Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-07-1988 PC Agenda rS r1 AGENDA CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting - Dublin Library Monday - 7:00 p.m. 7606 Amador Valley Blvd., Meeting Room March 7, 1988 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 4. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA 5. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING - February 16, 1988 6. ORAL COMMUNICATION - At this time, members of the audience are permitted to address the Planning Commission on any item which is not on the Planning Commission agenda. Comments should not exceed 5 minutes. If any person feels that this is insufficient time to address his or her concern, that person should arrange with the Planning Director to have his or her particular concern placed on the agenda for a future meeting. 7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 87-164 Scotsman Manufacturing Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review request to establish outdoor storage yard and construct office and warehouse at 6085 Scarlett Court. 8.2 PA 88-003 Villages at Willow Creek Sign Program Conditional Use Permit and Variance request for nine directional tract signs and to exceed allowable square footage and height restrictions west of Dougherty Road north and south of Amador Valley Boulevard. 8.3 Dublin Boulevard Extension Plan Line between Dougherty Road and the Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way to consider establishment of plan lines for a portion of the Dublin Boulevard extension. 8.4 Dublin Boulevard extension Plan Line between Donlon Way and Amador Plaza Road to consider establishment of plan lines for a portion of the Dublin Boulevard extension. 9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. OTHER BUSINESS 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS 12. ADJOURNMENT (Over for Procedures Summary) CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: March 7, 1988 TO: Planning Commission J�}� FROM: Planning StaffT.N5 SUBJECT: PA 87-164 Scotsman Manufacturing Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review GENERAL INFORMATION: PROJECT: Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review request to establish an outdoor storage yard for modular office units and to construct a 1,152+ square foot office building and to move a 1,600+ square foot warehouse building on the site. APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE: Rodger Coupe Jr., P.E. 2154 Sixth Street Livermore, CA 94550 PROPERTY OWNER: William & Deborah Trkja 2550 E. 68th Street Long Beach, CA 90805 LOCATION: 6085 Scarlett Court ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-550-19-9 PARCEL SIZE: 3.08 acres GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial/Industrial - Business Park/Industrial/Outdoor Storage EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: M-1, Light Industrial District Present land use is vacant, although some modular office units are now being stored on the site. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Vacant warehouse/office building; M-1 Light Industrial District South: Existing Scotsman Manufacturing storage yard and office building; M-1 Light Industrial District East: Valley Nissan Auto Dealership, Burke Forms Manufacturing Group and a mini- storage facility; M-1 Light Industrial District. West: Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District drainage canal with U-Haul storage activities beyond; M-1, Light Industrial District. ZONING HISTORY: C-2190: On July 15, 1970, the Alameda County Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for an open storage yard and to use three mobile homes as offices for a one year period on the COPIES TO: Applicant ITEM NO. Y '/ Owneri File PA north side, 1,130 feet west of the intersection of the Southern Pacific Right of way, Dublin Area, Pleasanton Township. C-2368: On October 27, 1971, the Alameda County Zoning Administrator approved the renewal of the previous Conditional Use Permit approved under C-2190. C-3242: On June 22, 1979, the Alameda County Zoning Administrator approved a Conditional Use Permit for the outdoor storage of construction equipment, trucks and related equipment to be used in the equipment rental business. The approval was for five years. Z-3301: On March 11, 1978, the Alameda County Zoning Administrator held a Public Hearing to consider revoking the Conditional Use Permit approved by C-3242 due to non-compliance with a conditional of approval requiring that solid fencing be installed around portions of the site. The consideration of revocation was dropped by the Zoning Administrator when it was found that the fence was unnecessary along the Flood Control easement. AC-3949: On January 29, 1981, the Alameda County Zoning Administrator approved an Administrative Conditional Use Permit to allow the recycling of aluminum cans within a trailer at this site. The approval was good for a period of one year. The application was not renewed and this business operation ceased. PA82-007: On November 18, 1982, the Dublin Zoning Administrator approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow the continued operation of a heavy construction equipment storage and rental business. The approval was good for one year. PA83-027: On August 8, 1983, the Dublin City Engineer approved a lot line adjustment to subdivide the existing 9.6+ acre parcel into four seperate parcels consisting of 2.24, 2.23, 3.08 and 2.07 acres respectively. PA83-041: On September 6, 1983, the Dublin Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow the storage of mobile offices and the construction of a 2,800 square foot administrative office on 7.5 acres (APN 941- 550-25; 941-550-19-4 and 941-550-19-5). The administrative office was constructed on the parcel fronting on Scarlett Court while storage occured on all three of the parcels. This approval was valid for 3 years until September 16, 1986. PA83-085: On March 12, 1984, the Dublin Planning Director approved the construction of a 20' x 40' maintenance building on APN's 941-550-19-4; 941-550-19-5; and 941-550-29 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 8-51.2 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes as a Permitted Use (subject to Site Development Review approval for new developments) in an M-1, Light Industrial District, a range of manufacturing, processing, assembling, research, wholesale, storage or utility uses, when conducted within an enclosed building. -2- Section 8-51.3(b) establishes as a Conditional Use in an M-1, Light Industrial District, the use of long-term exterior storage. Section 8-94.0 states that Conditional Uses must be analyzed to determine: 1) whether or not the use is required by the public need; 2) whether or not the use will be properly related to other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; 3) whether or not the use will materially affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity; and 4) whether or not the use will be contrary to the specific intent clauses or performance standards established for the district in which it is located. Section 8-94.4 states the approval of a Conditional Use Permit may be valid only for a specified term, and may be made contingent upon the acceptance and observance of specified conditions, including but not limited to the following matters: a) substantial conformity to approved plans and drawings; b) limitations on time of day for the conduct of specified activities; c) time period within which the approval shall be exercised and the proposed use brought into existence, failing which, the approval shall lapse and be void; d) guarantees as to compliance with the terms of the approval, including the posting of bond; e) compliance with requirements of other departments of the City/County Government. Section 8-95.0 states that the Site Development Review is intended to promote orderly, attractive, and harmonious development; recognize environmental limitations on development; stabilize land values and investments; and promote the general welfare by preventing establishment of uses or erection of structures having qualities which would not meet the specific intent clauses or performance standards of this Chapter, or which are not properly related to their sites, surrounding traffic circulation, or their environmental setting. Where the use is proposed, the adjacent land uses, environmental significance or limitations, topography, or traffic circulation is found to so require, the Planning Director may establish more stringent regulations than those otherwise specified for the District. Section 8-95-5 states that at the conclusion of the Site Development Review investigation, the Planning Director shall determine from reports and data submitted whether the Use and Structures proposed will meet the require- ments and intent of this Chapter, and upon making an affimative finding, shall approve said application. If, from the information submitted, the Planning Director finds that compliance with the requirements in this Chapter and the intent set forth herein would not be secured, he shall disapprove, or approve subject to such conditions, changes, or additions, as will assure compliance. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The City proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance which finds the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the March 7, 1987, hearing was published in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public buildings. ANALYSIS: The subject request involves moving the existing Scotsman Manufacturing business from its present location on Scarlett Court to another site just north of where they are now located. The Applicant proposes to establish an outdoor storage yard for modular offices and to construct a 1152+ square foot administrative office building. In addition, the Applicant proposes to move an existing 1600+ square foot warehouse building from the existing Scotsmans location to the proposed new location. The 3+ acre parcel they propose to move to does not contain any permanent structures, however modular offices are -3- now being illegally stored on the site. On September 16, 1983, the Planning Commission gave Scotsman Manufacture a 3-year approval to operate their modular office storage business on 7+ acres of land (totaling 3 parcels) located at 6085 Scarlett Court. The application was not renewed. The Applicant would like to consolidate these activites on one 3+ acre site. The proposed site is the third parcel back from the Scarlett Court frontage. Attachment 1 shows the location of these parcels. The M-1 (Light Industrial) District allows outdoor storage uses through the Conditional Use Permit procedure if they are found to be appropriately suited for the site as well as for the area in general. The subject site has been used for outdoor storage activities since 1970. The land uses on properties surrounding this site include storage, warehouse and manufacturing activities. The activities associated with the proposed application appear to be appropriate for the property, and in conformance with the General Plan and the M-1 Zoning District. ACCESS The subject site is served by a 30 foot wide access easement which extends from Scarlett Court and terminates approximately 90 feet from the Southern Pacific right-of-way. According to the City Engineer this access easement will become a public street and will ultimately be connected to the Dublin Boulevard extension. The Applicant will be required to dedicate and improve that portion of the easement fronting on their property in order to insure the installation of the new street. In addition an additional 5 feet of land will be required to be dedicated to the City by the property owner in order to ensure a total of 35 feet of width for the right-of-way. SITE PLAN LAYOUT The proposed layout of the site would place a 24' x 48', 1152 square foot modular office facility on the property. It would be located 25 feet back from the ultimate 35 foot wide right-of-way and 125 feet away from the southern property line. A 40' x 40', 1600 square foot metal warehouse building would be moved onto the property from its present location on the existing Scotsman site. It would be located 25 feet east of the proposed modular office building. The remainder of the site would be used for the storage of modular offices and landscaping. There is an existing 20,375 square foot concrete pad on the site that will remain. Both buildings will be placed on the slab. The remainder of the the site will be paved with 6 inch aggregate base and chip seal in compliance with Cal Trans Standard Specifications. Two driveways, (one at the north end and another at the south end of the site) will be provided on the access easement for ingress egress. Only five parking spaces are proposed. The following represents the parking requirements for the site: 1152 square foot office building 1152 — 4.6 or 5 spaces 250 1600 square foot warehouse building 1600 — 1.6 or 2 spaces 1000 Total parking required 7 spaces An additional two parking spaces will be required to be located in the existing parking area. ARCHITECTURE The design of the 1152 square foot office building can best be described as a typically bland, unattractive, no-frills modular structure. Staff has requested that the Applicant revise the architecture of this building so that it is at least compatible to the materials, textures and architectural character of the existing Scotsmans building. Staff requested that these revisions be made prior to bringing the proposal to the Planning Commission. The Applicants indicated that they prefer to revise the plans after they have received approval of their application from the Planning Commission. Staff -4- made it clear to the Applicant that if this alternative were taken, no building permits would be issued until the design of the modular office building met Staff's satisfaction. Staff wants to make it clear that the Applicant will be responsible for meeting all Staff-raised architectural concerns for this modular office facilty prior to any building permits being issued. The 1600 square foot warehouse building is an unattractive metal structure. It would be appropriate to require that this building be painted to match the ultimate colors of the proposed modular office facility. LANDSCAPING The preliminary landscape plan submitted for the project shows a landscape planter strip that runs along the entire length of the property just east of the 30 foot wide access easement. The width of the planter is essentially 10 feet except where it reaches 25 feet directly in front of the building. It is Staff's opinion that the landscape treatment is inadequate. Ten foot wide landscape planter strips should be provided along the entire lengths of the north, south and east property lines. A 25 foot continuous landscape strip should be provided just east of the access easement (particularly since this will ultimately be a street right-of-way). Staff feels these changes should be incorporated in the plans in order to intensify project landscaping. Staff is willing to concede that some of this landscaping can be completed in phases as reflected in Condition #27 of the Exhibit "B" in this report. FENCING A six foot tall cyclone fence with redwood slats will be required to be installed on the north, south and east property lines. The cyclone fence will also be required on the west side of the property. It will be located at the back of the west side landscape strip and run the entire length of the property. It will be set back in and around the driveway areas for customer ingress, egress and parking. Forty foot wide gates are proposed at the driveway locations. A concrete block wall will be required to replace the western chain-link fence (except where the gates are located) immediately after the City accepts the dedication of the right-of-way for the new street. This is required as a means to provide attractive and opaque screening from the activities occurring on the property. RECOMMENDATION: FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation. 2) Hear Staff presentation 3) Hear Applicant and Public presentations 4) Close public hearing 5) Consider and act on two Draft Resolutions: A) A Resolution regarding the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance B) A Resolution regarding the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review Requests for PA 87-164. ACTION: Based on the above Staff report, Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolutions: Exhibit "A" approving the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for PA 87-164, and Exhibit "B" approving the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for PA 87-164. ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A - Resolution approving the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for PA 87-164. EXHIBIT B - Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for PA 87-164. -5- BACKGROUND ATTACHMENTS 1) Location Map 2) Planning Application form 3) Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for PA 87-164 4) Site Plan 5) Floor plan and elevations for the modular office facility 6) Floor plan and elevation for the warehouse facility 7) Grading and drainage plan 8) Preliminary Landscape plan -6- RESOLUTION NO. 88 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING PA 87-164 SCOTSMAN MANUFACTURING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUESTS 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, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been prepared for PA 87-164; 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, the City Planning Commission determined that the project, PA 87-164 will not have any significant environmental impacts; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission finds 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: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director RESOLUTION NO. 88 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING PA 87-164 SCOTSMAN MANUFACTURING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST 6085 SCARLETT COURT WHEREAS, Rodger Coupe, Sr., P.E. filed a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review request to establish an outdoor storage yard for modular office units to construct a 1,152 square foot modular office building and to move an existing 1600 square foot metal warehouse building on the site located at 6085 Scarlett Court (AP #941-550-19-9); and WHEREAS, the adopted City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance provides in part for the establishment of a range of manufacturing, processing, assembly, research, wholesale storage or utility uses, when conducted within an enclosed building in an M-1, Light Industrial District, as allowable use and further provides for the establishment of long-term storage as a Conditional Use; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said applications 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 adopted (Planning Commission Resolution No. 86- ) for this project, as it will have no significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review applications be conditionally approved; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; and WHEREAS, the proposed land use, if conditionally approved, is appropriate for the subject property in terms of being compatible to existing land uses in the area and will not overburden public services; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission finds: a) Construction of a 1,152+ square foot modular office building, the move-on of a 1,600+ square foot warehouse facility, and the storage of modular office trailers serve the public need by providing for the relocation of an existing service commercial facility. b) The uses will be properly related to other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity, as the proposed uses will be compatible to said land uses, transportation and services facilities in the immediate vicinity. c) The uses will not materially adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, as all applicable regulations will be met. d) The uses will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses or performance standards established for the district in which they are to be located. e) All provisions of Section 8-95.0 through 8-95.8 Site Development Review, of the Zoning Ordinance are complied with. EXHIBIT i _. f) Consistent with Section 8-95.0, this project will promote orderly, attractive, and harmonious development, recognize environmental limitations on development; stabilize land values and investments; and promote the general welfare by preventing establishment of uses or erection of structures having qualities which would not meet the specific intent clauses or performance standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and which are not consistent with their environmental setting. g) The approval of the project as conditioned is in the best interest of the public health, safety and general welfare. h) General site considerations, including site layout, orientation, and the location of buildings, vehicular access, circulation and parking, setbacks, height, public safety and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development. i) General architectural considerations as modified by the Conditions of Approval, including the character, scale and quality of the design, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, building materials and colors, screening of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting, and similar elements have been incorporated into the project in order to insure compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings and uses. j) General project landscaping provisions for irrigation, maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to insure visual relief to complement buildings and structures and to provide an attractive environment to the public. k) The project is consistent with the policies contained in the City's General Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby conditionally approve Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review PA 87-164 as shown by materials labeled Exhibit B of the Staff Report dated March 7, 1988 on file with the Dublin Planning Department, subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to issuance of building or grading permits and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. 1. Development of the Scotsman Manufacturing storage/warehouse/office facility shall generally conform with the preliminary site plan, elevations, floor plans, landscape, grading and drainage plans submitted to and dated received by the City Planning Department on November 13, 1987, enclosed in file PA 87-164. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit shall be until March 17, 1989. The approval period for the Conditional Use Permit may be extended two additional years (Applicant must submit a written request for the extension prior to the expiration date of the Conditional Use Permit) by the Planning Director upon his determination that the Conditions of Approval have been complied with and remain adequate to assure that the above stated Findings will continue to be met. Approval for the Site Development Review shall be valid until March 17, 1989. If construction has not commenced by that time, this approval shall be null and void. The approval period for the Site Development Review may be extended one additional year (Applicant must submit a written request for the extension prior to the expiration date of the permit) by the Planning Director upon his determination that the Conditions of Approval have been complied with and remain adequate to assure that the above stated Findings will continue to be met. Development shall be subject to the Conditions listed below. 2. Comply with the City of Dublin Site Development Review Standard Conditions and the City of Dublin Police Services Standard Commercial Building Security recommendations. -2- ARCHAEOLOGY 3. If, during construction, archaeological remains are encountered, construction in the vicinity shall be halted, an archaeologist consulted, and the City Planning Department notified. If, in the opinion of the archaeologist, the remains are significant, measures, as may be required by the Planning Director, shall be taken to protect them. ARCHITECTURAL 4. Building permits for this project will not be issued until the Applicant has received approval from the Planning Director for revised Architectural Elevations, including complete architectural design, color and material details for the 1,152+ square foot office facility. Approval will not be granted until the Revised Elevations meet the full satisfaction of all concerns raised of the Planning Director with respect to the design of the office building. Approval shall be contingent upon the Applicant producing a design that is at least comparable to the Scotsman office building, approved under PA 83-041. DRAINAGE 5. A grading, drainage and improvement plan shall be prepared and shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. Calculations (hydraulic) shall be prepared by the Developer for review by the City Engineer to determine the sizing of drainage lines. Improvement plans shall include all improvements on Scarlett Court. 6. The Soils Report prepared for building purposes shall include recommendations for on-site grading. 7. Cross drainage easements will be required for drainage onto or through adjacent properties. 8. The area outside the building shall drain outward at a 2% minimum slope for unpaved areas and a 1% minimum is paved areas. 9. Roof drains shall empty into approved dissipating devices. Roof water, or other concentrated drainage, shall not be directed onto adjacent properties, sidewalks or driveways. 10. Where storm water flows against a curb, a curb with gutter shall be used. The flow line of all asphalt paved areas carrying waters shall be slurry sealed at least three feet on either side of the center of the swale. 11. The project site falls within the 100-year flood plain as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 0607050001 A, dated August 18, 1983. The finished floor elevation of the buildings shall be a minimum elevation of 320 on the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929, or as determined acceptable to the City Engineer. The finished floor elevation shall be certified by ° the Developer's Licensed Surveyor or Civil Engineer. DEBRIS/DUST/CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY 12. Measures shall be taken to contain all trash, construction debris, and materials on-site until disposal off-site can be arranged. The Developer shall keep adjoining public streets free and clean of project dirt, mud, and materials during the construction period. The Developer shall be responsible for corrective measures at no expense to the City of Dublin. Areas undergoing grading, and all other construction activities, shall be watered, or other dus- palliative measures used, to prevent dust, as conditions warrant. -3- DEDICATIONS 13. A 35 foot wide street right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City by the property owner. The location of this dedication shall occur starting on the west property line and extend 35 feet in a right angle easterly direction into the property. A dedication agreement shall be completed by the Applicant and approved by the City Attorney and City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. The improvements shall be installed by the Applicant at the discretion of the City Engineer. An offer of dedication for the right-of-way shall be submitted with, or prior to the construction plans package and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. EASEMENTS 14. Existing and proposed access and utility easements shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading or building permits if such to be required by P.G. & E. and other public utility agencies. These easements shall allow for practical vehicular and utility service access for portions of the subject properties. FIRE PROTECTION 15. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Developer shall supply written confirmation that the requirements listed below from the Dublin San Ramon Services District Fire Department have been, or will be, met. A) All weather roadways shall be in place prior to combustibles being placed on the site. B) The proposed fire hydrant must be in place and fully charged prior to combustibles being placed on the site. C) Any gate leading to the site must be equipped with a Knox lock. This may be obtained from this department. D) A 2A-10BC fire extinguisher shall be placed every 75 feet of travel distance within both the office area and the warehouse. E) The storage of any flammable or combustible materials shall be approved through this department. F) Any future buildings which may extend in excess of 149 feet from the fire hydrant now in place will require an on-site fire hydrant. Please contact Tonya Hoover for further information at 829-2333. GRADING 16. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department if more than 150 cubic yards of grading will be done. 17. Grading shall be completed in compliance with the construction grading plans and the soil engineering recommendations as established by a Soil and Foundation Study prepared for this project (subject to review and approval by the City Engineer). The report shall discuss the compaction of soil under the proposed structure. 18. Where soil or geologic conditions encountered in grading operations are different from that anticipated in the Project Soil and/or Geologic Report, or where such conditions warrant changes to the recommendations contained in the original investigation, a revised Soil and/or Geologic Report shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. It shall be accompanied by an engineering and geologic opinion as to the safety of the site from hazards of soil expansion, liquefaction, settlement, or seismic ground shaking. -4- IMPROVEMENT PLANS, AGREEMENTS, AND SECURITIES 19. Prior to filing for building permits, precise plans and specifications for street improvements, grading, drainage (including size, type, and location of drainage facilities both on- and off-site) and erosion and sedimentation control shall be submitted and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 20. The parking and driveway surfacing shall be asphalt concrete paving. The City Engineer shall review the project's Soils Engineer's structural pavement design. The Developer shall, at his sole expense, make tests of the soil over which the surfacing and base is to be constructed and furnish the test reports to the City Engineer. The Developer's Soils Engineer shall determine a preliminary structural design of the road bed. After rough grading has been completed, the Developer shall have soil tests performed to determine the final design of the road bed. 21. The Developer shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City for any public improvements. Complete improvement plans, specifications, and calculations shall be submitted to, and reviewed by, the City Engineer and other affected agencies having jurisdiction over public improvements prior to execution of the Improvement Agreement. All required securities, in an amount equal to 100% of the approved estimates of construction costs of improveemnts, and a labor and material security, equal to 50% of the construction costs, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the City and affected agencies having jurisdiction over public improvements, prior to execution of the Improvement Agreement. 22. An encroachment permit shall be secured from the City Engineer for any work done within the public right-of-way where this work is not covered under the improvement plans. LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION PLANS 23. A detailed Landscape and Irrigation Plan (at 1 inch = 20 feet or larger), along with a cost estimate of the work and materials proposed, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director. Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be signed by a licensed landscape architect. 24. The Developer/Owner shall sign and submit a copy of the City of Dublin Landscape Maintenance Agreement. 25. Landscaping installed along the new west property boundary shall be established on a landscape mound and shall include four additional 15-gallon sized trees. The plans shall also include clumped plantings of shrubs. In addition, the width of the landscape planter shall be 25 feet along the entire length of the west frontage. 26. Tree wells shall be installed every twenty feet along the perimeter of the north, south and east property lines. Fifteen gallon evergreen trees shall be installed in each of the tree wells. This landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Six-inch high concrete curbs shall be installed around each tree well for the protection of the trees. 27. No later than March 17, 1989, the Applicant shall have installed a continuous five foot wide landscape planter along the north, south and east property lines, on the subject site. Additional landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in these areas in compliance with approved landscape plans. These details shall be included as a part of the required landscape and irrigation plan for the site and identified as Phase II Landscape and Irrigation Improvements. -5- LIGHTING 28. Exterior lighting shall be of a design and placement so as not to cause glare onto adjoining properties. Lighting used after daylight hours shall be adequate to provide for security needs. Wall lighting around the exposed perimeter of the new building shall be supplied to provide "wash" security lighting. Photometrics for area lighting shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Dublin Police Services for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 29. The Developer shall install new street light standards and luminaries of design, spacing and locations approved by the City Engineer. SIGNAGE 30. Any future signing on this site or on the buildings shall be approved prior to any sign installation through the appropriate Planning Review process. STORAGE ACTIVITIES 31. Outdoor storage on this site shall be limited to modular office trailers. These trailers shall not be stacked, shall not be located within 20 feet of the front and rear property lines or within 10 feet of the side property lines. MISCELLANEOUS 32. If the project is developed in phases, all physical improvements shall be required to be in place prior to occupancy except for items specifically excluded in a Phasing Plan approved by the Planning Department. No occupancy shall be allowed until the entire area, or approved phase, is finished, safe, accessible, provided with all reasonable expected service and amenities, and completely separated from remaining additional construction activity. Any approved Phasing Plan shall have sufficient cash deposits, or other performance guarantees determined acceptable by the Planning Director, to guarantee that the project and all associated improvements shall be installed in a timely and satisfactory manner. 33. The detailed design, placement and materials of on-site trash enclosure areas shall be subject to review and approval by the Livermore-Dublin Disposal Service and the Planning Department prior to the issuance of building permits. Two trash enclosure areas shall be provided on the site. 34. The Developer shall be responsible for correction of deficiencies, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, in the existing frontage improvements on the street that is to be dedicated. 35. At the time the City accepts the dedication for the 35 foot right- of-way on the west side of the property, the property owner shall be responsible for the immediate replacement of the cyclone fence with an attractive concrete-block wall. The design, materials and height of the wall shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of building permits. Constructive plans for the wall shall be included with the construction and improvement plan for all other improvements proposed on this site. 36. Automatic sprinklers are required to be installed in both buildings to the satisfaction of the Building Official. Plans for the sprinkler system should be included with plans to be submitted for building permits. 37. The following conditions from Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits. -6- • n A) To protect against further damage to the chain-link fence and to prevent overbank drainage and erosion, a curb should be placed at least 3 feet from the fence along the flood control channel. B) The existing chain-link fence along the flood control easement shall be repaired and/or replaced where damaged. C) In order to properly access our 18-inch waterline, one of the following is required: (1) 12 foot wide standard flood control gates, centered in the District's water line easement, wherever there is a fence, or (2) a new access easement for operation and maintenance purposes stretching from the Zone's 17 foot wide access easement to the Zone's existing 15 foot wide waterline easement. D) No structures should be placed within the District's waterline easement. The District cannot properly operate and maintain their pipeline or adequately respond to an emergency situation if the proposed modular office units are placed over the pipeline. E) Zone 7 is responsible for enforcement of the Groundwater Protection Ordinance. Well number 3S/lE 6G4 near the center of the site and any other known water wells without a documented intent of future use, filed with Zone 7, are to be destroyed prior to any demolition or construction activity in accordance with a well destruction permit obtained from Zone 7. Other wells encountered prior to or during construction are to be treated similarly. Please contact Zone 7 (Vincent Wong) for further information at 484-2600. Prior to the issuance of building permits the Developer shall supply written confirmation that the requirements listed above have been complied with or will be met. 39. The Applicant shall submit to the City Engineer a recently completed Title Report for review. 40. Two additional parking spaces shall be shown on construction plans, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of March, 1988. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director -7- CITY OF DUBLIN SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARD CONDITIONS All projects approved by the City of Dublin shall meet the following standard conditions unless specifically exempted by the Planning Department. 1. Final building and site development plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. All such plans shall insure: a. That standard commercial or residential security requirements as established by the Dublin Police Department are provided. b. That ramps, special parking spaces, signing, and other appropriate physical features for the handicapped, are provided throughout the site for all publicly used facilities. c. That continuous concrete curbing is provided for all parking stalls. d. That exterior lighting of the building and site is not directed onto adjacent properties and the light source is shielded from direct offsite viewing. e. That all mechanical equipment, including electrical and gas meters, is architecturally screened from view, and that electrical transformers are either undergrounded or architecturally screened. f. That all trash enclosures are of a sturdy material (preferably masonry) and in harmony with the architecture of the building(s). g. That all vents, gutters, downspouts, flashings, etc., are painted to match the color of adjacent surface. h. That all materials and colors are to be as approved by the Dublin Planning Department. Once constructed or installed, all improvements are to be maintained in accordance with the approved plans. Any changes which affect the exterior character shall be resubmitted to the Dublin Planning Department for approval. i. That each parking space designated for compact cars be identified with a pavement marking reading "Small Car Only" or its equivalent, and additional signing be provided if necessary. j. That all exterior architectural elements visible from view and not detailed on the plans be finished in a style and in materials in harmony with the exterior of the building. k. That all other public agencies that require review of the project be supplied with copies of the final building and site plans and that compliance be obtained with at least their minimum Code requirements. 2. Final landscape plans, irrigation system plans, tree preservation techniques, and guarantees, shall be reviewed and approved by the Dublin Planning Department prior to the issuance of the building permit. All such submittals shall insure: a. That plant material is utilized which will be capable of healthy growth within the given range of soil and climate. b. That proposed landscape screening is of a height and density so that it provides a positive visual impact within three years from the time of planting. c. That unless unusual circumstances prevail, at least 75% of the proposed trees on the site are a minimum of 15 gallons in size, and at least 50% of the proposed shrubs on the site are minimum of 5 gallons in size. d. That a plan for an automatic irrigation system be provided which assures that all plants get adequate water. In unusual circumstances, and if approved by Staff, a manual or quick coupler system may be used. e. That concrete curbing is to be used at the edges of all planters and paving surfaces. f. That all cut and fill slopes in excess of 5 feet in height are rounded both horizontally and vertically. g. That all cut and fill slopes graded and not constructed on by September 1, of any given year, are hydroseeded with perennial or native grasses and flowers, and that stock piles of loose soil existing on that date are hydroseeded in a similar manner. h. That the area under the drip line of all existing oaks, walnuts, etc., which are to be saved are fenced during construction and grading operations and no activity is permitted under them that will cause soil compaction or damage to the tree. i. That a guarantee from the owners or contractors shall be required guaranteeing all schrubs and ground cover, all trees, and the irrigation system for one year. j. That a permanent maintenance agreement on all landscaping will be required from the owner insuring regular irrigation, fertilization and weed abatement. 3. Final inspection or occupancy permits will not be granted until all construction and landscaping is complete in accordance with approved plans and the conditions required by the City. . CITY OF DUBLIN POLICE SERVICES STANDARD Ca1017CIAL BUILDING SECURITY a4 T•iDA TIC S I. DCORS • All exterior doors are to be constructed as follas: a) Wood doors shall be of solid core construction, no less than 1-3/4 inches thick. b) Auxiliary locks are to be ?,',4Prl to each door and shall be double cylinder, one inch, throw deadbolt or equivalent burglary resistant locks where permitted by the Building and Fire Codes. The cylinders are to be protected by cylinder ring guards so they cannot be gripped by pliers or other wrenching devices. c) In-swinging doors shall have rabbited jambs, or alternate leans of • strengthening. d) Exterior hinges shall have non-removable hinge pins. e) Exterior and interior garage out-swinging doors shall have non- removable, hidden or non-accessible hinge pins. f) Doors with glass panels and doors that have class panels adjacent to the door frame shall be sled with iromork or steel grills of at least 1/8th inch material or 2 inch mesh seu:ei on the inside of the glazing. • g) All exterior doors, excluding front doors, shall have a miniain of 40 watt bulb over the outside of the door. Such bulb shall be erected onto the cionr surfaces by reflectors. h) The strike is to be a wrought box strike, oruivalent. • i) Sliding glass doors: All sliding glass doors shall be with a • locking device that shall engage the strike sufficiently to prevent its being-disengaged by any possible movement of the door within the space or clearances provided for installation a*d oration. ' The bolt and strike shall be reinforced by hardened material so as to prevent their separation by pulling, prying or similar attack. The locking device function may be operable by a keyed or coded lock inside and out as permitted by the Fire Cepartzent or Building Crr&ec, Double sliding glass doors shall be locked at the meeting rail. II. WOCCWS A. All accessible rear and side glass windows shall be secured as follows: 1) 'Any accessible window shall be secured on the inside with a • locking device capable of withstanding prying or wrenching. 2) Louvered windows shall not be used within eight feet of ground level, adjacent structures, or fire escapes. DP 83-012 ATTACUT • • Accessible-Transoms . All exterior transoms exceeding 8" x 12" on the side and rear • of any building or premise used for business purposes shall be protected by,one of the following: 1) Outside iron bars of at least 1/8" material spaced no more than 2" apart. 2) Outside iron or steel grills of at least 1/8" material; but not more than 2" mesh. 3) . The window barrier shall be secured with bolts, the rounded • -or flush head on the outside. • • 4) Wire hung glass with positive locking devices. III. EWE OPENINGS A. All glass skylights on the roof of any building or premises used - -for business purposes shall be provided with: 1) Iron bars of at least 1/8" material 5-Pc"' no more than 2" apart under the skylight and securely fastened as in B-3. 2) A steel grill of at least 1/8" material of 2" mesh under the skylight and securely fastened as in B-3. • 3) Other skylight protection of approved design. B: All hatchway openings on the roof of any building or pre-L:ses used for business purposes shall be secured as follows: 1) If the hatchway is of wm?Pn material, it shall be covered on the inside with at least 16 guage sheet steel or its equivalent attached with screws at 6". ' • - 2) The hatchway shall be secured fran the inside with a sli,4FA-ter or slide bolts. The use of crosha-or padlock must be approved by the Fire Marshal. 3) Outside hinges on all hatchway openi.gs2sh,11 be provided with non-removable pins when using pin-type hinges. C. All air duct or air vent openings exc..--ling 8" x 12" on the roof or exterior walls of any building or premise used for business purposes shall be secured by covering the same with either of the following: 1) Iron bars of at least 1/2" round or 1" x 1/4" flat steel material, spaced no rare than 5" apart and securely fastened as in II.B-3. 2) A steel grill of at l" st 1/8" material of 2" mesh and securely fastened as in II B-3.• . '``a` :1 • • , . r ,CITY OF DUBLIN 1 y• P.O. BOX 2340 � � • Dublin. CA 94568 _ (415) 829-4600 •• STANDARD PLANT MATERIAL, IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND MAINTENANCE • AGREEMENT • • • I (property .owner) do hereby agree that all plants (trees, shrubs and ground cover) •will be installed in accordance with the City of - Dublin's approved landscape plan for :(name of project) located at • (address) . All plants will be replaced in kind as per the approved plan at such time as they ,are found to be missing, diseased, damaged, or dead, for at least one (1) year from the date of their installation. - I further agree that all plants will henceforth be irrigated, fertilized, weeded and tended on a regular basis such that they will maintain a healthy and weedfree appearance_ - I further agree that the irrigation system -will be installed according to the irrigation plans as approved by the- City of Dublin, and that said system will be kept in good working order for at least one (1) year from the date of the landscaping installation . This agreement is binding against this and all property owners of record. Signed: Date :• • TT . •, •. mEt? • Form 83-05 - , SEE SHEET 'IC 1 _ i 1 I I 1 ,// / 11 II • 11 • / I i e j . I ' 1 , II i i ;I . 11 1 11 '•� I :I • Li III , 11 1 ,s-N 1 ,. ' f 1 1 1 I I , . : 7 5,t; I I I I I I I 1 t!•+ I ! • 1 1 1 j _ t • I I I I I� 1 I I II ! I I i 1 I I I I 1 1 I • a II 8 t (n - '' ' �4- A PREPARED FOR PREPARED 51 -i . ^ o ^ , . T4 a .'.., PART OF THE m c CITY of n SANTINA ""�':` ZONING MAP p DUBLIN I THOMPSON INC` Y` � PRINTED THE CITY OF m - a a m to ' . o -�8 Z OCT 2 �.�.?�1LIFORNIi IdDO.�Ge..R.d.C...e��.C.1�'...�. 99519 DUBLIN DUBLIN ATTACHMENT , 1 D/vC>r //-(3 • . CITY OF DUBLIN P.O.Box 2340 Dublin,CA 94568 RECEIVE D. (415)829-4600 Planning Department �, (415) 829-4916 6500 Dublin Blvd. Suite D NOV 1 3 I-�' Eff.: 1/84 Dublin CA 94568 PLANNING APPLICATION FORM DUBLIN PLANNING Notes to Applicant: * Please discuss your proposal with Staff prior to cacpleting the Planning Application form. * All items related to your specific type of application must be completed. * Since this is a ca prehensive application form, same of the items might not apply to your speLific application. * Please print or type legibly. p * Attach additional sheets if necessary. �P @ 9�S' � 1/,/1; 1V)- I. AUTHORIZATION OF PROPERTY OWNER A. PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do,authorize the filing of this application. I understand . that conditions of approval are binding. I agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal period. Name:William E. & Deborah Kay TrkjaCapacity: Property Owner Address:2550, R.. 68th Street Daytime Phone: (213) 531-2230 Long Beaphh,, CA. 90 ( ) Signature:X /�—( B. APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPE OWNER: In signing this application, I, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization of the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application. If this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file this application and agreement to conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal period. Name: Capacity: Address Daytime Phone: ( ) ( ) Signature: Date: II. CERTIFICATION I certify that I have the authorization of the property owner to file this application. I further certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Rodger Coupe Jr., P.S.. Capacity: Engineer Address: 21 Sixth Street Daytime Phone: (419 447-4039 Li,O • ore, A..r550 ) Signature: I Al Date: 10itup V III:GENERAL DATA REQUIRED &CBS A. Address or Location of Property: �j�C(A,(\Qc (Iby ck" B. Assessor Parcel Number(s): 941-0550-019-09 C. Site area: 3.1 acres + D. Present Zoning: M-1 E. Existing Use of Property: Vacant F. Zoning and Existing Use Of Surrounding Property: Zone Existing Uses - North: ! 1 . Light Industrial - South: M-1 : Light Industrial - East: M-1 : Light Industrial - West: M-1 : Light Industrial G. Detailed Description of Proposed Use of Property: See-Exhibit A (Attached) (Continue on separate sheet if necessary) iv. TYPE OF APPLICATION Check type of planning permit(s) being requested: ❑ Administrative Conditional Use Permit 0 Rezoning ❑ Boundary Adjustment 0 Sign ® Conditional Use Permit eSite Development Review ❑ General Plan Amendment 0 Subdivision Map ❑ Planned Development ❑Variance ❑ Other: v. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS A. Planned Development: (See Planned Development Rezoning Submittal Requirements) B. Subdivision Map: (See Subdivision Map Submittal Requirements) C. Any Other Planning Permit: (See General Submittal Requirements) vI. PROCESSING (See_Planning Application Cover Letter) VII. REFERENCE PHONE NUMBERS Most questions related to the Planning Application should be directed to the Dublin Planning Department, however, sane concerns might be addressed directly by another appropriate department or agency: 1. City of Dublin: 2. Dublin San Ramon Services District: Building Inspection:(415) 829-0822 Fire: (415) 829-2333 Engineering: (415) 829-4916 Water, Serer, Garbage: (415) 828-0515 Planning: (415) 829-4916 Police: (415) 829-0566 3. Zone 7 - Alameda County Flood Control: (415) 443-9300 RECEIVED tF' EXHIBIT A (�U V III. G. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE OFDEUPER'I' NING This property will be used as a storage and distribution yard for modular office units. These units consist of both modular building units and office trailer units . The size of the units stored will range from 16 to 60 feet in length. Approximately 60 units could be expected to be stored on the site at any one time. In addition to the storage yard, a administrative office building (1152 s. f. ) and metal warehouse building will be located in the southwest portion of the site. These buildings will be used for sales, administration and maintenance of the modular building and trailer units. This is not a new use for the immediate area, as a similar facility to the one proposed is currently lacated on the adjacent parcels (APN 941-0550-024, 941-0550-025 & 941-0550-019-05 ) . It is the intent of Scotsman to relocate the existing facility to the subject parcel and to sell the land on which the existing facility is located. Benefits to the City of Dublin include sales tax revenue in the amount of approximately $15,000 per year. Because adequate public infrastructure already exists to serve this parcel, and the fact that this use is being relocated from an existing adjacent site, there are no projected public costs associated with this project. - 1 - NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR: PA 87-164 Scotsman Manufacturing Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review for outdoor storage use, office construction and moving an existing warehouse building on the site. (Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) LOCATION: 6085 Scarlett Court PROPONENT: Rodger Coupe, Jr., P.E. 2154 Sixth Street Livermore, CA 94550 DESCRIPTION: Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review request to establish an outdoor storage yard for modular office units and to construct a 1,152+ square foot modular office building and to move a 1,600+ square foot warehouse building on the site. FINDINGS: The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. INITIAL STUDY: The initial study dated February 25, 1988 provided a discussion of the projects potential environmental impacts. No significant impacts have been identified for the project. MITIGATION MEASURES: NONE PREPARATION: This Negative Declaration was prepared by the City of Dublin Planning Staff, (415) 829-4916. SIGNATURE: DATE: March 3, 1988 Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director ATTACHMENT 3 • i It E £C.F.C. + £ 1;Y.C.D. - ACOCCI sto ---- 4S. Mel ilm f - l " a s g l I; Q � I U m I I� cI I m� 2I I li igIi IiLLIJ m\ � nrxuwa enen�,r � // t4 I • S 1--L�\ 1 1 ` a L '4....:_.'"i • t: . I 1.,,, �, TR;f4,1E SEA' — I SW _ S y. LAf19O Or SUB VALLEY 93 0 �LUd93:1 CO. lig s `� ._l T_. Zi tt 1.91 ---r'—r--1 R A Ri dOO _ ql= .. 1 9 S `� m 0\--� 2 a' -J m n u J ' I Y i 1 r Scotsman Manufacturing Corp. _� 1'� Site Plan ATTACHMENTL : -.. . .^ ;,. . ...it,en.... i,,i' -05 _ 11 1 aid, It./d' , 1 I 1 1.1 14 1 ii ,n, Iv , I \ I ' xi et: iLa ''', 2'=--' • i , ----- i o p 0 x LI a — o c ___-L-_____-_, ' m LTA — "T1 '-1:-I-----1- 4 1. .L., ' • - I 41 < -:-__—_,----- - IF — •, (''' L tUL M -.) i gii r, , 4°1 , iimr-w , . 0 p t k I 1 1 4177'' I P ' 71—7 - t;,11 41 fi i . 6 13 , 11 . , 1 i;* Li I , r) p _ . , „gri \ j.4; fl i' 1 ,1,3'7 t ,.... • --,' i,1 4 En 1 i ,, trk, r., nt- .o 11 li . pi .1/11- 1, - t i ral. II Ir'' —1 . t I ID D "2 a; s.r. il i I, i. Lit Erci- ,I _. - —_, l 1 W r- Zi • -1 • i 1 it '' p I .1 0 =A E •1 __9- ,,, -0 f ti —T -----— I i -C ; - --.P:r ;-, -r--.,':1 ' ig,-1:1”!•, ,tilet....,tf,..1•!:,;. ,i,,,,i10:., -1 t . • ,, , •._ •••2 ••rZ 4 , , :ar, 1- •17.V` ,"" ,.. „,,,.?1,.. , r. b til! V liQiir fl/Itili!.4:itil; I, ]1.4.11. 7.-iedlile;r1Q1 IT . ":" i sYk,r. lUitnirl!liilig:illi;E:Oli:1 li Is.r0 1 li _ I b CO i 1 ! Ili 1 i tl. ; 2Hqit.iiirli td i t Eft • ; IL rq- I r oirii!pil „t; ogl ; i*tzi ;;ii tr;1.1- iii ; ;'•••• P. '1V5Vi-; - -1••• . 1 r k t- 131-1 1 iii ,.% 1 "• 1 • f.r g ' ii iPP.1 1 i il [1i II El-ii. !1- PI i !i2 ik _ i 1; ;PR/ I f•r ::1;!. !I ipli, -1-/ 11 A 1.f II :I i I; rvi:i : i ; :11 t: .,21r,; I” IF., 1 VI P.' 1 li 'iM.11 c.' '.1 r :, h 11 di in il 1 Oi !I T f 1 1 -• 1 OW • . kv I it 1 .10 ; 1 h • • t.. f ; , v. $ ATTACHMENT D • . • ,, ' • ' t i . 1--( ; F•cd‘,..0 . , , . . u I., (...)4 a, . !iz4,—, . ., , . • -. r) - i a4 1 ',hi° i -: ., ::.4 il It 0 . 1. cs•Sk 44 ' I: . o 1 ....,-..:..-. - .,...,,.-,. ki .z e" . • P Al:k; 11.1 r-- Z 1 1°i't '4'-.1' , .. Tv J.) ° '' ?, 1 •j cyj = J I . - >s C)) ....Z .4 ,v) ;sq. : , ')1 in. 3 hi *1 "•-• ,G 004 I , 4..e• .14'li 2,': 1; ..,,c;,-. I If ••••• • ."; . . l4 -Lia .,%. :. - .. -. • Zy ,,. V.'(:4 i•-••• 5 :. • . til'!zi I Ui ,--1 CL Zii r''_1 ::-.. /; - -- I- (f) R• 9 ,-,(1. kil'., - C Vai r-1 -,- 7- - Q \ :`,:t1 • . . . 0 C_D Z ' , _::•. . :- - ;'i • \ ..:/.... - -v( • Lerec t9 • C.)v1 , _ LLJ :,- - -- - •.!,• '7,,',- ckg • 0 Z,,z03 ,a_fa. ,'''.'0•4r1 "..: I.! 11 1 (1)1 1 I w CO (I) ;Z, ',..;•.,,, .4. it n.,i II! I'. . -1. :1_7. 11".1`T ':.1.,- , __ ) • =.=/_-r_.---7..-= 0 Ce 0 ( :.i. .7 .1';`i.!.''., !;!i j. 11,1 ___,.. ,. ,,1 I'? ,'.''h•i =-2--/:-:-.:•.: c-. ' ---0 ---' ' -. <(: . ;L '1. ,0;5 • . V 4; 1 ) >, z. .., t. ., 4 1_ 4 'i IF; k'I QV) t a. ILI v e i iI,.•' 13 I \ &•.' ` __T___ i I I.--- 0 I-- ,z lik --. ,- _.•-.-,.. •-- ',,t':' • '' . / // ' - , _ .'. :. / _..., I [I --/:.i . --). - .: 1 -------- . ..- '), n-.. Ili i-ll.1 • rot I ti:i :il I4 0:14 • _.____.______•„::i.,::.:_:7.111.:..:._:;.,,.., vkz.t).:1 , w r.::. - ::: .-11::::-•;',:.--::::,, :, ---7:-:),1 t..1 --:---1 ill.4/:'.1':fill'':::::.: T-1 gt. - 1 '''.....'4141!;• ; 4% g --„•rfcr---.1-.--- t 1 , 1 ' 1 I il I. - S. .,a;op . . ; - • ,o;o& - ,o;az o x-----7.1 , - , ? ' /----1"-- i- 7—_ • \ 771emON, 74.2.7.'.7.---...LSOd 1 • \ \ / • II \ . \ 4...) 1 • 2. 1 /\ / / g \ i. . i! t _t a tri r- • - 1 r---, 2 r- ----I -• , 1 I I i 1 .,, • i 1 1_---I I L , I i -I 1; • A . 0 i \ ..g ..-•• ‘ 1 1 . :, .. • • . •..._, ,• :‘,:-.,, . .11 (.-, % 411 . I s , 31-. 4 ; . 'I g,.. --- " ' tk - - - -.) dz;-• k : ! . I i 4 ci c). 1 1... _ • i tzi 'i t, vv.? iI : 'i q ° %, 4k. Qa , )' 1.44 '-.1:•-• ( ( ' " %i. 1.) .1?4,t % :: I I a 1°)'! *A?)4i °, % . I . r----- ------1 /---1 `,.'.° r----1:111 •IIV4 L...._• . ' 1 trd 1 1 Vt i • ittleeZ/,.11,;`,1 I 1____I " L__-- e.1 . ''hqiil ' ' .•• 1 'kV •13 1 0 _I: ,_, . _,,_, 1 1 I •..A,;,-z.ke, __I ‘ k — . v tf..,,.. •'):-.. ‘.1 ' 0 -'442-1 11 1 I 1 . I :', ,i iiik•;,q;, < 1 1 , z, 1 1 • I ... '4"I 01-01 . . • a.-el 6(3Z-11 ATTAPHNic .,1...- .. • .. 4 ,t tiallif •. ..%1) • ,..,, .......__ ,. .. . ... ..,...... . r-,?- (7.-e• 1 „ 1 P. p- 0 -Six ? ‘••E , C- g 41 I a . ,t z ; ,,, h i irlia I v 11. t fg-, ,,- .,5. P '--\, ,,ig A. AC. 4. i if •' - 6.4 i—•-__:1111111111 ....iia , ,L=Eigml....--- 83 1 t4-7.11116-e•Ww.-;z1rai -makw,......_- -, •rnw- 1g t - •i---7--- ;-7 i - - '' '''.!1- .`7'6-;••- . _NM 0 \ t.---I-11, 417=.2=1.z--,-__ ii•,4 in • ',/ 1 v. tz a kt• —Kt i——11 \ ' s Ie I < ' . -: ,P- •1 ..., k... . : . 1 1 Ili 4 ! EI 1 ,I!o• „I ; -, t . $ isin : t 1 1 3.; 1.,? --L--- , 1.. i -1 'z -; -r •- ' - 1- . -----1 /I II IL P „ , N.dh. __ __4: _,- N, -- it "\ 1 441 71tIMMIELV I \ i I / , 1 '•-... La. It; I -1 I ' ..C--------7,1-"rretu-- A\ — —' il,_ _ • & f- &g 7 1-- --- J4t Ai b.. ofi :HEIMiiigo -,-4 11 1 Ail OW i Nz.,? id. 0 7C9 10 al5 a 3,,ig, 1 " 0 /1 f- SI • -1 .c. < -ti h-• m • C34 ---1 Z — Ir. 0 ....4.— . 0 ` i!.i I ! Scotsman Manufacturing Corp. -I -rn • t.::,.! Preliminary Gradin D i i.. ,I'' .: Utility Plan g. ra nag' ATTACHMENT rl I i 1 r- _ la 1 g li i1 1 .E is 1 ii /1 3id r r+ -.d1i ! �p '€ 1 it 1 i 7. i 1 1 i 7iw'.. .9�ZZ=_ I I i — ,L,�ir -- -- I i t e l fl \ • 1 � I II II � , I � iI -L---- I l i i 1 r m II L_ I I I I z < n -7--1 I I I m m o1 I L__j _ 1 _ I L------ -----J 0 m C7 -Nk of —---= —— gI ' i i car: I 1 < PRELIMINARY c .,I,{= LANDSCAPE PLAN ATTACHMENT CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: March 7, 1988 TO: Planning Commission }}L FROM: Planning Staffer l SUBJECT: PA 88-003 Villages at Willow Creek Road Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard, Sign Program, Conditinal Use Permit/Variance GENERAL INFORMATION PROJECT: Conditional Use Permit/Variance request for a Sign Program for nine directional tract signs, seven of which exceed the allowed copy square footage restriction and three of which exceed height restrictions. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Rafanelli & Nahas Real Estate Development Ron Nahas 2011 Patio Drive, Suite 215 Castro Valley, CA 94546 LOCATION: The Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS: 941-278-2782, -2783, -2784 (Portion of each) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: PD, Planned Development, Residential SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Vacant, City of San Ramon South: Vacant, PD, Planned Development for residential uses East: Camp Park Military Training Reserve West: Open space, PD Planned Development ZONING HISTORY: The original 135+ acre holding was rezoned from an A, Agricultural District, to the R-1-B-5, Single Family Residential-Combining District, and the C-N, Neighborhood Business District, by Zoning Unit 638, approved by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors on December 5, 1964. The Zoning designation R-1-B-5 was subsequently relettered to an R-1-B-E designation. On April 15, 1985, the Planning Commission granted approval for a four-parcel minor subdivision under Tentative Parcel Map 4575. The parcel split was requested to facilitate a purchase option agreement the Applicant (Rafanelli & Nahas Real Estate Development) had with the original Property Owner. On March 24, 1986, the City Council granted approval for the PD, Planned Development District and Tentative Map applications for the 1,165-unit Villages at Willow Creek project (PA 85-041.1 and .2). There are seven residential Villages under separate applications and in various stages. ITEM NO. ,o COPIES TO: Applicant APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 8-87.10(f) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Sign Regulations) defines Directional Tract signs as a temporary signs containing only the name and location of a subdivision and/or a multiple family residential project and direction for reaching the same. Section 8-87.60 of the Sign Regulations states that Directional Tract Signs may be located in required yards if a Conditional Use Permit is granted. Section 8-87.60(a) of the Sign Regulations states that Directional Tract Signs in any district are limited to thirty-two square feet maximum copy area and a maximum of twelve feet in height. Section 8-94.0 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance states that conditional uses must be analyzed to determine: 1) whether or not the use is required by the public need; 2) whether or not the use will be properly related to other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; 3) whether or not the use will materially affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity; and 4) whether or not the use will be contrary to the specific intent clauses or performance standards established for the district in which it is located. Section 8-94.4 states the approval of a Conditinal Use Permit may be valid only for a specified term, and may be made contingent upon the acceptance and observance of specified conditions, including but not limited to the following matters: a) substantial conformity to approved plans and drawings; b) limitations on time of day for the conduct of specified activities; c) time period within which the approval shall be exercised and the proposed use brought into existence, failing which, the approval shall lapse and be void; d) guarantees as to compliance with the terms of the approval, including the posting of bond; 3) compliance with requirements of other departments of the City/County Government. Section 8-93.0 (Variance) and Government Code Section 65906 (State law re: Variance findings) indicate that the strict terms of the Zoning Ordinance may be varied in specific cases upon affirmative findings of fact upon each of these three requirements: 1) that there are special circumstances including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification; 2) that the granting of the application will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone; and 3) that the granting of the application will not be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare. Section 8-93.1 - .4 establishes the procedures, required action and effective date for granting or denying a Variance, and indicates the granting of a Variance shall be subject to conditions, limitations and guarantees. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This project has been found to be categorically exempt from CEPA under Section 15311, Class II(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the March 7, 1988 hearing was published in The Herald, mailed to property owners and posted in public buildings. -2- ANALYSIS The Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the use of nine (9) directional tract signs to identify the Villages residential developments located at Dougherty Road, Willow Creek and Amador Valley Boulevard. The Applicant is also requesting approval of a Variance to allow seven of the directional tract signs to exceed the maximum permitted sign copy square footage (32 square feet) and to allow three of them to exceed the maximum height of 12 feet. Background Attachment 1 shows the location of the 7 Village sites and the location of the proposed signs identified as (A-1-D-2). Background Attachment 2 shows partial site plans indicating the location of the signs. Background Attachment 3 shows the elevations of the signs. The following provides a description of the nine (9) directional tract signs and indicates where each does not comply with the sign regulations: DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DIRECTIONAL TRACT SIGNS A-1: Freesstanding single face sign with 32 square feet of copy. It is 11 feet tall and would be located on the northwest corner of Wildwood Road and Amador Valley Boulevard. Non-conformity: The sign is located in an open space area rather than on one of the Village sites. A-2: Freestanding single face sign with 32 square feet of copy. It is 11 feet tall and would be located near the northeastern side of Village 5. Non-conformity: The sign is located off-site and not on any land controlled by the Applicant. B_1: Freestanding double face sign, 24 square per face for a total of 48 square feet. It is 10 feet tall and located on the northeast corner of Amador Valley Boulevard and Wildwood Road. Non-conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. B-2: Freestanding double face sign, 32 square feet per face for a total of 62 square feet. It is 12 feet tall and located on the north side of Willow Creek Road, west of Dougherty Road. Non-Conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. B_3: Freestanding double face sign, 32 square feet per face for a total of 62 square feet. It is 12 feet tall and located on Wildwood Road just west of Dougherty Road. Non-conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet, and it is located on the park site rather than on one of the Village sites. B-4: Freestanding double face sign, 32 square feet per face for a total of 62 square feet. It is 12 feet tall and located on Willow Creek Road. Non-conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. D=1: Freestanding double face sign, 80 square feet per face for a total of 160 square feet. It is 17.5 feet tall and would be located on the northwest corner of Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard. Non- conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. Sign height exceeds 12 feet. Sign copy contains more than the name and location of the subdivision (phone numbers; "Models At Amador Lakes Apartments on Stagecoach Road"). D=2: Freestanding double face sign, 80 square feet per face for a total of 160 square feet. It is 17.5 feet tall and located on the northwest corner of Dougherty Road and Willow Creek Road. Non-conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. Sign height exceeds 12 feet. D-3: Freestanding double face sign, 80 square feet per face for a total of 160 square feet. It is 17.5 feet tall and located in the northeastern corner of Village 5. Non-conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. Sign height exceeds 12 feet. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: For new development projects it is typical for the City to allow (through the Conditional Use Permit procedure) two (2) directional tract signs per subdivision. The signs should be located on private property out of the public right-of-way. In addition compliance with the total sign copy square -3- footage limitation of 32 square feet is enforced. When an application is submitted and it is in conformance with the above regulations (in addition to being attractively designed and appropriately located) there is reasonable justification for Staff to recommend that the Planning Commission approve the request. In the case of this application, none of the signs fully conform with the regulations for directional tract signs. All nine have some form of non- conformity as listed in the descriptions on the previous page. Because of these non-conformaties Staff cannot recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit Request until: 1) All non-conformities (as listed in the Directional Tract Sign descriptions on page 3 of this report) are reasonably eliminated; and 2) A sign program with a maximum of five (5) directional tract signs is proposed. These signs should consolidate as much information as possible on the various Village projects (limiting the copy to name location and direction to the subdivisions). A plan showing potential sign locations is provided in Attachment 5. The reason for suggesting a five sign limitation for all seven Villages is because their close proximity precludes the need to have more than five signs if they are placed in more strategic locations. VARIANCE: As mentioned earlier in this report there are a number of non- conformities associated with the proposed sign program. Some (such as having more than the name, address and direction on the sign copy) must be complied with if approval is to be granted. Others (such as exceeding height limits and copy square footage restrictions) must be addressed through the Variance procedure. Seven of the signs (signs B-1 through B-4 and D-1 through D-3) exceed the 32 square foot copy restrictions established by the sign regulations (ranging from a low 42 square feet, and a high of 160 square feet). Three of the signs (signs D-1 through D-3) exceed the 12 foot height reulations established for directional tract signs (all at 17.5'). These non- conformities in Staff's opinion are excessive and there is no justifiable reason to grant Variance approval. Prior to granting a Variance, three mandatory findings must be made, based on facts presented in the record. These include: 1. That there are special circumstances relating to physical characteristics (such as lot size, shape and topography) which would deprive the Property Owner of privileges enjoyed by others in the identical zoning district. What this means is: in order to grant a Variance there must be some characteristic pertaining to the property that makes compliance with zoning provisions either impossible or impractable. Staff's review of the sites finds that there are no special circumstances relating to the physical characteristics of the property. The Villages have frontages on Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard, both of which together could easily accommodate up to five strategically placed directional tract signs in locations that are on-site and highly visible. 2. That the granting of the Variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges. This means that in order to grant a Variance, the approval cannot give the Property Owner the permission or right to build something that other Property Owners have not been given the right to do. The granting of the Variance would constitute a grant of special privilege because allowing directional tract signs that exceed the height and copy square footage restrictions would give the Property Owner a privilege not given to other Property Owners in similar situations. -4- 3. That the Variance will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. This means approval of the Variance cannot cause damage or harm to the neighborhood in any fashion. If approved the Variance would be detrimental to the neighborhood because it would set an unwanted precedence of relaxing provisions of the Zoning Ordinance where compliance is attainable. Because of the above facts, Staff must recommend that the Variance be denied without prejudice. It may be reasonable to consider a minor adjustment to the sign height in cases where the sign can only be placed behind the wall. RECOMMENDATIONS FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation. 2) Take testimony from Applicant and the public. 3) Queston Staff, Applicant and the public. 4) Close public hearing and deliberate. 5a) Adopt Resolution denying Conditional Use Permit request. b) Adopt Resolution denying Variance request, or: c) Give Staff and the Applicant direction and continue the matter. ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution denying the Conditional Use Permit and Variance requests for PA 88-003, Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard Sign Program. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Draft Resolution regarding PA 88-003 Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard Sign Program, Conditional Use Permit recommending denial without prejudice. Exhibit B: Draft Resolution regarding PA 88-003 Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard Sign Program Variance, recommending denial without prejudice. BACKGROUND ATTACHMENTS: 1. Site Plan 2. Partial Site Plans 3. Sign Elevations 4. Vicinity Map 5. Site plan showing potential sign locations. -5- RESOLUTION No. 88 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING PA 88-003 VILLAGES AT WILLOW CREEK ROAD, DOUGHERTY ROAD AND AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD SIGN PROGRAM CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHEREAS, Ron Nahas of Rafanelli and Nahas Real Estate Development filed an a Conditional Use Permit for a Sign Program containing nine directional tract signs (seven of which exceed the allowed copy square footage restrictions and three of which exceed height restrictions) for the Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on March 7, 1988; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS the request is categorically exempt in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending the application be denied without prejudice; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find: A. The use is not required by the public need at the proposed location because the size, height and copy of the signs exceeds what is permitted by the Zoning Ordinance for directional tract signs. B. The use is inappropriate in that the size, height and copy of signs is excessive in comparison with what is typically allowed for other subdivision with directional tract signs. C. The use, if permitted under all circumstantes and conditions of this particular case, would materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property or improvements in the area, as all applicable regulations will not be met. D. The use will be contrary to the specific intent, clause or performance standard of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance in that: 1. Seven of the nine proposed directional tract signs exceed the maximum copy square footage restrictions. 2. Three of the nine proposed directional tract signs exceed the maximum height restrictions. 3. One of the directional tract signs is located off site while another is located in a designated open space area. 4. One of the directional tract signs has verbage in excess of what is allowed to be on the signs. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission denies without prejudice the Conditional Use Permit Request in PA 88-003. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of March, 1988. AYES: NOES: PRESENT: ATTEST: Planning Commission Chairperson Planning Director RESOLUTION No. 88 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING PA 88-003 VILLAGES AT WILLOW CREEK ROAD, DOUGHERTY ROAD AND AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD SIGN PROGRAM VARIANCE WHEREAS, Ron Nahas of Rafanelli and Nahas Real Estate Development filed a Variance for a Sign Program containing nine directional tract signs (seven of which exceed the allowed copy square footage restrictions and three of which exceed height restrictions) for the Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on March 7, 1988; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS the request is categorically exempt in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending the application be denied without prejudice; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find: A. There are no special circumstances relating to physical characteristics including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property which would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification if strict compliance with the Zoning Regulations for directional tract signs were observed. B. The granting of teh Variance application would constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone, in that no special circumstances exist which warrant granting the Variance. C. The granting of this Variance application would be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood because if approved it could set an unwanted precedence of granting Variance in situations where the standards of the Zoning Ordinance could be complied with. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission denies without prejudice the Variance Request in PA 88-003. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of March, 1988. Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director EXHIBIT 5 .?- D3 D 2i -\ 1-5-0 . cciGt4c-r-, __,4_,, €7)3 .\ 1 D r V;(Ia��S r� a Y�fftt� ,...: i. Yi t(TE t J ( ittpaco 1 r z' -)1 r, 0 ,.......iiii.iiiiiilli\ DATE : I LI -�7 SCALI: N,/A DRAWN IV: F.Q.1 e D Rtr portal cuhra PR fcr• Cr7- I i III.A..CY`i GT^'4.-.1 1 ATTACHMENT 1 . . ...,:s.„,,,,,,,,..: . ...,.,... .. • . a:~;^ _ Concept by Nasulak & Associates,Inc. ,0"• • ..-••• • L. eV • • • • •(' • - , 04- _0, Via0 .or• --A (1‘ - TTACHMENT • • • • • -Cs N� pC (x� I � m d 144 C Ib ' D m rG l -zf 4-,-.� ' r • • ls C.(,) N TIM g-1 �` ��=, \S'..........44...".....------ :),..--"\''......-.21.. F I 1 :: 1 1 :1 I • ' I i 12 I4-5.�1 SCA".IW It.‘ DRAWN . 1 e 1'.---E 4 � �>_ Y,`,,`c�:�.► c�� ,�. S . THE M" IUSDIAMOND 403 262 0299:Mr+ .tea i•r+.- �'"•1NVlNr ''SA[AAMINTO r • • • •.. • • • . . . . • . • .• • .. • ... ... . . .... .•• •. .• • • • • ..... ... . . . • • • • • v1/4 • • • \ •,- 6,d • • 1 a 4 r�r TO 1- 3 • 45 OL, c,,,,..7. . ..., _ .-,,, ----- 7 �1 `rrN \ .... 81 ;____ -...' )-- '-' C8 G PATE:)�7 r' '.C/i SCALE IN/A DRAWN S": 1�'' .12„. .. REV el '. MOJEGT: THE IVEY ,AGE M ILPITAS DIAMOND 40111•262 0299 IRV114E SACRARIUM ' GROUP ...�o ' t ` - 714 470 OM :;916 7I2 2990 Concept by Hosulak & Associates, Inc. r 0 n rn , si9rst Ty?E 3. - \ T lir 1 .aV = fr,__. ).01 t-- I i I 1 n II • ut q • • • • • • • • • . . • . • . . • • • . . . • • • • . . • • • . • ••••• •. • • • .• , . . , • . • •, . • • . • • • • • , , •. • • . . • • • ..;.. • • r\\ ,\\ \` C' r r. Y < y Si�N i Y;=E 2 - - `'`\ •; ...c1 -----",---....-_,-. ,_:--• '4.7‘-. cil 7.6T-'('' \, :._\c) v •�� \ - a.n: 12—iL4-E7 su" /A w"w"n:--1 ----1-.4:- . "[Y- PROJECT. ' yl,�,_�?4�C € THE "" '"°` ♦ DIAMOND M P IDS AOB 1fi20299 IRVINE O Ito - GROUP -- °" 7f0 tla 01711'916 7t2 t990 -.:..- Concept by Hasulak&Associates,Inc. . c, �C t, : l' 47 rC TYp -Z:3 • DAff I2-Ii-1.r A_ SCR" A DRAWN" �.r-7. p I1EY MQI MO MOJECT: �_a(3 v�iu �w c��-� ,< THE "EY: 816 DIAMOND aoa•t62 0299 •� GROUP IRYIME �'SIICRA�AENTO kf c� :`: fi;?s ti 710 070 0170 916 722 2990 Concept by Hasulak & Associates, Inc. N e. . ........ _ ?SI . . . . , • . . . . . • . • • . • - - ' . . , • • --. . . . . ,. . . q1011 . - .-7i0t1 -.1 --A : • " --- -- --k -11%,, 11 •• '• •.... \ - - - , 1---• rF., );'zli '; . • ..• ••.. ---,-- ------c-4----. 1 ' 0 1-.. : ,., ;Z:;.1 •,...s . , 1 .---F.:n .. ,i_ ,F ''.." ‘',.‘ ,\ '• 1 n z° W '-' ''...,. ..- ',- ',. -')),.• '1‘ g F'" .•.,, 5, '..,.: ,.: e.,- '-' c•:•.:- •••, - .> ___ _• ., q ?. . . 1 .. .. • '•' ? F -TT —'•_-_,k•Z•••••.., • • A -A . _ .. : W . 1 . . çc a • IF ATTACji'''IaiEfIT 3 . '.. . • ..,... _ ? a 5 g / 54- ke*IS f .. 0. 7, —7% co‘Pzli ., , • .• .• • ••• .• •.• . . I • . • "•• : " "• • -•. .. : . . • • . . . • .• •• .•. I .. . . • . : .• •• . . . „. . .•.. •••• •• . • . . • .' . • : .. • • . . •• •• . •. . •.• . . . . •. . .• . . •• • •. • .r . a . • . . . • •. •. •• •• • • • • • • • • • • • :13 F e Ni T . • • .4. •• 4,4 4•N( 60r) 1. •.• *. ••• •• •b **. - 4•4 •• •t •• •• • •• • • .•4 r n • 2 c • .• .•4••••••••• •4- •so •• • • • • • • ea • A • .7-1; • • ,•• / it "7 6, ‘7, • I, • t 0 '1. 40> 6 • .• _ Z 3 c 3 m �� ,- -- y� y. K k. \ \ ‘ •,,,, ,,, •• ,.. . ,......:,\.NN..\ ,,.....,___ n..... 03... mr Q , lit .:..._':.'--k d 11Ekmc A.. 4 rn x, (4.. 1 ,\ , . ---0- . \-_, __ . 1 1 de„,,,„" , . _ . __ , , . a 3 o v r 1.....i. ..... 7- I cr.: )1 • } a � ?I. 111 s '. T g 3',%r. y',yN V , ' -> m 113:) .t n 3 -73 z c— c 1 O \, Q P 4bn of on `' obi'i' , iv77-e-e7"..-• Lt.". E g ,F,i, A r T,, A RIn F -__i i_E r-3 L ' I m N ct I b F. ey • V (1‘0 1Km . O , 0 ; --1 N 4.1bq ,iition 8'0" V7 p •sts is f , .0y_ ii .p&,----,7-. 1K-. elotite r.• n:-: s ; 0 , 4, 4, .••• •. 7,,,.. ; g z 1, 6' wilmismia • 1 7: . _ .,____ . ... , _ c• . . • ,s1 (,:- -2 . % -7") cc' -. . , )--*-- - --.-1 Li T 73 D _ _ _ V - 11 --4 L- ,.._ i* k • , , , ,( 'I r ' E p, ; • .S? T --1 k T\ I ?w\ i'l ., A, —.— r•;ar, . ..,'• '. • 1 04,1§.-- ---- ,.,....„ . • • D m )g . ,- s \ Z [c c a k ,( 4by litton ebIt V • Vz" Ca I I` _i • 6� gT r-)8 R� -\... p . C -2 .A* '_� 'n - \' 4 s , -1 E D D NV lb V L l 1 8� Nw = En. _ r i 1 _ P : 1'. . j �,� H ,: l ._-_- v.1 13--: , I:), r• ikp • gym '•.,•.Z , c)• - i c). , ' . • t 1 s'on • N • • ±to' i2. I 4 • li _ N w ti I IrE • • • • .. „ ... . . . • • in • ` sbfl 9“G" von f a:g Pg o m.1 -! '4112 Ill' ez �usi I I k 1 o aff, C Qil 2) N ,C„ Jlf . ..... . .. -- ar.i.m. o.r / , _ .,.: l ---4.- :i -.II' ::: r -ill ... t .,-,-,, ,A. . , W 1 LLOW. . H-7- --7- -- CREEK - 1 i 0 • I 1 \/ % . '‘f 'I •,1/1 . qUIL 6 CL J h . ,,,........,..,.... ___.. . '1" .'2.9nt.:'6431 re' F( T ... . . ,p.>,:.,•.;„s, , r•...' , ,, . - .• . . . . . . .. L ri . 1 - 1 • 1 ri . . 1-,A111Ce - -=-• - . - I I T-) . . . ... 1 • t3A-5e• . . :.40 • 1 ..1 . . .: \ - . . . • . . - - .• Z . . • • • , , • . . . . , - . . • . I • . _ _ • . . . . . . . . , 1 • . . • • , . . . , L I- 1 • . . _ \ . . , I . , • 1 1 . . . , . ,, 1 : A • , , p' r.--7-- . -4, • ....... ...., / -.\ -1 -1 I ( -' -•• .,. : . .. ... Z1 .4' ''. `33 .• 40 • ''' - 40 ..• - •• • . . • . -. . . • . - • —14 -1--...-TT- /4- ...-.........................-....... /...-. i , toolog,0004011111 _ . 7.07 sa'� qi�n Bon t • , LI I vIrk,I' ,A I � — ---"<,.. 1 c 1 Cfi l., -'I p1I I . . gr- 6-11 ` : : L ; T-- CIKb41 b I st .. 4 . sT C • II- . • • 1; v14 i 8 y� Tv\ s'o 9hG eo�� 'r r .116O0ir tA7,jk-4—4\- \, - 1.... oN�QA ' o5; �1 SITE c., c' c a ti, ,, LAMES ,: i`. j \` `', ���‘ \} \��'b CAMP � m t PARKS 1 + ,- /.4.- I, \maws 4°' Z , (mak 0 C 680 ,Fitleg N 1 \ti*Ot. *,!,1_ I ,i‘Nt' \ 1....t ` O��L1t� BLYD 910..._.. _1#1_,-..„--_______,------ 580 --------0,--...44.1 ore VICiNITY MAP POTENT'AL— S I vN LOc,ArioN5 naEEEc:11ZeZiASa:i;as; `+ °°„gyp` �U ° lili :71tii3::iiiiiiii B; 1 �� p } ¢:z?,.atiYtiiidx0.4.i.ii 4 =� y "g ix CEY:aYikaakk SYa$Ea4 /, fE:.i.8titZia8ci8YA i ° iek Y 3It Y:yEYYE 8_8LL8� /tom ; 4 z,' 10 i4iiii%' a II -I , q0 j0 IY $5534exa •C ' • ' 3888$8$S Z ii -is'f-44lik4 i s 3 3 tlL:b::� N �1 Nn'- r 'CA a 1 :-�8:�8€ U ` o � ,� o I,4 i:E8i.' 1,‘ D�L1� �:� • ��t' $ . 6'2`fie er \ a :,:zz.zzag _ a S e -, e .,::.. Rm \m 2•"Y77 xi1 : I . -c a u 1 � ia L7�g a I v p \t 8 . m o j n 3 k 44 OMo CFEEK_ OpNE :\: A N a T avou 3 e } i Jrf, iy / N O�N� i fir., pf pp pp pp pp A y o p L r ( I-_000 I ; 7 $RR! :N r;v V�/ i g ; is Nn= a . \� O. 0, IQ h. in oao i' n y D Z D S 1... :// ,, 11,,_,.. rT1 Mtn GI c H 0.; aD e o z m Dn �y it f ;1 .,':::is r no till- NZ y j 3!n C eto „ g , ,i CD j Y s t� xn' j� tj ••� i az m N j Dr ii s's Eiii d< ,♦ m Z D 9 �s P xi 1 o'r ,.%d �4 c v < j, _^, D CO o • ATTACHMENT 5 CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT Planning Commission Meeting Date: March 7, 1988 SUBJECT: Dublin Boulevard Extension Plan Line (Dougherty Road East to Southern Pacific Right-of-Way) 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) Cross Section 3) Extension Alignment Alternatives at Dougherty Road 4) Extension Alignment Alternatives to East 5) Proposed Alignment 6) Connecting Road, Dublin Blvd. to Scarlett Court 7) Description of Proposed Plan Line 8) Environmental Assessment Initial Study 9) Negative Declaration RECOMMENDATION: 1) Open Public Hearing 2) Receive Staff presentation and public testimony 451 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 c) Direct Staff to prepare Zoning Ordinance which would provide a conforming status to properties rendered non-conforming solely because of condemnation of property. 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 existing General Plan identifies the general location of the Dublin Boulevard extension with an implementing policy to develop a plan line for a six-lane divided extension from Dougherty Road to Parks RFTA boundary (Parks RFTA is co-terminus with the Southern Pacific right-of-way). Attachment 1 shows this proposed plan line. This roadway extension is proposed as a six-lane facility to serve as an arterial to the extended planning area east of Dougherty Road. This road is the only connection to the extended planning area shown in the General Plan. Attachment 2 shows a cross-section of the proposed arterial. The Dublin Boulevard extension is ultimately planned to extend through the extended planning area and to tie into North Canyons Parkway in the City of Livermore. Dublin Boulevard will serve as a frontage road to I-580. IMPACTS: Several traffic and land use issues were identified with this project. The project has been designed to incorporate features which will mitigate adverse impacts. These issues and the mitigation features are summarized below. ITEM NO. g, 3 COPIES TO: 1) Traffic: The Dublin Boulevard extension will eliminate left turns into and out of Scarlett Court near the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection. The resulting Scarlett Court/Dublin Boulevard intersection would be too close to Dougherty Road to allow stacking of vehicles between intersections. Mitigation Features: An additional connection between Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Court will be built adjacent to the Alameda County Flood Control channel. Median breaks will be placed along Dublin Boulevard away from intersections to allow left turns and U-turns. 2) Land Use: Right-of-way needs will require purchase or dedication of portions or all of several properties. These land requirements will result in the need to acquire about 182,125 square feet of land and five structures. Mitigation Features: Property owners will receive fair market value for the property needed for the full right-of-way width. In addition, the City will purchase remnant of lots rendered unusable at a fair market rate. Building owners will also receive a fair market compensation for structures (or portions of structures) within the proposed right-of-way. Relocation assistance will be provided to businesses or residents who no longer would be able to use their buildings. Where feasible, a building will be constructed (or moved) on-site to replace buildings within the proposed right-of-way. The Miracle Auto Painting property will have six parking spaces eliminated. This would reduce the amount of parking to eight spaces, which is one space below the normal requirement for the use. Instituting short-term parking (4 hours or less) along this section of Scarlett Court would provide parking for customers who would otherwise park on-site. The amount of land or building required for individual parcels is discussed in detail in the Environmental Assessment Initial Study. Mitigation measures made a part of the project are described in the attached Negative Declaration. ALTERNATIVES: 1) The extension alignment at Dougherty Road is proposed to be a right angle to Dougherty Road. Alignments which ranged five degrees north and south from a right angle were also examined to see if impacts on existing structures would differ. In all scenarios, the building at the Boat House would need to be eliminated. A right angle intersection is the superior alternative from a design and safety standpoint (see Attachment 3). 