Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
6.2NegDecDBWideningProj
CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT City Council Meeting Date: January 23, 1995 SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Negative Declaration for Dublin Boulevard Widening Project Report by: Public Works Director Lee Thompson EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1) 2) 3) 4) Notice of Public Hearing for 8/27/90 hearing Agenda statement from 8/27/90 hearing Public comments and response document Draft resolution 4A) FONSI (Finding of No Significant Impact) dated 9/5/91. 4B) Environmental Assessment RECOMMENDATION: 1) 3) 4) s) Open Public Hearing Receive Staff presentation and public testimony Question Staffand the public Close Public Hearing and deliberate Adopt Resolution (Exhibit 4) adopting Negative Declaration and Findings of De Minimis Impact on Wildlife for the Dublin Boulevard Widening Project and to ratify previous approval of the project.. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None associated with Environmental Assessment or Negative Declaration. DESCRIPTION: The Dublin Boulevard Capacity Improvements Project proposes several measures to increase the capacity of Dublin Boulevard, including such measures as restriping and road widening. The project has had public review and a public hearing on a proposed environmental document. Follow-up action on the proposed document did not occur as anticipated, however, so the current hearing is being held to formally adopt the environmental review documents for the project and to ratify previous approval of the project in light of this action. Background The details of the improvement project are more fully described in Exhibit 2, the Agenda Statement for the previous environmental review hearing, and Exhibit 4B, the Environmental Assessment. Because the project involved federal funding, it was subject to both NEPA and CEQA. CEQA and its Guidelines encourage joint preparation of environmental documents for such projects, so long as CEQA's substantive and procedural requirements are complied with. (See CEQA § 21083.7 and CEQA Guidelines §§ 15221 and 15226). Thus, an Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared and reviewed by the City, Caltrans, and Federal Highway Administration. (See Exhibit 4B.) The EA identified no significant or potentially significant impacts and thus would be the basis for a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) under NEPA, and a Negative Declaration under CEQA. The FHA issued its FONSI on September 5, 1991. (See Exhibit 4A.) Under the CEQA Guidelines, the City could then adopt the FONSI as a Negative Declaration. Although this was clearly the intent, as reflected in the Agenda Statement for the public hearing on the EA, the City inadvertently failed to formally adopt an environmental review document for the improve~nent project. Instead, project planning proceeded, and in June, 1993, the project was approved by the City Council for inclusion in the 1993-94 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The City now proposes formal adoption of a Negative Declaration and ratification of the previous project approval. ITEM NO. ~~iL_ Copiesto: iFIL~GIT¥ GLI:::I::IK I I l l°H l The requirements for a Negative Declaration are found in § 15070 et. seq. CEQA Guidelines. Each of those requirements is addressed in the following discussion. 1. No Evidence of a Significant Environmental Effect. Section 15070 states a Negative Declaration is appropriate where an initial study shows there is no substantial evidence of a significant environmental effect. The initial study for the project was performed through the Environmental Assessment. The Assessment identified no significant enviromnental impacts. The Public Works Department confirms that neither the project nor the environmental conditions on or around the project site have changed since the EA was prepared. Thus, a Negative Declaration may be adopted for the project. 2. Contents of Negative Declaration Section 15071 outlines the content requirements for a Negative Declaration. A Negative Declaration must include a brief project description, the location of the project, a specific finding of no significant impact, the initial study upon which the finding is based, and any mitigation measures to avoid significant impacts. The FONSI, including the related Environmental Assessment, contains all the information required for a Negative Declaration. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15220 et. seq., the City proposes to adopt the FONSI as the Negative Declaration for the project. The only mitigation measure identified in the EA is for Archaeological and Historic effects. However, these effects are not identified as significant; so no mitigations are required, nor are any special findings required. 3. Public Notice and Public Review. Sections 15072 and 15073 require a noticed public review period for a draft Negative Declaration. CEQA § 2109 l(b) requires at least a 3 O-day review period for documents, such as the EA, sent to the State Clearinghouse. A copy of the notice is attached as Exhibit 1. As reflected in the notice and also the Agenda Statement, the public review period lasted from July 27, 1990, to September 6, 1990. Although not required by statute, the City also held a public hearing to accept public comments on the environmental document on August 27, 1990. Because notice and public review were previously provided as required by CEQA, the environmental document need not be recirculated for the City to adopt it as a Negative Declaration. (See Guideline § 15225.) While the City need not repeat the public review period, it has nevertheless provided 10 days' notice of the current hearing because the public review period was some time ago. 4. Adoption of the Negative Declaration Section 15074 requires that the decision making body consider the Negative Declaration, including any comments received during the public review period, before it approves the project. Written comments were received from Harvey Levine of Howell, Hallgrimson, Wong, Miller, & Relyea (letters dated May 30 and August 24, 1990) and Bob Bronstein of Bedford Properties (letter dated September 5, 1990). In addition, oral comments were made at the public hearing by Shawn Costello, a residenl: of Dublin. The EA was revised somewhat to address Mr. Levine's comments. In addition, a response document was prepared which addressed all of the comments. (See Exhibit 3). 5. De Minimis Finding for Wildlife Impacts Since the EA was prepared, the State Department ofFish and Game has begun collecting environmental review fees. Ifa project has no potential for wildlife impacts, the decision maker makes a de minimis finding and no fee is required. (See 14 Cal. Code of Regulations § 753.5(a)(3).) As the EA reflects, the project site is a developed urban area; there is no potential for adverse impact either on wildlife or wildlife habitat. (See Ibid. § 753.5(c).) Furthermore, the developed nature of the project area precludes any of the conditions leading to a presumption of adverse effect per 14 Cal. Code of Regulations § .753.5(d), thus the de minimis finding is appropriate. Related findings are included in a draft resolution for adoption of the Negative Declaration. Page 2 Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing, deliberate, and approve the resolution (Exhibit 4) adopting the FONSI and Environmental Assessment as the Negative Declaration for the Dublin Boulevard Capacity Improvements Project and adopts De Minirnis Impact Findings. Staff also recommends that the City Council ratify its previous approval of the project to clarify the approval will not cause significant environmental effects. This ratification is also provided for in the resolution. a: (1994- 95) )'anuary\ag stngdc Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. '~.-95 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI~ OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND FINDINGS OF DE MINIMIS IMPACT ON WILDLIFE FOR THE DUBLIN BOULEVARD CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND TO RATIFY PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT Recitals 1. The City has long planned improvements to increase the capacity of Dublin Boulevard west ofi-680. The project is subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Because funding for the project will be provided by the Federal Highway Administration, the project is also subject to the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). 2. To meet the environmental review requirements of CEQA and NEPA, a joint Environmental Assessment was prepared by the City, Cattrans, and the FHWA (Exhibit B). The Environmental Assessment did not identify any significant environmental impacts. 3. As required by CEQA, the Environmental Assessment was noticed and available for public review from July 27, 1990,. to September 6, 1990. Although not required, a public hearing to receive comments on the Environmental Assessment was held on August 27, 1990. 4. As required by CEQA § 21082.1, the Enviromnental; Assessment circulated for review reflected the independent judgment of the City as to the potential environmental effects of the project. 5. Following the public review and comment period, the FHWA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) based on the Environmental Assessment (Exhibit A). 6. As encouraged in CEQA § 21083.7, and provided for in CEQA Guidelines §§ 15221 and 15225, the City may adopt the FONSI as a Negative Declaration for the project, subject to compliance with substantive and procedural requirements of CEQA. 7. The City Council has considered the Negative Declaration, including the FONSI statement from the FHWA, the related Environmental Assessment, and comments received during the public review period. 8. The City Council has also considered the impacts of the project on wildlife. Because the project area is already disturbed, consisting of paving and existing urban development and improvements, and considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence the project will have potential for adverse effects on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. The condition of the project area and other substantial evidence in the record does not support the presumption of adverse effect contained in 14 Cal. Code of Regulations § 753.5(d). Page 1 ~ , , ~'~'~-' ~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: A. The proposed Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of Dublin which hereby adopts the Negative Declaration. B. Based on the above findings relating to wildlife impacts, the City Council directs the Planning Director to complete a certificate of Fee Exemption per 14 Cal. Code of Regulations § 753.5(c)(2). C. After consideration of the Negative Declaration and comments received during the public review period, the City Council hereby ratifies its previous approval of the Dublin Boulevard Capacity Improvements Project. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of January, 1995. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk a: (9495)/january/resongdc Page 2 CORRECTED COPY THE NOTICE ORIGINALLY M3~TLmn ERRONEOUSLY REFERRED TO DOUGHERTY ROAD IN LINES 4 AND 5. THE ~DRDS "DOUGHERTY ROAD" HAVE DA-~N CHANGED TO READ "DU~LIN BOULEVARD." CITY OF DUBLIN NOTICE OF pUBLIC HEARIN~ TO CONSIDER THE LOCATION AND DESIGN FEATURE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED WIDENING OF: DUBLIN BOULEVARD BETWEEN DONLON WAY AND VILLAGE PARKWAY Council chambers · Dublin Civic Center Dublin, CA 94568 ~N: August 27, .1990, aG 7:30 p.m. Notice is hereby given that the city of Dublin will conduct a public hearing to discuss the proposed location, right-of-way and major design features and social, economic, environmental, and other effects of the proposed widening and improvement of Dublin Blvd. The project, consists of adding one travel lane in each direction of Dublin Boulevard (the total number of lanes will increase from four lanes to six lanes); providing double right- ·turn lanes on the eastbound approach of Dublin Boulevard to San Ramon Road, triple left-turn lanes on the westbound approach lanes Dublin Boulevard, eastbound to Regional Street and attendant of ' t signalization improvements. The pro]sc limits are from Donlon Wa~_ to village Parkway in the City of Dublin for a total length of 0.8 miles. The purpose of the hearing is to provide local government officials, civic groups and all interested persons an opportunity to become fully acquainted wiSh the proposed project; and to obtain their input to insure that the transportation decisions reflect and Stats, and city goals and objectives. are consistent with Federal, ...... satin is being held prior to making any commitment' =o =ne The h g - - -. ..... --~ ~- finalized until the a ...... ~ ...... ~ ~-s been analyzed including data gat~?re~ ~t P ads its decision regarding the hearing. After the city has m ...... ~_~_..~ ~hwav ~d~nistration for reimbursement under un= ~ .... Highway Program. Detailed maps, drawings, the environmental document (Environmental Assessment), and other pertinent information received and/or developed by the City will be available for inspection and copying beginning JUlP 27, 1990 at tile following location: city of Dublin Offices 100 civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 (415) 833-6630 Written and oral statements from any ~nterested person or group regarding the proposed improvements will be received at the hearing for entry into the hearing record. ~nc[us~n ~%o ~e hearing record, statemen=s shoed Mr. ~e ~peon, Ci=y Eng~eer P.O. Box 2340 ~lin, ~ 94568 CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA $ TATEHENT City Council Meeting Date: August 27, 1990 SUI~JECT: EXHIBITS ATTACHED: .RE~ION: FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Public Rearing: Dublin Boulevard Capacity Improvements (Donlon Way to 300' East of Village Parkway) Environmental Assessment Report by Les Thompson, Public Works Director 1) Letter from Rarvey Levine dated 5/30/89 with attachments 2) Dublin Boulevard Capacity Improvements Environmental Assessment 1) Open public hearing 2) Receive Staff prsssntarlon and public comment 3) Receive public comments 4) Close public hearing 5) No City Council action is required at this time; however, the hearing record will remain open for written comment for an additional ten days. Total funds budgeted in the Five Year Capital Improvement Program for this project: $1,410,500 These costs are proposed to be partially off, et by devmloper contrtbution~, and the City has been allotted $500,000 in Federal Aid Urban funds. Of the developer contributions, $179,§93 has been received to date, and the BART Dublin Extension requires a contribution to this project. The contribution is intended a~ a mitigation measure to the development of a West Dublin station. DESCRIPTION: -- Thi~ hearing is being held to take public ts~timony on the environmental assessment for the Dublin Boulevard Capacity Improvements from Donlon Way to 300 feet east of Village Parkway, The project will restripe much of Dublin Boul.vard from four lanes with parking to six lanes without parking. It will also add left and right turn lanes at critical intersections to increase vehicular capacity of the road. The hearing is a forum for public discussion of the major features, including social, economic, end environmental effects. Written statements may be submitted to the Gizy for a period of ten days following the hearing. This hearing is being held prior to making a commitment to the alternative~ presented. The report presents two options: to construct the project, or not to construct the project. No studies or plans will be finalized until the complete public record has been analyzed, including data gathered at thi? bearing and received in response to the draft Environmental Assessment. During the environmental review process, a Notice of Opportunity for Public Hearing was circulated to property o~ners within 300 fe.t of the proposed project. Mr. Harvey Levine. representing Crown Chevrolet, requested that a public hearing be held and that revisions be made to the Environmental Assessment per his letter of July 31, 1989. A number of these revisions were made; however, Staff felt that some of the requests were not appropriate, and the request for public hearing was not withdrawn. Subsequent to this hearing, and prior to requesting approval of the project, all data gathered at the hearing or submitted for the record will bs available for inspection and copying at the City offices. ITEM NO.~_~ COPIES TO: Kyrsten Burr, Santina & Thompson Harvey E. Levine, Esq. Property O~ner Mailing List The Uity has been allotted $500,000 in Federal Aid Urban funds for this project from the Tri-Valley Urbanized Area. Federal Aid Urban monies come from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and are authorized through the Federal Highway Act. Because federal monies are be involved, the environmental review of this project must comply with both Federal (NEPA) and State (CEQA) guidelines. An Environmental Assessment i~ used to determine if a full-scale Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required, or if a Finding of No Significanu Impact (FON$I) csn be l~sued. The Environmental Assessment and FONSI meat the requirements of a CEQA Negative Declaration. At this point in time, the Stats has reviewed the Enviro~mental Assessment and returned it to the Glty for circulation and public comment. Afzer the close of the public hearing period (September 6, 1990), the public comments will be addressed and necessary modifications to the Environmental Assessment will be made and sent to Caltrans and the FHUA for review, After final approval of the Environmental Assessment from the F}{UA, the Glty Council will be presented with a report providing for the adoption of the appropriate e~viro~mental document (Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report). This project will implement some of those improvements identified in the Dublin Boulevard Traffic Study, which was approved by the City Council in the 1983-84 Fiscal Year and was amended in 1987-88 in the plan line adoption update. Th. se improvements include development of Dublin Boulevard to a slx- lane street between San Ramon Road and Village Parkway. Additional right-turn lanes will be provided as needed, and a third westbound left-turn lena will be added at San Ramon Road. Right-of-way lines for the improvements betw.en Donlon Way and Amador Plaza Road were adopted by the City Gouncil on June 27, 1988. Right-of-way acquisition will be required at the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and ~lllage Parkway, at the Crown Chevrolet mite, and from midblock between Gate Drive and Regional Street, westward to Donlon Way (see Figure 6 of the Environmental Assessment}~ unless dedication is required pursuant t~ the City Ordinance requtrin§ dedication when development occurs. This scqutaitf~n is proposed to take place durin~ the 1990-91 ?iscal Year, with construction to follow in the 1991-92 Fiscal Year. Acquisition by eminent domain cannot occur unless a resolution of necessity is adopted by the City Council. This would be considered as a separate item at a future Gity Gouncil meeting, At present, Dublin Boulevard lacks adequate capacity to meet projected future traffic levels. Particularly with construction of the proposed West Dublin BART station, the four Dublin Boulevard intersections nearest the station would be at or near unacceptable traffic levels of service (LOS). The Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road intersection, which is already operating at capacity, would worsen due to traffic from the western hills orienting itself toward the BA/{T station rather than the 1-580 or 1-680 freeways. An alternate design was reviewed and rejected durin~ the 1987-88 Plan Line adoption. This alternate would have left most of the existing medians in=act but would have required much more ri§hi-of-way, r.sultin~ in disruption to the adJoinin~ properties. The only alternative which was considered for tha project in this Environmental Assessment wa~ the "no project" scenario, which would result in congestion along Dublin Boulevard with unacceptable levels cf service ac four of the five "downtown" intersections, In addition, the "no project" alternative would result in lower air qualiuy due to an increase in idlin~ vehicles and lack of effective access to downtown commercial areas, which could adversely affect the economic viability of the businesses. Following is a brief outline of ~h~ environmental evaluation and mitigation measures. These issues are discussed in more detail in the Environmental As~es~t~ent document. ENERGY: The project would result in a beneficial impact on the uss of non- renewable natural resources in that increasing the efficiency of the existin§ roadway would decrease the idle time for vehicles stopped at intersections and thus decrease the use of fuel. No midi§atica is required. -2- A~R QUALm'Pi: 'this project conform.s to the State Implementation ?lan vith relation to transports:ion control measures, It is, in ~ar~. a mitigation for the increased traffic dra~ to the proposed dow~tow~ BART station. The BART service will reduce vehicle trips on the freeway and thus reduce air pollution. No mitigation is required. NOISE: A temporary increase in noise, levels due to construction is anticipated. /'he project is within a co.=,erolal area with no sensitive receptors; therefore, a federal noise study was not required. Construction hours would be limited to 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and cens~ruc:ion equipment would be appropriately muffled. SOCIAL ~/~D ECONOMIC: The project limits are within the Central Business District of the City of Dublin, which serves a major role as a regional retail center. Over the next fifteen years, the population of the City of Dublin is anticipated to increase from approximately 25,000 to a0,000 residents. One portion of this project repuires the acquisition of an strip of land, or a total of about 3,200 square feet, in front of the Crow~ Chevrolet automobile dealership. The first five feat of this land currently used as a landscape strip, and the remaining three feet Is paved as part of the vehicle display area. The 3,200 square foot reduction is about [.5% of the entire parcel (216,000! square foot parcel) or about S% of the frontage display area. The reduction will be noticeable to the dealership; however, it will not displace the business. With appropriate compensation for acquisition of the property, ~he loss of 3,ZO0 square feet of property is not considered significant. The number of "los~ vehicle display spaces" would depend on tho size of the vehicles being displayed and the configuration chosen to display them and would range from 0 to 35 spaces. A narrower new landscape strip would lessen the impact. The Dew. town Dublin Specific Plan calls for retention of the existing automobile daalarship~ on an interim basis, recognizing that as land values increase in the downtown area, it will be more economical for the dealerships to sell their land and relocate. Implementation of thi~ project will carry out the recommendations of the City of Dublin's Downtown Improvement Plan Traffic and Parking Cons~raints study to provide additional capacity in the Central Business District. The lack of capacity improvements may affect the economic development of the Central Business District and adversely affect emplo)~ent, industry, end Miti~ation: Just comp.nsation for all ri§h~-of-way acquired will be paid, TP~ANSPORTATION: The proposed project will not al~er the present circulation pa=tern and will not adversely affect public utilities or public services. The increased capacity of the roadway and intersections will enhance public services to the area. Right-of-way acquisitions are minimal and involve only landscape and private parking areas. Two parking spaces on private property will bo lost near Golden Gate Drive and another two near Village Parkway. Ali on-street parking (approximately 115 spaces) will be eliminated from Dublin Boulevard in the project ares. There is presently iow usage of on-street parking, Current on-street parked vehicls~ will be displaced to cross-streets or off-street parking spaces. There is a large supply of downtown parking, both on- and off-street so that the loss of 115 spaces will ba absorbed easily. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC: There are no historic structures within the Area of Potential Effect, and no previously recorded prehistoric or archaeological sites have been found within the project area. Previous Dublin Boulevard projects during the 1960's disturbed or paved over some geographical features that were typical of prehistoric archaeological sites, Mitigation: Should buried archaeological materials be uncovered during excavation or conegruction~ a qualified archasolo~ist should be retained to evaluate the finds and make recommendations. IMPACTS DUE TO RIGHT-OF-WAY NEEDS: Impacts due to right-of-way acquisitions are minimal. No structures will be demolished or moved, The future right- of-way is currently used for private parking and landscaping. Where removal of existing landscaping and street trees occurs, new trees wtl~ be Flanged · 1:I ratio in the adjacent planting strip. Following remeval ef -3- parking spaces on private property, the private parking lots can be restriped for angled or parallel parking to replace the maximum spaces possible. The nec lone of parking spaces is not significant. All needed right-of-way will be acquired at fair market value which is based, among other things, on the existing use of the land. Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing for the purpose of gathering commen~s ~o be addressed and forwarded to the Sta~s for review. The hearing period is to remain open for ten days, during which time written comments may be submitt.d tO the.City. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE DUBLIN BOULEVARD CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS LIST OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ao B. C. D. Letter from Harvey E. Levine, Howell & Hallgrimson, May 30, 1990. Letter from Harvey E. Levine, Hallgrimson, Wong, Miller & Relyea, August 24, 1990. Minutes from the Public Hearing before the Dublin City Council, August 27, 1990. Letter from Bob Bronstein, Bedford Properties, September 5, 1990. II. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS A. Letter from Harvey E. Levine, Howell & Hallgrimson, May 30, 1990. COMMENT 1: Add the underlined language: P. 12, S.7.4 ~and Use. The existing land use is commercial office, retail use, includin~ an auto dealership .... P. 21. Settinq. Land Use - Existing land use adjacent to the project is predominantly commercial office and retail, including a car dealership. RESPONSE 1: Since an auto dealership is a type of retail use, it is not necessary list it separately. COMMENT 2: P. 15, #31 Yes * #37 Yes * P. 22 Impacts The project is also consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan's general goal to maintain downtown Dublin as a strong regional retail center, but is inconsistent with the Specific Plan's policy to encouraqe continued car uses in the Specific Plan area. The project will have a significant impact on the Crown Chevrolet site ~ue to its reduction of car display area. The Crown Chevrolet site is also affected due to the adoption of the plan line for the Dublin Boulevard parallel road at the southern end of the property, blockinq expansion to the south into a vacant area owned by the car dealer. The foot take for the proposed widening and the take for the future parallel street will shrink the site and prevent expansion to the south to compensate for the loss in the future. Therefore, the impact on the Crown site is cumulative. The approximate loss of car display spaces is 30 to 35. Further implementation of this project ... Improvements to Dublin Boulevard will not cause any displacement of entire businesses, but will effect the Crown Chevrolet site adversely RESPONSE 2: The proposed widening of Dublin Boulevard is consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan. The widening project is discussed in the plan and it calls for the retention of the existing automobile dealerships on an interim basis, recognizing that as land values increase in the downtown area it will be more economical for the dealerships to sell their land and relocate. Since the widening project will not cause the Crown Chevrolet automobile dealership to be displaced, it is consistent with that policy. Conversely, the lack of capacity improvements could affect the development of the CBD and adversely affect employment, industry and commerce. There is no cumulative impact upon Crown Chevrolet because 1) the parallel road is proposed on a completely separate parcel adjacent to Crown Chevrolet and 2) the city will be implementing the following mitigation measures on the Crown Chevrolet parcel as part of the parallel road project (source: Negative Declaration for adoption of right-of-way line for parallel road south of Dublin Boulevard, July 8, 1988): relocate the existing driveway on Golden Gate northerly approximately 100 feet; b) install a new driveway at a location which will align with the main access aisle for Crown Chevrolet; and c) install a gate at the new driveway. One portion of the widening of Dublin Boulevard project requires the acquisition of an eight-foot- wide strip of land, or a total of about 3,200 feet, in front of the Crown Chevrolet automobile dealership. The first five feet of this land is currently used as a landscape strip, and the remaining three feet is paved as part of the vehicle display area. The 3,200 square foot reduction is about 1.5% of the entire parcel (216,000 square foot parcel) or about 5% of the frontage display area. With appropriate compensation for acquisition