJ ~e~ Will design and proposed cons/ructi~ techn~q~! foil ~'
to meel state a~ local buHd;ng c~es?~
e.0 N~ISE
8.1 Noise Levels W[JI theproject beexpo~4 tn~r gen~oteadver~ ~ ~e~o~
~ nohe levels?
8.2 V~bratlons :Will I~ pr.ojccl bo exposed to v~roH~s nnnoying to
~hu~ns?
A-7;
NO QUALIFIED YES UNK~O.4N
NO
o
'9.0 COMMUNITY CHARACTEI~ I j J -
I
I
1
9.2 ~genel~ and g~ve~ WjJJ the p~oject cNange the c~acter of rna . j j j
oE ~ncome, ethnic,
· I .I 1
10.0 VIS~L Q~LITY · i I I
I I I
lO.l Views Will res~denls o'( Ihe 5~tound~ng o,ea be odversel~ ~ J J J
affcct~ by v;e~ of or [rom ~ project?~ J J J
~e~ ~ ~ from the ~tro~d~ng ar~? ' '~ J J J J
10.2 S~do~ Will ,he ptojcc, be exposed Io or gen,ale excess'ye~ I JJ JJ 'il
t
I I 1
I I I
I1.0. HISTORIC AND CULTL~(AL j j
RESO~CES j j j .
11 .~ HJstor;c and CuhuraJ WHi t~ project [n~lve the dest,uct;~ m alter- ~ J J J
Re~rces aJ~ o~ a historic re,urea?~ J J J
I
I
I
W~JI Ihu p~oject ~ntro~uce physical, vJs~l, a~Je j j j
~ a~mo:pheric elements thnt ore not ~n c~rocter w~t~ X J J J
a h;~c te~ce
11.2 Arc~Jog~cal S~les Will lhe ~oject involve thc
'and S~ructmes o~ an arc~lo~Jcol rc~ce? ~ J J j
~ al~Ner~c elemenJs t~t are hal [n ¢~racter w~lN ~1 J J J
a, ar~a~log~l re~ce ~ its ~tt~ng?~ J J J
I ! I
12.0 EN~KGY J I I
12.1 Ener~ R~u;re~nls ~o t~e,e ~tenti~l pr~l~s w:th the s~ply oF ~ J J J
~et~ r~u[r~ f~ the project?~ J J J
O[ tNe s~v;cc villiw core.ny?~ J J j
Will Iho~e be o n~t incr~se in en~ ~ For the ~ J J J
' project compared to Ihe no project aher~t;ve?.~ J J J
12.2 ~ser~t~ Meo~res D~s the ~oj~ct plonnlng a~ d~si~ fall Io incl~e ~ff J J J
o~il~b~c ~er~ c~r~tion mca:urns?~ J J J
.. I I .I
13.1 Sile H=zards ~ tahitians oE the site, pr~ site develop~nt, J J ' ' j
I I I
or ~ro~ding or~
I
I
t
13j2 Physical Thr~t. WiH thc project ~ th~ ~rround;ng m~ ~ea~e a ~eelJng J . J j
oF insecurely a.d physical lhr~l a~ng the res~tl,nts U J J J
and users?A I I I
:13.3 ~nita~ LandHII WiI~ ~he proiect be ex~std to struct~ol d~mnge, V J J I
13.4 Water~ys Will th~ project affect an ex;sting
charges, loss oF v[s~l q~lity ~ other Ja~ usa~ J J J
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I ,
I I I
! i I
.I I I
A-8
~~T '/_MPACTS SCALE OF I24PACT
NO QUALIFIED YES
,.,
i ! I
Land Use Will the project involve the X I I I
al~teration of existing site i- ! !
I 1.
improvements that would ad- I t
versely affect the U~e of the i ~ '
property?
I I
i i
I ~ 't I
I I
I .I I
! II -'
I I
I I I
C. MANDATOP, Y FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
O)
Does the project have the poten~'iol to degrade the
quality oF the environment, substantially reduce
the habltot oF a Fish cr wildlife species, cause a
Fish or wildlife population to drop below selt:-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range oF a rare or end'angered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples oF the major periods
or CaliFornia history cr prehistory?
(2)
(3)
Does the project have i'he potential to cchieve short-
term, to the disadvantage oF long-term, environmental
.goals?
(4)
Does the proiect have impacts which are individually
· limited but cumulafe[vely considerable? (A proiec~
may impccf on two or more separate resources where
the impact on each resource is relatively small, b'ut
where the effect o,¢ the total of those impacts-on the
environment is significant.)
Does the project, hove environmental eFFects which
will cause substantial adverse eFFects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
A-9:
D. MITIGATION MEASURES -,Discussion or' the ways to mit[ga'e the slgn[FJcant effects
ident[fied, [f any:
E. DETERMINATION - On the basis of th[s infflal evaluation:
Th~ City o,~ D~b[i~ Finds that there will not be any'significant effect. The par-
ticular characteristics of this pro[ect and the mitigation measures incorporated .into
the design of the project pro'did,; .~he f'.~ctual basis for the finding. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION !S REQUIRED.
I--I The City of 12btb[ ir~ Finds that the proposed project MAy have a slgn[fic:nt effect
on the environment. AN ENVIRONMENTAL tMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED**
Signature and date: ~~~ .'~~ }~/1~.' '7 ~. I~[~
Name and title: '~rO~td~__; /._.._'~T'o~d~t~..~L~k)t~- 'Dtte,~.c.~Z~l~.
**NOTE: Where a project is revised in response to an Initial Study so !ha: po.&e:~:ial adverse
effects are mitigated to a point where no signlfic~nt envkonmental effects would occur, a
revised Initial S.~udy will be prepared an-d a Negative Declaration will be requ:.red i~s~ead of
an E IR.
DUBLIN BOULEVARD REVISED PLAN LINE
(DONLON WAY TO AMADOR PLAZA ROAD)
Factual Explanation of Answers on Intial Study (Except "NO" Answers)
Landscaping: Existing street landscaping will be removed when the
road is widened; however, new street trees will be planted in their place.
Trees and shrubs on private property that are removed due to the road widening
will be replaced on-site if desired by the property owners.
Parking: Much of the land adjacent to the existing right-of-way
is used for landscape strips and parking. In some locations, the plan line
cuts through parking spaces, rendering them unusable. The parking in these
areas will be restriped at an angle (or as parallel parking) to preserve the
maximum number of spaces. Where appropriate, spaces may be designated for
small cars only.
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:
DUBLIN BOULEVARD REVISED PLAN LINE
(Donlon Way to Amador Plaza Road)
(Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.)
LOCATION'
PROPONENT:
DESCRIPTION:
FINDINGS'
INITIAL STUDY:
MITIGATION MEASURES:
PREPARATION:
Revision of Plan Line for Dublin Boulevard between
Donlon Way and Amador Plaza Road
City of Dublin
A proposal to revise the plan line of Dublin Boulevard
to consider widening the road between Donlon Way and
Amador Plaza Road.
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:
1) Landscaping
2) Parking
New or replacement of landscaping; restriping of
parking spaces.
This Negative Declaration was prepared by the City of
Dublin Planning Staff, (415) 829-4916.
SIGNATURE'
Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director
DATE:
