Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03-07-1988 . ~ ~ , . ~ ~ Regular Meeting - March 7, 1988 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on March 7, 1988, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Cm. Barnes, Chairperson. ~ ~ ~ ~ ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack, Tempel, and Zika, Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director, Rod Barger, Senior Planner. ~ ~ ~ ~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Barnes led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ~~~~c ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None. ~ ~ ~e ~ MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the meeting of February 16, 1988, were approved as presented. ~ ~ ~ ~ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ~ ~ * ~ WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Tong advised that the Commissioners had received 3 action letters and information regarding the Planning Institute. Regular Meeting PCM-8-32 March 7, 1988 . ~ . * ~ ~ ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: 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. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Barger stated 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 now being illegally stored on the site. On September 16, 1983, the Planning Commission gave Scotsman Manufacturing 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. Mr. Barger stated that the M-1 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. 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. 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 Regular Meeting PCM-8-33 March 7, 1988 ~ • w 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. 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 with five parking spaces being proposed. An additional two parking spaces will be required to be located in the existing parking area. Mr. Barger further stated 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 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 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. 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. Mr. Barger stated that Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolutions: Approving the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review. Regular Meeting PCM-8-34 March 7, 1988 ~ s • Cm. Zika asked if Scotsman had been operating for 18 months without a permit. Mr. Barger stated that yes, that the modular offices were stored there. Cm. Zika questioned the procedure regarding follow-up on use permit expirations so the don't exceed their time limit. Mr. Barger stated that activity had stopped on the the site and then storage increased. Mr. Barger further stated the Zoning Investigator notifies the Applicant prior to the use permit expiration date. Roger Coupe, 2154 6th Street, Livermore, stated he was in agreement with all conditions, with the exception of Condition #27 which he wished to modify so that landscaping would coincide with road dedication. He also verified in Condition #11 the finish floor elevation of the buildings shall be a minimum elevation of 330, not 320. Cm. Mack questioned if acceptance would risk satisfying Staff with regards to architecture. Mr. Coupe stated yes, but he will present new details to Staff's satisfaction. Bud Gennoy stated that someone had put some trailers in the back area, but that storage of modulars will not be on the parcel. Cm. Zika stated he was concerned with the time frame and as to how it would be worded with regards to completion. Mr. Barger stated that Staff would recommend 6 months after the dedication is accepted the wall should be complete. There being no further comments, Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Burnham, seconded by Cm. Zika and by a vote of 5-0 a Resolution was adopted recommending that the Planning Commission approve the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for PA 87-164 Scotsman Manufacturing Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review. RESOLUTION N0. 88 - 008 ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING PA 87-164 SCOTSMAN MANUFACTURING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUESTS On motion by Cm. Mack, with change to Condition #11 from 320 to 330 and Condition #27 to reflect completion date of no later than 6 months from acceptance of the road dedication, seconded by Cm. Tempel and by a vote of 5-0 a Resolution was adopted recommending that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for PA 87-164 Scotsman Manufacturing. RESOLUTION N0. 88 - 009 APPROVING PA 87-164 SCOTSMAN MANUFACTURING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST 6085 SCARLETT COURT Regular Meeting PCM-8-35 March 7, 1988 . ~ ~ *~c*~ SUBJECT: PA 88-003 Villa~es 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. I Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Barger stated 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. Mr. Barger provided a description of the nine (9) directional tract signs and indicated where each does not comply with the sign regulations. At site A-1 the Freestanding single face sign has 32 square feet of copy. It is ll 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. At site A-2 the Freestanding single face sign has 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. At site B-1 the Freestanding double face sign has 24 square feet 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. At site B-2 the Freestanding double face sign has 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. At site B-3 the Freestanding double face sign has 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. At site B-4 the Freestanding double face sign has 