of the property, the loss of 1.5% of the property is not -2- considered significant. The number of lost vehicle display spaces would range from 0 to 35, depending on the size of the vehicles being displayed and the configuration chosen to display them. In addition, the loss of property values does not constitute an environmental impact. Thus, no additional mitigation measures are required. However, it should be noted that the city will work with the property owners to minimize the reduction in the number of vehicle display spaces and parking spaces (i.e., either the City would have the plans prepared or would pay for the preparation of the plans for the revised display parking layout). Also, a narrower landscape strip will be installed, where appropriate. For example, where display parking areas are impacted, it may be appropriate to reduce the width of the existing five-foot-wide landscaped area to three feet (thereby reducing the impact on the display area by two feet). The new sidewalk will have street trees which will help compensate for a reduction in the width of the landscaped area. COM/~ENT 3: p. 22 Mitiqation. N~-m~½~~-½~ ~eq~½~e~= The City will acquire the oroperty at fair market value and will pay severance damaces, if any, due to the impact of this oroject on loss of business display area. RESPONSE 3: The Environmental Assessment (P. 22, Mitigation) has been revised to read as follows: "Ail additional right-of-way will be acquired at fair market value. Market value will consider existing use of the land and any of the effects the loss of such land will have on the existing business." COMMENT 4: P. 23. Right-of-way takings are minimal and, with the exception of the Crown Chevrolet site, only affect landscaping and private parking areas. Two parking spaces on private property will be lost nea~-Go~en-Ga~e-D~¥e-an~-ano~he~-~w~-~e~ Village Parkway. Restriping of this parcel will possibly gain a parallel or diagonal space. The Crown Chevrolet site will loose approximately 30 to 35 display spaces after restriDinq has taken place. RESPONSE 4: The Environmental Assessment (P. 23) has been revised to read as follows: ,Right-of-way takings are minimal affecting landscaping, private parking areas and part of the vehicle display area for an auto dealership. Two -3- parking spaces on private property will be lost near Golden Gate Drive and another two near Village Parkway. Restriping the parking areas will possibly gain a parallel or diagonal space. As described above, the loss of vehicle display spaces can be minimized by working out a display configuration which optimizes the entire display area and by the reduction of new landscaped strip along the frontage to three feet (which result in a net loss of a three foot strip of paved display area ) . ~ COMMENT 5: P. 23. add before 9.6: Mitigation. Same as proposed for 9.4, above. RESPONSE 5: Refer to Response 2 above. COMMENT 6: P. 24. S.10. Impacts . . . The future right-of-way is currently used for private parking, and landscaping and car sales display area. In some areas, the proposed right-of-way eliminates existing parking space on private property and car sales display area. After road widening, these parking areas .... Where appropriate .... However, 30 to 35 car display spaces will be lost. The net loss of parking is not significant. Loss of car display area may be sicnificant unless mitigated. RESPONSE 6: The Environmental Assessment (PP. 24 & 25, S. 10) has been revised to read as follows: ,'Impacts due to the taking of right-of-way in order to increase substandard lane widths (10-12 feet) are minimal. No structures will be demolished or moved. The future right-of-way is currently used for private parking, landscaping and automobile display area for a car dealership." "In some areas, the proposed right-of-way eliminates existing parking spaces and vehicle display area on private property. After road widening, these areas will be restriped for angled or parallel parking to replace the maximum spaces possible. Where appropriate, spaces may be designated for compact cars only. The new landscape strip in front of the automobile dealership can be -4- limited to three feet to provide for minimal reduction of display area." "The net loss of parking spaces is not significant. The Dublin Downtown Specific Plan, adopted by the city Council on July 21, 1987, revised the parking standards for downtown development. Recent studies revealed that past standards had resulted in an oversupply of parking within the Central Business District." COMMENT 7: P. 24. Mitigation. No-m~gae~om ~eq~½~e~. The City will acquire the needed rightr. of-way at fair market value and in the case of low Bo of car display area pay for resulting severance damages. RESPONSE 7: P. 24 has been revised to read as follows: "All needed right-of-way will be acquired at fair market value which is based, among other things, on the existing use of the lands." Letter from Harvey E. Levine, Hallgrimson, Wong, Miller & Re!yea, August 24, 1990. COM>[ENT 8: I am writing to you on behalf of Pat Costetlo, Betty Woolverton and Crown Chevrolet, 7544 Dublin Boulevard. The City's proposed widening of Dublin Boulevard will have a significant negative impact on Crown Chevrolet's on going business. A review of the plan shows that the widening of the roadway will cause the relocated sidewalk to take the landscape strip, a portion of the car display area, and will require the relocation of the light standards and one of Crown's signs. It is estimated that 30 to 35 car display spaces will be lost. Depending on the replacement site of the sign, visibility from the freeway may be lost, as well. Enclosed is a letter previously sent to your staff that spells out the changes we believe are needed in the environmental document for it to be adequate. The letter notes that these impacts on Crown are cumulative, when taken with the city's action on the property's southern edge (the plan line for the BART generated connector street between Amador Plaza and Regional Streets). The owners of Crown Chevrolet request that you reconsider this widening decision. If, however, you -5- Co intend to move ahead, please adopt mitigation measures necessary to reduce the impacts of the project to insignificance. Those measures would be: 1. Redesign sidewalk and landscaping requirements so that Crown Chevrolet looses no display area. 2. Relocate the sign to assure continued visibility from the freeway. 