2) Three main alignments were considered for the areas east of the Dougherty Road intersection (see Attachment 4): A) The entire right-of-way north of the east-west property lines. B) The entire right-of-way south of the east-west property lines. C) The right-of-way split between properties north and south of the property lines. All three scenarios would require about the same amount of land. Impacts to improvements and existing businesses increase as the line is moved south. Option A would have the fewest impacts to existing business. However, this option could result in Parcels 16 - 20 (Bridgepoint Properties) having limited land remaining for development. The Bridgepoint Properties have their legal frontage on the unimproved extension of Sierra Lane. If the land dedicated to the extension of Sierra Lane is "exchanged" for an equal amount for the dedication and improvement of Dublin Boulevard extension, 78.5 feet of right of way would be required across the south of the Bridgepoint properties. A balance of 31.5 feet of right-of-way would be required from the properties south of the Bridgepoint properties (see Attachment 5). -2- Option B requires the use of more developed and improved property for the right-of-way which could result in greater costs for compensation to property owners for the taking of property. Option C is proposed for the plan line as it would minimize impacts to the usability of vacant property and would result in fewer costs to the City for improving the road, as Bridgepoint Properties would install frontage improvements for Dublin Boulevard instead of Sierra Lane. 3) The alignment of a connecting street between Dublin Boulevard extension and Scarlett Court is needed to improve circulation in the project area, as the close proximity of the Scarlett Court intersection to the Dougherty Road intersection will require that access to Scarlett Court become right-turn-in and right-turn-out, with a median barrier on the Dublin Boulevard Extension. Several properties east of the Scarlett Court/Dublin Boulevard intersection were examined. Most of the properties had structures or other improvements placed in a manner which would require removal of the structure. However, adjacent to and west of the Alameda County Flood Control channel is a private road (32.76 feet wide) which could provide access. On the east side of the flood control channel is a private access easement. Individually, neither one of these accessways is of sufficient width for a public street. Together, they could serve as a one-way couplet. This alignment has a minimal impact on existing businesses, as the alignment and right-of-way are currently being used for traffic. In addition, the channel meets Scarlett Court around the midpoint of its length, making access to the connecting road centralized (see Attachment 6). TIMING: Timing of the improvement of the Dublin Boulevard extension may be dependent upon demand from development of the extended planning area to the east. That development may be two to five years from now. If an assessment district is formed, the roadway could be designed and built within a one year time period. COST: Preliminary estimated costs to acquire property, relocate businesses (and residents), design the improvements, and construct the roadway would be about $8,200,000. These costs represent approximately $6.8 million for the Dublin Boulevard extension and $1.4 million for the connecting road between Scarlett Court and Dublin Boulevard. Several options exist for paying for this project, including an assessment district for adjacent property owners and off-site improvement requirements for future development to the east. -3- 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 DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION PLAN LINE (DOUGHERTY ROAD TO SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT-OF-WAY) 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 February 8, 1988, regarding: 1) Traffic Circulation 2) Land Use WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the Mitigated 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 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the project, Dublin Boulevard Extension Plan Line (Dougherty Road to Southern Pacific Right-of-Way) 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 Significance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the Mitigated 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: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION All that certain real property situate in City of Dublin, State of California, described as follows: A strip of land one hundred and ten (110) feet in width, fifty-five (55) feet (measured at right angles) on either side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point on the centerline of Dougherty Road at the intersection of the centerline of Dublin Boulevard; thence from said POINT OF BEGINNING, leaving said centerline of Dougherty Road on a prolongation of the centerline of Dublin Boulevard in a northeasterly direction to a point on the west line of the parcel of land described in the deed to D.M. Nohr, etal. , recorded March 19, 1984, as instrument number 84-051-707, records of Alameda County, said point being the beginning of a tangent 1000.00 radius curve concave to the south; thence along the arc of said curve to a point 23.50 feet north of, measured at right angles to the south line of Tract 4978 as recorded in Book 145 of Maps at Page 3, records of Alameda County; thence easterly on a course parallel with said south line of Tract 4978 to a point on the southwest right-of-way line of Southern Pacific Railroad and the POINT OF TERMINATION for this description. The side lines of above described right-of-way to be shortened or lengthened to intersect the east line of Dougherty Road or the southwest line of Southern Pacific Railroad. END OF DESCRIPTION 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 DOUGHERTY ROAD TO SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan 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 Section 5.1 "Land Use and Circulation Section: Trafficways" to develop a plan line for a six- lane divided extension of Dublin Boulevard from Dougherty Road to Parks RFTA boundary; 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 Mitigated 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 Exhibits A and B dated March 1, 1988. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 7th day of March, 1988. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director z¢ t z Ci3 311 a =rj` 51 Az i so- • . ° r i (1.7 e a \ ° FE z DI ,__. N. ---!: fl --- a w P. n r— ' o:• s is GS• a w , flnm 7 o a_____ i J� o e a QO x O ........ r••••• UNS , 1 Zi 11 1".44 t 2 1 Isom E w : =t( : • F., R 1 / i E=1: BOLSI = i= co i I 1 I Com/ 3 o I MCC an a _ V) NCC . __. Nc>:• 0/ taw , . ‘ . z 0 _ _ _ II _ 0 ...ii 0 ,- (171---- :•:.:: I ----/ i •::::: : 051 _ I e ..... R j r I vs a .... 42. ...•. • .0% 111i • . .. . •• ::: e : n i , 1.6 I . I I I ) s i ET s g 00 „c1 z •14Z. , 40.y, ,... li; N i 01 7 r II ii : c3 • .2 sl> 0 o s I IO' R 8' 39' 16' 39' 8' l fE 3 ' ..� �, .. TYPICAL SECTION DUBLIN BOULVARD EXTENSION DOUGHERTY ROAD TO SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT-OF-WAY NOT TO SCALE ATTACHMENT a HOUSTON PL. 4O .1007 'oC: V SIERRA LN. g® 97 9313 p 1 .6j 2 3 4 5 r 6 8 3 9 14 I i PROPOSED r ..•::} L J 1 r- oe°° , �� 24 „.., .„ J0�. . O� 9`� A 0401 o et, 13 0341 9� - ab .a.a 11300 12 ARK 41314 _. a RIO■ .aa. O a aaa31 .130111 • .aO, 11 ❑ OV 23 CT, INTiM1 T,ON A1.164I NINKT DUBUN BOULEVARD EXTENSION DOUGHERTY ROAD TO SOUTHERN PACIFIC R/W DATE,FEB.1.,18SS 0 50 100 200 306 400 S C A I E ATTACHMENT 3 HGUETGN PL. so EXT%NSICN PU N MENT I.,.I `T DUBUN BOULEVARD EXTENSION l�a�s�os�l ..,. �,.9^ DOIIGHEPlY ROAD.TO..Be l'. RN PACIFIC P/W A A..0 � SIERRA L..' 20 • < ♦ • e 17 of la 9S TRACT 4878 1 2 3 1 • S = p =� v _ . 21 n 1 To am am �0yo 0 l ®�1.. u O 9i I ro- 'flO — 22 •••• 72 I II I O 61 I II 1 LLJJ I 23 / Cr. - -/ ATTACHMENT 9 `..`° •/ C/ U L o e LL •° 2 a in IA [ L° U I�1 W a d1 �O , I Fast= I- 2 W a0 r LLJJ 1 8 F. ° m • =;. o0 ° - I CZ • a oImmo� I o -% CM INC Q a I 4ir L --J 0 Pc 1� >11 I_____ �� I a0oa o,4 1Nil °n 11 •n oQ •� • am P P F. n I on nn ic a ' mom I 1>4 1 -7 ` 61•F Y■ ° •• a 65 Varai N,Q3 co 66 �.,- a PP a s pam 410. Q-c a n• Qts) e a ° • V m 1 65 • OS' 3 ••• n I °° , Q o 2 •° e°° P Z ° /87 ..... --, 2 1 z tptrAc. , 1 i • , < • • i . :...4, ' 3 • 0 a I t ...—2 o I \ ilk2.-4e2'.44 0,i4. i I C4 t * --i-R. t :IR al. 0 p 0 'Z 0 cn IS Al P .. N N .0- , E t1 1 ._.,, 1U P 1 - I • II De3 1 e I e i L__J 1 R -= i ag .1.• • 04 1:ii .0 z, .. la e I =— B D I I I . I o 1 1 a: / i i i I o' : . ,—-Li _ii El ; :0 g 0". x• 1- I' w •CP') ° 0 • I z $7> /3 1 0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION All that certain real property situate in City of Dublin, State of California, described as follows: A strip of land one hundred and ten (110) feet in width, fifty-five (55) feet (measured at right angles) on either side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point on the centerline of Dougherty Road at the intersection of the centerline of Dublin Boulevard; thence from said POINT OF BEGINNING, leaving said centerline of Dougherty Road on a prolongation of the centerline of Dublin Boulevard in a northeasterly direction to a point on the west line of the parcel of land described in the deed to D.M. Nohr, etal. , recorded March 19, 1984, as instrument number 84-051-707, records of Alameda County, said point being the beginning of a tangent 1000.00 radius curve concave to the south; thence along the arc of said curve to a point 23.50 feet north of, measured at right angles to the south line of Tract 4978 as recorded in Book 145 of Maps at Page 3, records of Alameda County; thence easterly on a course parallel with said south line of Tract 4978 to a point on the southwest right-of-way line of Southern Pacific Railroad and the POINT OF TERMINATION for this description. The side lines of above described right-of-way to be shortened or lengthened to intersect the east line of Dougherty Road or the southwest line of Southern Pacific Railroad. END OF DESCRIPTION ATTACHMENT • CITY OF•17UBLIN ri Na, ENV!)1=OINIV1ENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, (NiE211v1 (Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et sec.) Based on the project information submitted in Section 1 General Data, the Planning Staff will use Section 3, Initial Study, to determine whether a Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report is required. SECTION 3. INITIAL STUDY - - - to be completed by the PLANNING STAFF Name of Project or Applicant: Dublin Boulevard Extension - Dougherty Road to Southern Pacific Right-of-lay A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING- Description of project site before the project, including information on: topography; soil stability; plants and animals;historical, cultural, and scenic aspects; existing structures;and use of structures Flat, unvegetated area through - and adjacent to industrial uses. Five structures would need to be demolished (vehicle sales, storage & repair, single-family residence). Vacant-land and land used for outdoor storage and parking would need to be acquired. Description of surrounding properties, including information on: plants and animals; historical, cultural, and scenic aspects; type and intensity of land use; and scale or development. Property to north is vacant, propprty.to south is automobile, boat, vehicle sales, lumber and construction material sales, contractor, and other similar businesses, plus a single-family residence with garage. B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS-Factual explanations of ell answers except"no" are re-. quired on attached sheets. CaMFO I;T'T IMPACTS SCALE OF IMPACT NO DUAL ri LED YES UNNMYcN • NO l to � II�IEr' 01 101� 1.g WATER 1.1 Hydrologic Balance Will construction of the project alter the hydro- X logic balance? 1.2 Ground Water Will the project affect the quality or quantity of x I ground water supplies? 1.3 Depth to Water Table, Will the rate of water withdrawal change the depth X or gradient of the water chle7 • 1.1 Drainage and Channel Form Will construction impede the natural drainage potter X causeor alteration of strewn channel form? . 1.5 Sedimentation Will construction in on area result in major sediment X Influx into adjacent water bodies? • 1.6 Flooding Will there be risk of loss of life or property due to flooding? X A-5 e :r. ,. „ .. r s.tszd_ a:r'c. °.s..sx.,cviie: via::1- alr{+•.at .y}.a y e, L , roe • UI= 111P '1'$ SCALE OF IMPACT • NO QUALIFIED YES UDTQIOWN • NO 1 , 1 p I I • 1.7 Water Quality Does drinking water supply fail to meet state and X i federal standords? I Will sewage be inalerl•setoly accommodated end X r • treated? Will receiving waters foil to meat local,store end X I federal standords? • Will ground water suffer eonrominorion by s,nfene seepog.s,intrusion of solt or polluted water from 1 • • adjacent water bodies or from another r.ont.weinored x • 1 j aquifer? --- • • '2.0 AIR .2.1 Air Pollution. Will there be generation and dispersiar of pollutants by project related activities or in proxir.it•to tse • project which will c-reed state nr r__.ti-a o r.. - X ' quality stordards? 2.2 Wind Alteration Will structure and te.roie impede presmilirc wind flow musing channeling along certain...orris!),or obstruction of wind movements? X 3.0 EARTH • 3.1 Slope Stobility Are there potential dangers related to:lope failures? X _ 3.2 Foundation Support Will there 6e risk to life or property ie-.a:e of X excessive deformation of materials? • 3.3 Consolidation Will there be risk to life or property becmtse of X excessive croseiidot ion of foundorhr emrn-iols? i 3.4 Subsidence Is these risk of major ground subside mnsessxiatod X with the project? I I 3.5 Seismic Activity Is there risk of damage or loss revolting from earth- 1 1 - quake activity? - X t t ' 3.6 Liquefaction Will the project cane or be exposed to liquefaction X of soils in slept"or under foundotiens? 3.7 Erodbility Will there be substantial loss of soil dws to con- �X struct ion practices? , 3.8 Permeability Will the penneobility of soils anode,sr!with the project present advert.conditions telorve to de- . • velopment of wells? X . 3.9 que Features Will any unique geological features be damoyad X . or destroyed by project nctivities? 3.10 Mineral Resources Are there geologic deposits of potential rocs-ercinl value close to the project? X • • • 4.0 PLANTS AND ANIMALS • • 4.1 floor and Animol Species Are there rare or endangered species present? X F Mn there species present which are poricoinrly •X ceptiolc to impact from human activity? s • Is there vegetation present;the loss of which will i s i deny food or M6itat to important wild?Tit species? X Are thee nuisance species of plant or climois for which conditions will be improved by tie project? X 1 . 4.2 Vegetative Community Types Are there any unusual populations of pines thee may x be of scientific interest? F Are there vegetative community types which are particularly susceptible to impact firm human ecrivity?X Are there msrjor trees or major ve0rtntiee that will ho r4votrly arm.te4 by the project? X • Pro there veeare:iwe rnmmunity typ,s r----r.0F1,Ins r- of which will deny trod or hohitet to i- act wd!dGfn iv to su+:eaeinl nu0So•of r .._ cs,l,t1X _ 4.3 Diversity Is there subsenriel diversity in the n-s-mu r,rr-n cnity os reflected in the nv So and type of n!,nt or nnirel_ species present or the threes-dimensinrmel orraa0-m-nr x of plant species present? _ L • • A-6 • r1 • comparENT IVS'ACIS SCALE OF IIIPACT NO QUALIFIED -ICES UNKNGt N •- NO I f • I I 'o D;II�IF 01 1015 • • 6 1C 1i1 5 1 1 I 5.0 FACILITIES AND SERVICES 5.1 Educotienol Facilities Will projected enrollments adversely effect the ex- . 'sting or reposed lea ities in terms of spacing for all activities,including classrooms,recreational X *reel, end staffing needs? Will the project impact the pupil/teacher ratio so X I I as to impede the learning process? I l Is the school located such that it presents a hardship I 1 fora portion of the enrollment in terms of travel time, x I I distonees or safety hazards? • 5.2 Commercial Facilities Will there be on inadequate supply of and access to X • commercial facilities foe the project? 5.3 Liquid Waste Disposal Are provisions for sewoge capacity inadequate for the needs of the project without exceeding goality X I I • standards? Will the project be exposed to nuisances and odors associated with wastewater treatment plants? X 5.4 Solid Waste Disposal Is there inadequote provision for disposal of solid X wastes generated by the project? 5.5 Water Supply Is there inadequate quantity or quality of water supply to meet the needs of the project? X 5.6 Storm Water Drainage Will storm water drainage be inadequate to prevent downstream flooding and to meet Federal Stare and local standards? .X 5.7 Police Will the project's additional population,facilities, X or Other features generate an increasen police somber or create a police hezord? 5.8 Fire _ Will the project's odditional population,facilities, or other Features generate an increase In fire services X or cote o fire hazard? 5.9 Recreation Will the project have inadequate facilities to meet X the recreational needs of the residents? 5.10 Cultural Facilities Will cultural facilities be unavailable to the project residents? N/A 6.0 TRANSPORTATION 6.1 Transportation Facilities Are the traffic demands Of.adjocent roods currently at or above copoaity? If not,will the traffic gen= eroted by the project cause the adjacent roods to reach or exceed capacity? X" Are the other tranmportosion Facilities which serve the project inadequate to accommodate the project's x trowel demands? 1 I I 6.2 Circulation Conflicts Will design of the project or conditions in the surround- leg o accidents due to circulation conflicts? X 6.3 Road Safely and Design Will project residents and users be exposed to increased accident risks risks dun to roodwoy and street design or lock X of traffic controls? 7.0 HEALTH 7.1 Odors Will the project be exposed to or generate any intense X odors? 7.2 Crowding end Density Will the residents and users be exposed to crowding or X - I high density in their physical living environment? 7.3 Nolsonces Will the project be exposed to or generate factors that X maybe considered as nuisances? 7.4 Structural Softy Will design and proposed construction techniques Fail X • to meet state and local building codes? • 8.0 NOISE 8.1 Noise Levels Will the project be expoed to or generate adverse noire levels? X 8.2 VBnations • Will the project he exposed to vibrations nnnoying to humans? X • T IMPACTS .SCALE OF IMPACT NO QUALIFIED YES UNKNa4N NO I I Io a l ix, I� I L f 9.0 COMMUNITY CHARACTER • 9.1 Community Orgonizotion Will the project disrupt on existing set of 1 .organienrions on groups within the community? X 9.2 Homogeneity and Diversity Will the project change the character of the coanunity in tenor of distribution or concentration of income,ethnic,housing,or age group? X 9.3 Community Stability and Will the project be exposed to or generate on • • Physical Conditions area of poor stability and phf.icol conditions? X • • . 