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. At site D-1 the Freestanding double face sign has 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- Regular Meeting PCM-8-36 March 7, 1988 . • ~ 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"). At site D-2 the Freestanding double face sign has 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. At site D-3 the Freestanding double face sign has 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. Mr. Barger further stated for new development projects it is typical for the City to allow (through the Conditional Use Permit procedure) two 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 footage limitation of 32 square feet is enforced. When an application is submitted and it is in conformance with the above regulations 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 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. 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. Mr. Barger stated there are a number of non-conformities associated with the proposed sign program. Some 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. Mr. Barger expressed that prior to granting a Variance, three mandatory findings must be made, based on facts presented in the record. These include 1) in order to grant a Variance there must be some characteristic pertaining to the property that makes compliance with zoning provisions either impossible or irnpractable. (Staff's review of the sites finds that there are no special circumstances relating to the physical characteristics of the property. The Regular Meeting PCM-8-37 March 7, 1988 - • i 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 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). 3) that 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). Mr. Barger stated that 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. 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. Cm. Burnham asked why information regarding the pro~ect could not be placed on the sound wall instead of using signs. Mr. Barger stated that the signage should be considered through the sign regulations. Cm. Tempel asked if the applicant were aware of the provisions of the sign ordinance. Mr. Barger stated he believed so, but the applicant was present and could respond. Ron Nahas, Willow Creek Developer, stated he thought a revised plot plan had been submitted, that he had not been notified regarding the Staff report information and felt he had been very sorely treated. He stated he felt that his particular development was unique in nature and felt that the sign ordinance did not address a master plan type of community such as the Willow Creek project. Cm. Burnham asked if some of the signs could be mounted on the exterior sound wall. Mr. Nahas stated he did not want to use the wall for signage. Shirley Corallo, Valley Boat House, stated she would not object to the signs, as a business person, because they were temporary. Cm. Mack asked how temporary the signs were. Mr. Barger stated that until all the units or models were sold, approximately 1 to 2 years. Regular Meeting PCM-8-38 March 7, 1988 ~ • • Mr. Tong stated that the materials presented were the lastest submitted. Cm. Zika was concerned with the off-site signs especially those located in the park. Mr. Nahas asked for guidance frora the Planning Commission and Staff as to what type of signage they would like to see for the project. Mr. Tong stated that the ordinance relating to directional tract signs were more flexable for on-site signs and that a pro~ect of this size needs a nicely designed sign program. He stated that Staff recommendation would be toward consolidation of signs. Cm. Zika felt that the 17' signs were awsome. Mr. Nahas stated that the location of the wall made it necessary to put the signs behind the wall and therefore the 17' height was necessary. Mr. Tong stated that there were visibility problems for motorists when the signs were located on the exterior side of the wall. Mr. Tong also suggested that the Planning Commission continue this item to give Staff a chance to meet with the Developer regarding the signage. Cm. Barnes stated she would not like to see the signs mounted on the wall but would like to see the signs shorter and smaller. Cm. Mack agreed with Cm. Barnes with regard to the sizes of the signs and off-site vs. on-site. Cm. Tempel stated he would like to see the number of signs minimized, but had no direction with regard to height. On motion by Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a vote of 5-0 Cm. Barnes continued the public hearing to the next meeting. A short recess was called. Cm. Barnes called the meeting back to order at 8:25 p.m. SUBJECT: Dublin Boulevard Extension P1an 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. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Tong gave a brief introduction with some background information which stated that 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. Regular Meeting PCM-8-39 March 7, 1988 ~ ~ • ! 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. Mr. Tong also stated that 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. Mr. Lee Thompson, City Engineer, continued with details regarding impacts. Mr. Thompson stated that several traffic and land use issues were identified with this project. The project has been designed to incorporate features which will mitigate adverse impacts. One issue is traffic: Dublin Boulevard extension will eliminate left turns into and out of Scarlett Court near the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection. The Scarlett Court/Dublin Boulevard intersection would be too close to Dougherty Road to allow stacking of vehicles between intersections. 