3. Assist Crown in developing on-site design changes to mitigate any lose of landscaping and display area. The significance of these impacts on this Dublin business of long standing should not be under estimated or dismissed. RESPONSE 8: The proposed changes to environmental assessment and the potential impacts of the proposed widening project upon Crown Chevrolet's ongoing business and potential loss of car display spaces is discussed in Responses 1-6 above. As described above, the City will reduce the width of the landscape strip along Dublin Boulevard from five feet to three feet in order to reduce the impact upon Crown Chevrolet's car display area. However, for safety reasons, the width of the sidewalk should not be reduced. In 1988, the property owner was notified that both of the existing signs are nonconforming in terms of sign area and height. In addition, the site has three freestanding signs, whereas the code allows only one freestanding sign per parcel. The owner has been informed that the signs must be brought into compliance with the Sign Ordinance by July 12, 1992 (the widening of Dublin Boulevard is scheduled for FY 1991-1992). The property m~y either install a lower and smaller freestanding s!gn on the property line or move the sign farther from the property line and install a larger and higher sign (additional height may also be obtained through approval of a conditional use permit). Minutes from the Public Hearing before the Dublin city Council, August 27, 1990. COMMENT 9: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and members of the Council and Staff. My name is Harvey LeVine from the firm of Hallgrimson, Wong, Miller & Relyea on 7020 Koll Center Parkway, Pleasanton. -6- Our concerns, as indicated by Mr. Thompson, that were raised a year ago when this issue first came up, we indicated that we wouldn't need a public hearing if we could agree on changes to the environmental assessment document. We made a fairly long proposal, which I will give to you in a moment, and Mr. Thompson and his staff adopted some of the items, but not all of them. We're concerned about several issues, but to be brief about it, because I think with no action in the course of that, I think this is all going to go on to the federal agency. We're primarily concerned that there's a significant impact on Crown Chevrolet caused by this loss. Our first question is how could eight feet of frontage be of significant impact? Well, the eight feet of frontage is going to cause, by our estimation, 30 to 35 car display spaces to be lost. Now, we had some discussion with Staff. Staff wasn't sure they agreed with that, and it also wasn't clear to them that we were actually going to have to move the landscaping strip in a parallel form so that we actually lose eight feet of car display space simply because of the take. From our point of view, if there's going to be some negotiation on how wide the landscaping strip is going to be and how we're going to go about doing that, it would be far better to have those conversations now in advance of going through the environmental process so we could withdraw any objections we might have so we could figure out exactly what the impacts might be, and clearly there's going to be impacts. There's going to be on eminent domain action if there's no agreement on the size of the take, so part of my role tonight is only to indicate what we think are the potential damages, and again that's just for the record. It's not only the actual loss of square footage. I think your Staff estimated 3,200 square feet of space. It's the loss of the car spaces, anywhere from 30 to 35. There will also be some relocation items, all the light stands are in the area for the take, and one of Crown's signs is in the take area, so there will be relocation costs associated with that. Having said all that, I'd only like to add that we believe, for the record, that the impacts are not just simply this loss of 3,200 square feet, but cumulative impact. -7- If you recall, we spent more than a few hours before you in the discussion of the street at the rear of the Crown's site, and at that time, we indicated that we were going to have a cumulative effect when taken with the take for the front, and now we're talking about the take on the front again. This site is being squeezed from both sides. We understand your traffic needs, but it doesn't mean we're happy about it. Having said all that, I think we've made our point for the record, and if, in fact, the City would like to sit down and talk to us about the suggestion in the revised environmental assessment regarding reduction of the landscaping, we'd be glad to sit down and do that. I read that for the first time this evening. We're pleased to see you recognize it, but there's probably a solution to keep the take cost down and keeping the impact as minimal as possible on an ongoing business, and as soon as you'd like to sit down with us, we'd be please to do that. RESPONSE 9: Refer to Responses 1-8 above. COM24ENT 10: I have a question. Sean Costello. On this property that they're going to widen, are any of the telephone poles going to be removed? RESPONSE 10: This will not be part of an underground district, so there may be some poles that will be moved, but existing wires will not be undergrounded. COMMENT 11: Mr. Coste!lo: Because my concern is because I am on that stretch of sidewalk nearly every single day, and I mean all the way from Dougherty to Golden Gate, you know. I have to drive and, you know, evade telephone poles and such. Are there any additional future