10.0 VISUAL QUALITY - • 10.1 Views Willresidenls of the surrounding area be adversely X effected by view:of or horn the project? Will the project residents be adversely affected by views of or from the surrounding ar X 10.2 Shadow. Will the project be exposed to or generate excessive • :bedews? X • 11.0 HISTORIC AND CULTLELAL • • • RESOLU:CES 11.1 Historic and Cultural . Will the project involve the destruction or otter- X Resources Winn of a historic resource? Will the project result in isolation of a historic resource from its surrounding environment? X • Will this project introduce physical,visual,audible or atmospheric elements tat ore not in character with X ahistoric resource or its selling? 11.2 Archaeological Sites Will the project involve oho destruction or alteration and Structures - of an archaeological resource? X Will thc result in isolotion of cn archaeological Will resource? X the project introduce physical,visual,oudible or atmospheric elements that are not in character wills X on archaeological resource or its setting? 12.0 ENERGY 12.1 Energy Requirements Are them potential problems with the supply of X energy req•.ired for the project? Will the argy requirements a cnn-j the capacity X of the c utility company? Will there be o net increase ergy used for the x . project compared to the no project alterative? 12.2 Conservation Measures Does the project planning and design fa;to include I s available energy can-ovation m.,.urn.. X 13.0 LAND USE • 13.1 Site Hoaords Do conditions of the site,proposed site development, or surrounding area create potentially ho_ardous situ- ations? X 13.2 Physical Threat. Will the project or the surrounding area create a feeling • of insecurity and physical threat among the residents nod users? X 13.3 Sanitary Landfill Will the project he exposed to stratum!dornnge, n srfac nod o,n n,t wore.pollution X or other o v oral with a sanitary landfill" 13.4 \'(arcrwoys Wilt the project affect anx ing sw-tcrway through Filling,dredging,draining,culvarting,waste dis- charges,Ion,of visual quality or other land use— X prccticns7 A-8 . �"'. � sMfilr c , ...,w-gin?]E a,.Y:.s::•�.�:.€� � _, esw *^s�.;u�^7t.'l�iau>-.�-.e_ e,oL,.a�ti�?� y.'� `��,:.,' .: -.. CaTC4 ENT 'IMPACTS SCALE OF IMPACT NO QUALIFIED YES JUN O N NO I ► 16 • of loft �1�1�15 13.5 Existing Land Will the project result in Use the removal or impact on existing facilities.that X will result in adverse t t • impacts to the existing I I land uses? I I Will the p ro ect result in a Other Envbmmeeai n*'tr change�-�inc circulation which 5.4 Circulation VoulRrnfuslo etotr se9r result X •• • • C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE QUALIFIED NO NO •YES UNiZEWN. • (i) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish ar wildlife species, cause a • • fish or wildlife population to drop below self- • sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant j or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods X or California history or prehistory? (2) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (3) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulateively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but X where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) (4) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human • beings, either directly or indirectly? X A-9 `?d '�c"�..,�sil«s+�",.;»..5.....ear.+sutatawl..'ri''w �{d���s�tw�..eez.�; • • • • D. MITIGATION MEASURES - Discussion of the ways to mitigate the significant effects identified, if any: Compensate property owners and businesses for loss of property; relocate businesses and residences which would be impacted; construct connecting road to improve circulation. See attachment for more detailed discussion of these mitigation measures. E. DETERMINATION - On the basis of this initial evaluation: Eg The City of PUE,iih finds that there will not be any significant effect. The par- ticular characteristics of this project and the mitigation measures incorporated into the design of the project pro•iid. the ctuaI basis for the finding. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS REQUIRED. • The City of PLAblin finds that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED** • Signature and date: r1 /10144� p-- b• a, ht,8 • Name and title: .Tb C N11J• tb • • • • **NOTE: Where a project is revised in response to an Initial Study so that po!•a:Ltial adverse effects are mitigated to a point where no_ significant environmental effects would occur, a • revised Initial Study will be prepared and a Negative Declaration will be required i Ns'eod of an EIR. n n DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION Initial Study B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - Factual explanations 1.4 Drainage and Channel Form - Project will cross over a flood control channel. Final construction plans will need to demonstrate that flow is not impeded. 1.6 Flooding - Project is located in Zone B (100-year to 500-year flood, or 100-year flooding of depths less than one foot) on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Project may be subject to flooding in the event of 100-year or 500-year flood event. Flooding is considered minor and minimal property damage to project is expected. 2.1 Air Pollution - This project could eventually accommodate 40,000 vehicles per day (at Level of Service C or better). This increase in vehicles could raise air pollution levels in the area. The project would eventually extend further and connect to existing North Parkway in Livermore and points within Alameda County. To the extent that this project and future extensions will provide parallel access to I-580, the result will be fewer vehicle miles and less stop-and-go traffic (idling vehicles contribute to higher emissions). These results would offset impacts to air quality from increased traffic on Dublin Boulevard extension. Traffic signals and appropriate striping will also improve traffic flow, reducing some of the adverse air quality impacts of slow-moving and idling vehicles. 3.5 Seismic Activity - Few sites within the City of Dublin are without geologic impact or hazard. This site is located between 1/10 and 1/2 mile from an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. As the project is outside the zone, no fault rupture evaluation is required for this project. Risk of damage to roadway and roadway users due to earthquake activity would be minimal. 5.2 Commercial Facilities - This project will improve access to undeveloped commercial property just north of the project and future development to the extended planning area to the east. 6.1 Transportation Facilities - Traffic demands at the existing Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection are expected to reach a Level of Service D in the year 2005. This project along with further easterly extension of Dublin Boulevard and additional development in Contra Costa County could result in the level of service being further degraded. However, the project (and further extension) will help alleviate future congestion on I-580 by providing parallel access. The project also will provide a positive impact of providing access to properties which currently have no street frontage. I'1 e\ Dublin Blvd. Extension Initial Study Page 2 7.1 Odors - Temporary construction related odors may be generated. As they would be temporary, they are not considered significant. Construction materials which generate odors should be brought to the site only when needed and used when wind velocities are low. 8.1 Noise - Temporary construction-related noise levels may exceed the noise standards for commercial/industrial areas. Construction equipment should be properly muffled to reduce noise levels. Upon completion of the project, traffic may generate noise levels up to 70 dB (CNEL). These levels are consistent with City of Dublin General Plan policies for business park/industrial areas. The remaining single-family residence will be subjected to noise levels exceeding what is normally acceptable for residences. Current noise levels near the residence exceed the 60 dB (CNEL) considered appropriate for residences. Full improvement of the Dublin Boulevard extension will require removal of the single-family residence (and garage). The removal of the structure will also remove adverse noise impacts to residents. Issues associated with the removal of the residence are discussed under land use (13.5). 10.1 Views - Views in the area will change due to development of vacant property. Development of this project may quicken the process. Disruption of views from industrial areas generally is not considered significant. 11.2 Archaeological Sites - No known archaeological sites exist in the project area; however, the Livermore Valley area was home to some Native American groups. A condition of project approval should include a requirement that in the event of discovery of archaeological artifacts, construction be halted so that the find can be examined by a qualified archaeologist. 12.1 Energy Requirements - The Dublin Boulevard extension will reduce the vehicle miles required to get between easterly and westerly points of the City. The project will also provide parallel access to I-580 and will provide an alternate route when the highway is congested. The project will then contribute to lower energy requirements for vehicles in this area. 13.4 Waterways - The project will cross over an Alameda County Flood Control Channel, thus requiring a bridge or culvert. The crossing should be designed so as not to adversely affect the use of the channel. Dublin Blvd. Extension Initial Study Page 3 13.5 Existing Land Use - The project will result in the following use of land or change in land use (see attached Figure). A) Elimination of about six parking spaces and a free-standing sign at Miracle Auto Painting (2,000 sq. ft. land). The Conditional Use Permit for the property established a total of 14 parking spaces (where a minimum of 9 is required per zoning regulations). Elimination of parking will reduce the parking to one space less than the minimum requirement. B) Elimination of about 10 parking spaces and change of access off Scarlett Court at Crown Isuzu car dealership (2,200 sq. ft. of land). C) Elimination of approximately 2,827 sq. ft. building and use of approximately 1/2 of parcel at Boat House property (18,325 sq. ft.). D) Elimination of approximately 12,461 sq. ft. building (right-of- way would require almost half of building) and use of approximately 1/3 of parcel (31,200 sq. ft.) at Curtiss Dodge dealership. E) Use of approximately 13,500 sq. ft. of land (used for storage and single-family residence and garage) at the rear of Dublin Rock and Ready Mix. F) Elimination of garage and single-family residence (right-of-way cuts through one-third of house). G) Use of approximately 7,100 sq. ft. of the rear of Dolan Lumber property. H) Use of vacant land from lots in Subdivision 4978: 1) 600 sq. ft. 2) 19,700 sq. ft. 3) 26,700 sq. ft. 4) 27,500 sq. ft. 5) 6,600 sq. ft. 6) 2,350 sq. ft. I) Use of about 5,400 sq. ft. of land from Busick property. J) Use of about 5,350 sq. ft. of land from Lew Doty and elimination of 17,000 sq. ft. building. Dublin Blvd. Extension Initial Study Page 4 K) Use of about 9,000 sq. ft. of land from U-Haul property. L) Use of about 4,600 sq. ft. of land from LeMoine property. Overall, approximately 182,125 sq. ft. of land plus removal of five structures will be required to complete the project. Land will have to be purchased at a fair market value for its highest and best use. Relocation assistance to affected businesses and residents will be required. 6.4 Circulation - The intersection of Scarlett Court and the Dublin Boulevard Extension will be too close to the Dublin/Dougherty intersection for safe circulation. Modifications to the Scarlett Court intersection will be required to permit only right turns onto and off of Scarlett Court. This change in the intersection will result in poor access to the west from Scarlett Court (necessitating that drivers make a U-turn on the Dublin Boulevard Extension in order to go west). A road which would connect the Dublin Boulevard Extension to Scarlett Court is proposed to parallel the Alameda County Flood Control Channel using existing access easements. No demolition of structures would be required to accommodate the new road. North and southbound directions would be separated by the Flood Control Channel, allowing only right turns into and out of adjacent properties. Z z = 0 wo aI) '• o ; I 1 7• � o B I I � a &, V. --1.-,1 n n �i 1 I�- �o li I I P L_1 R jF 0O 0 .. 0_C • J •I1:1111 _ 12 `t Jeidri a Op _____ I •• . 2 • R 2)� )� O CITY OF DUBLIN Development Services Planning/Zoning 829-4916 P.O. Box 2340 -Building & Safety 829-0822 Dublin, CA 94568 Engineering/Public Works 829-4927 NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR: DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION (Dougherty Road to Southern Pacific RIght-of-Way) (Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. ) LOCATION: Easterly extension of Dublin Boulevard between Dougherty Road and the Southern Pacific right-of-way. PROPONENT: City of Dublin DESCRIPTION: First phase of the extension of Dublin Boulevard toward the City of Livermore. Project will include redesign of the Scarlett Court intersection at Dougherty Road and a new public road connecting the Dublin Boulevard Extension and Scarlett Court. FINDINGS: The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. INITIAL STUDY: The initial study is attached with a brief discussion of the following environmental components: Drainage, flooding, air pollution, seismic activity, transportation facilities, circulation, odors, noise, visual quality, archaeology, energy, land use. MITIGATION MEASURES: See attachment. PREPARATION: This Negative Declaration was prepared by the City of Dublin Planning Staff, (415) 829-4916. SIGNATURE: DATE: Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION (DOUGHERTY ROAD TO SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT-OF-WAY) Mitigation Measures included in project to eliminate impacts or reduce impacts to a level of insignificance. 1. Circulation - Final design of the Dublin Boulevard extension will include a minimum of one full median break (which will align with existing and future driveways) with the possibility of a second limited median break to facilitate left- and U-turns. - A connecting road between the Dublin Boulevard extension and Scarlett Court will be built adjacent to the Alameda County Flood Control channel to facilitate travel to the west from Scarlett Court and reduce traffic at the Scarlett Court/Dublin Boulevard (extension) intersection. - The connecting road will be a public road. Existing private roads and access easements adjacent to the Alameda County Flood Control channel will need to be acquired from the seven affected properties. 2. Land Use - All property owners will be compensated for acquisition of their real estate at a fair market value. The Valley Boat and the Curtiss Dodge dealer will receive monetary assistance in the relocation of their businesses. - Single family residents also will receive relocation assistance. - The Doty Cadillac building could be relocated or rebuilt on- site; otherwise relocation assistance will be provided. 3. Non-Conforming Uses - Short-term (less than 4 hours) on-street parking will be designated on Scarlett Court to allow customers of Miracle Auto Painting to park on the street. - In addition, the Planning Director should investigate zoning regulation provisions which would provide conforming status to non-conforming land uses rendered so solely because of condemnation of property. 4. Sign - Freestanding sign at Miracle Auto Painting will be relocated on-site. CITY 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: 1) Open Public Hearing 2) Receive Staff presentation and public testimony 3) Question Staff and the public 4) Close Public Hearing and deliberate +i 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: 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 ITEM NO. (p.1"/ COPIES TO: Property Owners n 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 I-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 I-580, eastbound on I-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 COUNCIL ADOPT 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: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: 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: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director I W � _ illILA �I •'�l ,,y!�-ry1 J i 'AI 5 TAIN IXIBT AND Rl Qf�`A / ! - %4d,, a -8!' •; 7f?�-� { .3\�i '1 '1I i L�R�'+ .a. S� 1.tYi' t .•L..?,'..•4�`a`"?.7, a. c.X. RWHi-Of-WAY 1; 71 1 J /(1 :+t, � 1,_Iy L is \\.<.-.... „,I - .' A, - fPP1SPOSE OHT-OF•WA31,iE 2tl. •��60' TRAM ITI N FOR CURBFAC=� �r - ,'` . ... N� �.li — . — R — ' 2' MEDIAN EXISTING. .,; T N �1 f T, 1 ,1 rTRAFFIC`� '+ c , y M. +�.'_t,w rSIGNAU! .j 4 ^i = 1,isi T — �J i .:� .' �ti,.. �444�.'"'r I ,t: '*, A { • - . 700 TRANS" AND+ ' .. '.' ,i r •',� "" e�, "712 `; 1. .. •\. �.5-. 1.r � / -` �::. . -.-� '74 I.l,•r VISION .. y,-pF•W IEVISION - - -IL J .. „ F� { } i ZQ s c a.:�•' n ''R.._ r ' 1 1 `J M' • I I t 1 ,� - - _ - 'r f }� �., ry� =i ' Q %k�,y..fi M ' I • "' ^^^ • '� '4�, .I 4 .. 'iV I ' 1 s I tiL r_ , J{= PROPOSED PLAN LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY REVISION DUBLIN BLVD. 0 .^.:.,: -- PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY - EXISTING PLAN LINE,ii�„� — EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY ' 2 Ae PLOPOS RIGHT•OFT•INAY REVISION i� / - - X. `_yT r :v 4r,14 '14' ��f� °'. �'r pt / , A fl J -! 4 PROPOSED —q7 *1\ • RIGH-! t .�.••• �.Rk AW�' �hRO�. -_ _ -7WRETAIN EXISTIN CURBFACE AND ROHT"�W — �J -OF-WAYPOSED"Ciffl FACE AND PO D RIGHT oe EXISTING- 0 w•*� — — — — _ _ _. _ — — — —. — — — -- . _TRAFFIC �— ,.m ::F , ... at 40t T SICt, IA �711 N e. r - v � 2' T, TION P.W FOR STRIO s f s �r T 1 I AIN�CQyu�� p��R�?'�7 Q �`f• +c _z ..�' '1- rc1 - 300' TRANSITION CURBFACE AND 1 RIPING R�"1'• 4 '�_gIGY.SL' i, _1'1 t'"�5 Ii� f ! — _ ,, +. �� 7-".--arr' _ ti•_� t• hSu�{._'�Z..N+ r W `- _+ 1 i -''•�� PROPOSE RIGHT-O EVISION.. - ,;nli}�6 p`� ° 'f3.1•Ca - 1,�� .f••''✓ '°`i°``-+o F'.'