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. Mr. Thompson stated that another issue was 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. Property owners will receive fair market value for the property needed for the full right-of-way width. 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 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. Mr. Thompson further stated the Miracle Auto Painting property will have six parking spaces eliminated. 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. Mr. Thompson stated that there were the following alternatives; 1) 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. The building at the Valley Boat House would need to be eliminated. Mr. Thompson stated that three main alignments were considered for the areas east of the Dougherty Road intersection; A) the entire right-of-way north of the east-west property lines; B) entire right-of-way south of the east-west property lines; C) 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. Regular Meeting PCM-8-40 March 7, 1988 ' • ~ Mr. Thompson stated that option "A" would have the fewest impacts to existing business; option "B" would require 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. With regard to the alignment of a connecting street between Dublin Boulevard extension and Scarlett Court Mr. Thompson stated this would be necessary to improve circulation in the project area, as the close proximity of the Scarlet 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. Mr. Thompson stated that timing of the improvement of Dublin Boulevard extension may be dependent upon demand from development of the extended planning areas 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. Mr. Thompson stated that preliminary estimated costs to acquire property, relocate businesses and residents, design improvements and construct the roadway would be about $8,200,000. These costs represent approximateley $6.8 million for the Dublin Boulevard extension and $1.4 million for the connecting road between Scarlett court and Dublin Boulevard. Cm. Burnham asked if the City would purchase all of the Valley Boat House business site. Mr. Thompson stated that State law required the City to give fair market value and help relocate at a new site. Cm. Burnham inquired about the Dodge dealership site. Mr. Thompson stated the City may help rebuild. Cm. Barnes inquired about the railroad right-of-way Mr. Tong reviewed the uncertain status of the Contra Costa County light rail study. Mr. Tong stated the further extension from Southern Pacific to Tassajara Road will be included in the East Dublin project. John Moore, 329 Cameron Circle, San Ramon, (Bridgepoint Properties) partner of Art Bridges, stated that he supported Staff's approach to the Dublin Boulevard extension. He also mentioned he was agreeable with working with Staff to plan around access of roadway. John Corallo, 6499 Scarlett Court, Valley Boat House, stated he has changed his approach to loosing his business site, recognizes the benefit to the community and expressed support of the project. He is willing to participate in an assessment district but would like to get on with the project. Regular Meeting PCM-8-41 March 7, 1988 . • ~ Shirley Corallo, 6499 Scarlett Court, Valley Boathouse, stated she would like to collectively work with the City and other property owners. She stated she has a 5 year plan with her bankers and would like to get on with the project. She suggested looking at the potential for making allowances for non- conforming uses such as Miracle Auto Painting. Cm. Burnham asked how long would it be before the project would be completed. Mr. Thompson said if an assessment district was formed approximately 1 year to 18 months, if not, 3-5 years approximately. There being no further comments, Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a vote of 5-0 a Resolution was adopted recommending that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance concerning Dublin Boulevard extension plan line. RESOLUTION N0. 88 - O10 RECOPIl~iENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING DUBLIN BOULEVARD ERTENSION PLAN LINE (DOUGHERTY ROAD TO SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT-OF-WAY) On motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Zika, and by a vote of 5-0 a Resolution was adopted recommending the City Council establish plan line for Dublin Boulevard extension from Dougherty Road to Southern Pacific Right-of-Way. RESOLUTION N0. 88-011 RECOZ~iENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISH PLAN LINE FOR DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION FROM DOUGHERTY ROAD TO SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT-OF-WAY On motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Tempel, and by a vote of 5-0 Staff was directed to prepare a Zoning Ordinance which would provide a conforming status to properties rendered non-conforming solely because of condemnation of property. ~~c~~ SUBJECT: 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. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Tong stated 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 volumns at peak hours. A revised plan line which would widen Dublin Boulevard and provide additional left and right turn lanes is proposed. Regular Meeting PCM-8-42 March 7, 1988 ' ~ ~ Mr. Thompson stated 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 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. The build-out figures include allowances for BART station traffic. Mr. Thompson stated the major differnce between the previous plan line and the revised plan line is the provision of double right-turn lanes on the eastbound approach of Dublin Boulevard to San Ramon Road and triple left-turn lanes on the westbound approach lanes of Dublin Boulevard to San Ramon Road. There would also be four westbound lanes on Dublin Boulevard at the westbound approach to Regional Street. 