. 1 . ° � ice► � � n�"' '�7r ! 4 , E:. r � .. ' - - - �.- +%�M I DUBLIN BLVD. DATES PREPARED FOR : SWE(MFOC PLAN STUDY YLSI� IT SCALE'n SANTINA & ENGINEERING SURVEYING CITY OF DUBLIN _ DESIGNED: I THOMPSON PLANNING CONSULTAN75 DM o UM o LVD. DRAWN: INC. 6500 DUBLIN BOULEVARD SUITE 101 CHECKED, - I'ROl ENGR: 1 2.39 NEW PHOTOBASE MAPS W ALIGNMENT 1040 Oak Grove Road. Concord. California 94518 (415) 827.3200, Telex 338563 Santina DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA 94568 DUBLIN F.B.: No. BY I DATE REVISIONS r�CTncn•rn+ ar o+T[ or r�*uGn. :TT . III. 1AUGUST ] , lot) CALIFORNIA $MEET OF SKETS JOB ND. N-1 I'sk I M A 2h� go -7-7 77, w 4- ;'A AIR ONG, "F IN 0 3- 1"11111WA-' DATE! JANUARY 1984 SCALE I"= 40' DESIGNED M.C.C. DRAWN: B.L.D. V.S. CHECKED PFS. PROJ. ENGR.; W.A. F B. I NO, I BY DATE REVISIONS 5® i;mumlm 444 "k h NO, Ff DUBLIN BLVD. PREPARED FOR: nSAN�NG TINA & ENGINEERSURVEY NG CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING 'I THOMPSONINC. CONSULTANTS 6500 DUBLIN BOULEVARD 1040 Oak Grove Road, Concord, California 94518 (415) 827-3200, Telex 338563 Santina SUITE 101 DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA 94568 SPECIFIC PLAN STUDY DUBLIN BLVD. P@ 0 SHEET 2 OF 5 SHEETS JOB NO. CD3102 -4 Ogg k K W, =7 ce �'77' --m :U 7 JL w1m, 2ff ASIAN,,, 771 v 1? 1 w-w M Ma FORM Wak- 4pgi ,ZEE 0- DUBLIN BLVD. t letn 4,1' ,777, M:T SRO Z­ 212L wn ggm-v 0I , %7 IN, If DATE! JANUARY 1984 SCALE: I"= 40' DESIGNED: M.C.C. DRAWN; B.L.D. V.S. CHECKED: RFS. PROJ, E DR.: W.A. F. B. t NO. BY DATE REVISIONS ItIg 'R —i- F V, V IN PREPARED FOR: GINEERING SANTINA & EN SURVEY;NG CITY OF DUBLIN PLANN NG THOMPSONINC. CONSULTANTS 6500 DUBLIN BOULEVARD 1040 Oak Grove Road, Concord, California 94518 (415) 827-3200, Telex 338563Santina SUITE 101 DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA 94568 SPECIFIC PLAN STUDY DUBLIN BLVD. SHEET 3 F 5 SHEETS JOB NO. CD3102 • • CITY OF1D.UBLIt I PA Ne., • ENVIRONMENTAL' ASSESSMENT FORM, (N-IE2ll. (Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et sec.) • Based on the project information submitted in Section 1 General Data, the Planning Staff will use Section 3, Initial Study, to determine whether a Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report is required. SECTION 3. INITIAL STUDY - - - to be completed by the PLANNING STAFF Name of Project or Applicant: DUBLIN BOULEVARD REVISED PLAN LINE (Donlon Way to Amador Plaza Road) A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING- Description of project site before the project, including information on: topography; soil stability; plants and animals;historical, cultural, and scenic aspects; existing structures;and use of structures • Description of surrounding properties, including information on: plants and animals; historical, cultural, and scenic aspects; type and intensity of land use; and scale or development. Surrounding properties are retail selp' rpstaurants., zac station, and other similar uses. B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS-Factual explanations of all answers except"no" are re-. quired on attached sheets. caliPONN-T Sta''AC IS SCALE OF L ACT NO COALIF IED YES UNKNCCNN NO 1 to II 1 t5 1.0 WATER 1.1 Hydrologic Balance Will conetruction of the project alter the hydro- logic bolance7 I� 1.2 Ground Wafer Will the project ofrcet the quality or gvantiry of y 1 ground water supplies? ^ 11 1.1 Depth to Water Table Will the rate of ter withdrawal change the depth 1 or grodient of tha soarer fable? 4 1.4 Drainage and Channel Farm Will construction impede the natural drainage pattern or cause elterorion of stream channel form? I\ 1.5 Sedimentation Will construction in a result inmajor sediment i Inoue into adjacent...o'er obodies7 ,..._- 1.6 Flooding Will there be risk of lots of life or property due v to Hoed:no? /� ATI AcgrrilT A-5 AN E T IMPACTS SCALIOF IMPACT . NO QUALIFIED YES UISQdCWN NO f t . 1 p 1 10 a1 1aIF • oljlo � • 1a15 1'' I• 1.7 Water Quality Does drinking water supply fail to meet state and - I f federal standards? X 1 Will sewage be fnodeguaroly a<eommodared and �/ 1 • treated? �M1 1 Will receiving waters foil to went local,shore and • federal standards? Will ground water suffer eontaminotlon by suffuse • seepo;s,intrusion of volt or polluted water from • adjacent water bodies or from another coot.,-rimmed • • aquifer? __ - • • 2.0 AIR 2.1 Air Pollution. Will there be generation and dispanior of pollutants by project related activities or in pro r.ire 0..t::e project which vrill exceed state nr m:N:na o X • quality standards? 2.2 Wind Alteration Will structure and termfnrimpedo prescilire.wind flow coning channeling along certain torrid on or 1 • obstruction of wind movements? ^ 1 3.0 EARTH - 3.1 Slope Stability Are there potential dangers related to slope failures? x ' 3.2 Foundation Support Will there be risk to life or property'n-ou:e of `I excessive defornmHon of materials? a • • 3.3 Consolidation Will there be risk to life or property beconse of `I excessive consolidation of foundati,r emte•fals? ]( 3.4 Subsidence Is there risk of major ground subsidence nssnc iated • with the project? 3.5 Seismic Activity Is there risk of damage or loss resulting from earth- `� quake activity? x 3.6 Liquefaction Will the project cause or be exposed to liqunfontion e/ of soils in slopes or under foondatiens? �c 3.7 Erodbility ' Will there be s bstanriol loss of soil s'-.-,to«.n- �/ eruct ion practices? t A 3.8 Peeneobiliy Will the permeability of ails ossodatrrl witF.the project present adeerm conditions,elat:ve tc de- 1 velopment of wells? . 3.9 Unique Pen totes Will any unique geological features be damaged - { • or destroyed by project activities? 3.10 Mineral Resources Are there geologic deposits of patenrinl on..erciol " • • value close to the project? • x 4.0 PLANTS AND ANIMALS • 4.1 Plant and Animal Species Are there rove or endangered species present? A Are there species pre.nnt which are po•sicalo,ly susceptible to impact from human activity? Is there vegetation present;the!ass of which will deny food or hobitot to important wildlife species? Are there nuisance species of plant or animals for which conditions will be improved by the project?4.2 Vegetative Community Types Are there any unusual populations of pinnts thou may `, be of scientific interest? a Are there vegetative community types which are particularly susceptible to impact from human ectiviy? Are there major trees or major vegetntie,Thor will -� ho edoersely offprted by the project? Are there vegetative community types t.rue s In of which will deny fend or hoSitar to it rm-rare wri!dlire species,or to a substantial numb,-of.'il,re,cn pal;'. — — 4.3 Diversity Is throe w6sraa;irl diversity in the rt..ml-�r..,r,n•w CO reflected in the number and type of n!.,at or nerr•,' species present or the thron-dimensinnel orrenq.m.-ni of plant species present? • I- A-6 COMPONENT IMPACTS SCALE OF IMPACT NO QUALIFIED YES UNic a,1N • • NO I I I I 1 I 1 E~ of I0I• 5.0 FACILITIES AND SERVICES 5.1 Educolional Facilities Will projected enrollments adversely affect the ex- 'sting or p-opened facilities in terms of spacing for all activities,Including classrooms,recreationalorea s (/ and staffing needs? Will the project impact the pryii/teacher ratio so J as to impede the learning process? Is the school located such that it presents a hardship for a portion of the enrollment in terms of travel time, distance,or safety hazards? X • 5.2 Commercial Facilities Will there be an inadequate supply of and access to commercial facilities for the project? 5.3 Liquid Waste Disposal Are provisions far,evage capacity inadequate fat _/ • the needs of the project without exceeding quality • stondards? Will the project be exposed to nuisances and odors or fated with wastewater treatment plonrs? x 5.4 Solid Waste Disposal Is there inadequate provision for disposal of solid • wastes generated by the project? IY`- 5.5 Water Supply Is there inadequate quantity or quality of water _I supply to meet the needs of the project? 5.6 Storm Water Drainage Will storm water drainage be inadequate to prevent downstream flooding and to meet Federal State and local standards? 5.7 Police Will the project's additional population,facilities, or other lectures generate anse in police,ervice+X or Bate a police hazard? "` 5.8 Fire Willr the project's additional population,facilities, or other feotures generate an increose in fire services or create a fire hazard? 5.9 Recreation Will the project have Inadequate facilities to meet A00'. • • the recreational needs of the residents? 5.10 Cultural Focilitie, Will cultural facilities be unovoiloble to the project tillk 6.0 TRANSPORTATION 6.1 Transportation Facilities Are the traffic demands on adjacent roads currently at or above capacity? If not,will the traffic gen- erated by the project cause the adjacent roads to • reach or exceed capacity? Are the other transportation facilities which serve the project Inadequate to accommodate the project's I - travel demands? 6.2'Circulation Conflicts Will design of rho project or conditions in the surround- ileg area increase occident,due to circulation conflicts?X 6.3 Road Safety and Design 'Will project residents and users be exposed to increased • accident risks dun to roadway and street design or lock X of traffic controls? 7.0 HEALTH • 7.1 Odors Will the project be exposed to or generate any intense v temporary odors? /� P Y 7.2 Crowding and Density Will the residents and users be exposed to crowding or X high density in their physical living environment? II 7.3 Nuisances Will the project be exposed to or generate factors that may be considered as nuisances? I I 7.4 Structural Safety Will design and proposed construction techniques foil • to meet state and local building codes? • 8.0 NOISE 8.1 Noise Levels Will the project be exposed to nr gencrote adverse v ,temporary noise levels? A 8.2 Vibrations Will the project be exposed to vihmtinns annoying to humor,? • L L A-7. • SIT IMPACTS b.ALE OF IMPACT NO QUALIFIED YES UNKNOWN NO I I I Ion • a I N I a F 9,0 COMMUNITY CHARACTER 9.1 Community Organization Will the project disrupt on existing set of orgoniznrions or groups within tIs.community? x f- f- 9.2 Homogeneity and Diversity Will the project change the character of rho community In terms of distribution or concentration of in me,ethnic,housing,or oge group? /� 9.3 Community Stability and Will the project be exposed to or generate on Physicol Conditions area of poor stability and physical conditions? • 10.0 VISUAL QUALITY 10.1 Views Will residents of the surrounding oreo be odversely �/ effected by views of or from the project? - �A` Will the project residents be adversely affected by x views or or from the surrounding moo? 10.2 Shadows Willmoo?the project be exposed to or generate excessive shadows? 11.0 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOUnCES 11.1 Historic and Cultural Will the project involve the destruction or alter- `y- Resources cation of a historic resource? /� f . Will the project result in isolation of o historic resource from its surrounding environment? 4 Will the project introduce physical,visual,audible or otrerr.pheric elements thnt ore eat in character with o historic resource or its setting? /\ 11.2 Archaeological Sites Will the project involve the destruction or alteration and Structures of on archaolo2icol resource? �[ Will the project result in isolation of on archaeological X _resource? Will the project introduce physicol,visual,audible or atmospheric elements thor ore not in character wills on archaeological resource no in setting? X 12.0 ENERGY 12.1 Energy Requirements Ara there potential problems with the supply of orgy required for the project? Will the energy requirements exceed the capacity P ' of the service utility company? 1- (- Will there be a net incroose in energy used for the > project compared to the no project alternative? 12.2 Conservation Me tor., Does the project plonning end design foil to include available energy conser,nrion measures? x 13.0 LAND USE • 13.1 Site Hozords Do conditions of the site,proposed site development, or unding o eon creole potentiolly hazardous situ- orions? 13.2 Physical Threor. Wil!the project or the surrounding area create a feeling • of insecurity and physicol threat among the residents X and users? 13.3 Sanitary Landfill Wil!the project be exposed to structural derange, noise, surface earl ground venter pollution er other nuisances o eJ whir a r.r o,y Ioedfiil? 13.4 Warerwoys Will time project affect on xisting waterway through filling,dredging,draining,culverring,vnste dis- charges,loss 'of visual quality or other lend use-------- prectices? A-8 COMPONENT YtePACIS SCAM OF IMPACT • NO QUALIFIED YES UNKNC N NO r 1 1 to al� la►H CD o1 1ot0 i1 15 Land Use Will the project involve the alteration of existing site improvements that would ad- versely affect the use of the property? Other En..r m(Comcon�n�r. i 1 { • C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE QUALIFIED NO NO YES UIScZEWN (1) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish cr wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods or California history Cr prehistory? X (2) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X (3) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulateively considerable? (A project • may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) (4) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human - beings, either directly or indirectly? A-9 • • D. MITIGATION MEASURES - Discussion of the ways to mitigate the significant effects identified, if any: • E. DETERMINATION - On the basis of this initial evaluation: Cer The City of Dubiih finds that there will not be any significant effect. The par- ticular characteristics of this project and the mitigation measures incorporated into the design of the project provide. the 'actual basis for the finding. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION !S R=QUIRED. I-1 The City of Dublin finds that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED** Signature and date:_- L mev : 7 ( Name and title: V(Zl`Nce To p tJtaG- Dcte,EcTc>r� • **NOTE: Where a project is revised in response to an Initial Study so iha` poLe-oial adverse effects are mitigated to a point where no significant environmental effects would occur, a revised Initial Study will he prepared and a Negative Declaration will be required i Ns`ead of an EIR. r t r .. -,--, 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 /'N CITY OF DUBLIN ^ Planning/Zoning 829-4916 P.O. Box 2340 Building & Safety 829-0822 Dublin, CA 94568 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: Revision of Plan Line for Dublin Boulevard between Donlon Way and Amador Plaza Road PROPONENT: City of Dublin DESCRIPTION: A proposal to revise the plan line of Dublin Boulevard to consider widening the road between Donlon Way and Amador Plaza Road. 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: 1) Landscaping 2) Parking MITIGATION MEASURES: New or replacement of landscaping; restriping of parking spaces. PREPARATION: This Negative Declaration was prepared by the City of Dublin Planning Staff, (415) 829-4916. SIGNATURE: DATE: Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director ment Services r CITY OF DUBLIN Development Planning;Zoning 829-4916 P.O. Box 2340 ilding & Safety 829-0822 Dublin, CA 94568 Engineering/PubIic Works 829-4927 DECLARATION OF POSTING - a _. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Agenda for the Dublin Planning Commission meeting of 4� � �f 19 "/ was posted at the Dublin Library, 7606 Amador Valley Boulevard, Dublin, California, on the 101 A` of .Z , 19C, by I 0) p.m. Executed this day of - ett.ef , 198 f; at Dublin, California. Laurence L. Tong Planning Commission Secretary by P anning Secretary MURRAY SCHOOL DISTRICT DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA APPLICATION FOR USE OF SCHOOL PREMISES 1. Name of Organization sz (�YSLLtGG�d tlJrel- p �Lc�e�C��z� 2. Representative's Name C4...cit'-G�tz CLGZ�i 3. Representative's Address 2U.'261"/ GCGf �r s,..�_ 4. Telephone: Business p ,-U,o Home 4i -rf 5. School Desired (f/.[.1,e.a..1 Fac i 1 i 4 724, 6. Date or Dates e�j. J(p / A Hours_ 7'fl)P fZi i ; ) 7. Day of Week ,„6,L 8. Number Expected: Children Adults#!✓ '7 Total ,JS 9. Check any of the following equipment which will be needed: Chairs (no) � Piano — Speaker' rostrum r table Oe'rj5111714Yr1 A.V. Equipment Use of Kitchen: ��/f�C«/Of• (Owii) 10. Describe decorations to be used: 11. Purpose of meeting or performance:gi,gy,,;I4X-1. 12. Is admission charged? /j Amount I have read the regulations affecting use of property (AR 1331) and agree to use the school premises in accordance with them. It is further agreed to indemnify and save the Murray School District harmless from any liability, loss,or damage caused by the negligence of the permittee, its agents, or employees during the term of this permit. Applicant: (Organization Representative) .6, e ;L1 41-..- a�/ e G 1 Signature ----Da e Permission for use of building is hereby granted in accordance with the provisions of the State law and the rules of the Board of Trustees, which are herewith made a part of this permit. Charges: None (provided//tPQm,is left clean and equipment replaced) If cleaning is necessary ;7per hour custodial charge will be charged. As itemized below: The above will not interf a with the sch of program. Custodian and other services have been arranged. rincipal of School Date Business Ma er Date 3/78 Development Services r CITY OF DUBLIN P .•. ;P1rnning,Zoning 829-4916 P.O. Box 2340 iilding & Safety 829-0822 Dublin, CA 94568 Engineering/PubIic Works 829-4927 DECLARATION OF POSTING - I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Agenda for the Dublin Planning Commission meeting of 2--A/j'/ 7 , 198 , was posted at the Dublin Library, 7606 Amador Valley Boulevard, Dublin, California, on the O/j`` of ge lei, , 198 by (cl e0 p.m. Executed this Z day of � 7/ � a ZC4 , 14, at Dublin, California. Laurence L. Tong Planning Commission Secretary by /;-11 r .eQ a z4 &-emu Planning Secretary