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, 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. On the south side of bublin 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 Steet 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 structures would have to be demolished. Mr. Thompson stated that although triple left-turn lanes are an unusual configuration, in order to assess the potential for triple left-turn lanes to operate satisfactorily the destination of vehicles currently executing the westbound to southbound left turn was observed. Destinations were fairly evenly split between westbound on I-580, eastbound on I-580, and southbound on Foothill Road into Pleasanton. It should therefore 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 signing would be necessary for the smooth operation of the triple left-turn lanes. Mr. Thompson continued by saying the revised plan line also includes two bus turnouts. One is located about 327 feet east of the centerline of Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive intersection on the south side of the street (in front of Crown Chevrolet). The other is located about 170 feet west of the centerline of the same intersection on the north side of the street (in front of Toys R Us). Regular Meeting PCM-8-43 March 7, 1988 _ - ~ ~ Mr. Thompson stated landscaping and parking impacts from the revised plan line will be minimal and the preliminary estimated costs for right-of-way acquisition, design and construction of the road widening is $1.7 million. Cm. Zika asked if the islands at San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard would be removed. Mr. Thompson stated that they would be removed. Cm. Tempel expressed concern with lack of expansion for Dublin Boulevard widening. Cm. Burnham asked why the bus turnouts had to be located at the sites suggested. Mr. Thompson stated that the existing bus transfer sites were located at these locations and they encouraged people to cross at a signaled intersection. Pat Costello, Crown Chevrolet express concern with the location of the bus turnout and the widening of Dublin Boulevard. He proposes to loose approximately 50-60 display spaces for cars and the buses will block display of cars. He is concerned with people waiting for the bus sitting on cars. He suggested moving the bus turnout to the east to the Orchard Shopping Center parking lot. Cm. Barnes stated she would like to see the bus turnout moved near the Orchard Shopping Center parking lot. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. Cm. Zika questioned whether it would create a problem moving the bus turnout to the Orchard Shopping Center instead of Crown Chevrolet. Michelle DeRobertis, TJKM, saw no major problem with moving the bus turnout site. Mr. Thompson stated a recommendation could be made to the City Council to change the location of the bus turnout. On motion by Cm. Burnham, seconded by Cm. Zika and by a vote of 5-0, a Resolution was adopted recommending that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance concerning Dublin Boulevard revised plan line. RESOLUTION N0. 88 - 012 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING DUBLIN BOULEVARD REVISED PLAN LINE (DONLON WAY TO AMADOR PLAZA ROAD) On motion by Gm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Mack, and by a vote of 5-0 with an amendment to consider moving the bus turnout 1 block west, a Resolution was adopted recommending the City Council establish plan line for Dublin Boulevard extension from Donlon Way to Amador Plaza Road. Regular Meeting PCM-8-44 March 7, 1988 . ~ ~ RESOLUTION N0. 88 - 013 RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISH PI.AN LINE FOR DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION FROM DONLON WAY TO AMADOR PLAZA ROAD * ~ ~ ~ NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Cm. Zika inquired about the slurry seal of Peppertree Road. Mr. Tong stated that Staff will try to include Peppertree Road in the annual slurry program. * ~ ~ ~ OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong advised the second reading of the Enea Planned Development Rezone and the Amador Auto Center sign appeal would be heard at the upcoming City Council meeting. ~ ~ ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Burnham questioned if the median in front of Oshman's Sporting Goods on Amador Valley Boulevard would be landscaped. Mr. Thompson stated that section of Amador Valley Boulevard was scheduled to be done when the signal intersection was done. Cm. Tempel was extremely concerned with the traffic related problems throughout the City. Cm. Barnes was concerned with the transformer on Dougherty Road. Mr. Thompson stated that the Army was actually starting with regard to the removal of the transformer, Cm. Zika was concerned with the number of requests for variance to the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Tong stated that the Applicant has a right to apply for a variance and that if the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission decisions are upheld, that would indicate that the Sign Ordinance is working. Cm. Barnes reminded those Commissioners that were attending the Planning Institute to meet at the designated time of 5:15 a.m. Regular Meeting PCM-8-45 March 7, 1988 ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.. ~ ~ * ~ Respectfully submitted, Planning ion Chairperson .t Laurence L. Tong Planning Director ~ ~ ~ ~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-46 March 7, 1988