plans for the utility poles along Dublin Boulevard between Dougherty Road and Golden Gate Drive? RESPONSE 11: The City has had two underground utility projects, and obtains money from PG&E through the P.U.C. each year. The City has borrowed out ten years in advance to get some of those projects done, so the City will not receive any money for eight or nine years from that source. The city has contributed funds for undergrounding on Dougherty Road under the five-year capital improvement program. However, the City does not have any additional utility programs now. -8- Do COMMENT 12: Mr. Coste!lo: In front of Dublin office Supply, there is no sidewalk at all, and I have to drive my wheelchair in the entire driveway Are there any plans for that area? RESPONSE 12: The proposed project does not include the area in front of Dublin office Supply. COM}4ENT 13: Mr. Costello: Will BART be building at the same time? RESPONSE 13: BART has adopted a two-station program and has not informed the City which station will be built first. The second station is, unfunded. So at this point, the city doesn't know which station will be built first. COMMENT 14: Mr. Costello: If BART is going to build at that time, the City is going to start construction and bus service is stopped, I am going to be stranded. RESPONSE 14: The proposed widening project should not affect any bus lines. BART may affect some bus lines once it gets started, but this project itself should not affect the buses. Letter from Bob Bronstein, Bedford Properties, September 5, 1990. COM}[ENT 15: On behalf of Bedford Properties, Inc., owner of the "Orchard Supply" retail shopping center on the south side of Dublin Boulevard, between Golden Gate Drive to the east and Regional Street to the west, this letter is our response to the Environmental Assessment report evaluating the above-referenced project. Please enter this letter into the public record for the scrutiny by the appropriate city, state and federal officials responsible for judging the merits of the subject proposal. We recommend against implementing the proposal in its current form: 1. The Environmental Assessment used to consider this project is incomplete in its scope. The report fails to discuss the impact of the proposal in the context of other proposals currently under consideration by the City that also directly affects our property As a result of a recent adoption (over objection) of -9- a Plan Line for a second proposal to construct a new street, our property is subject to a considerable right-of-way acquisition along its south border. The imposition of this Plan Line restricts tenant access to and use of the rear of the shopping center. It also precludes our ability to further develop or expand the existing structure. The proposed bisecting street destroys the continuity of and impedes our flexibility in expanding the shopping center. Taken together, these resulting conditions substantially reduce the value of our property beyond what we can expect in compensation from the city as part of their right-of-way acquisition. The scenario above is intended to illustrate to you two crucial points: First, although the effect of the subject proposal seems limited, cumulatively it is considerable. If this proposal is to be adopted, our property becomes subject to public street boundaries on both its northern and southern borders. The shopping center development was not designed in anticipation of shrinking boundaries, and cannot therefore be expected to offer vendors and patrons an efficient and convenient shopping venue if the subject proposal is implemented. If it is, Bedford Properties, local shoppers and proprietors, and the city of Dublin (in the form of lost tax revenues) all suffer. Second, in the absence of a comprehensiye long range plan, we are now subject to a series of actions that will needlessly impact our property's value and viability. It is our belief tha~ a series of unplanned, ad hoc, "community benefiting" public works programs will end of detrimental not only to us but the community at large. Our interest is in stopping this piecemeal pattern of uncoordinated takings in favor of a long term, dependable plan. RESPONSE 15: The Dublin General Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan constitute long range plans for the area. The proposed project is consistent with both plans, as discussed in Response #2 above. A parking survey completed in 1988 indicated a 26% peak off-street utilization for the area where the -10- Bedford Properties land is located. Although some parking spaces may be lost, the City will work with the Applicant to minimize the number of parking spaces which will be eliminated. There will not be a cumulative impact because the city will be implementing the following mitigation measures to reduce the impacts from the proposed parallel road (source: Negative Declaration for Parallel Road south of Dublin Boulevard, July 8, 1988): ,,Additional parking shall be provided on-site for APN 941-1500-47-2. Annual review of the number of employees and parking demand will determine how many spaces are needed, to a maximum indicated below. The additional parking can be accomplished as described below (see also Figure 1). 1. Restripe driveway along west side of building to provide 90 degree parking and a drive aisle (net gain of 12 spaces). 2. Build new parking area west of building (47 spaces). 3. Restripe front area to preserve 17 standard size spaces and 5 handicapped sized spaces. 4. Provide the parking spaces shown on the variance permit at the rear of the property as expansion parking (49 spaces). 5. Encourage a 7,200± square foot property exchange between this property and the BART property to the east. The exchange will furnish an area of sufficient dimensions to provide 42 spaces, plus will provide the BART property with direct street frontage on the new road. The total 122 spaces which will be removed as a result of this project can be replaced with 108 spaces, with an additional 42 available if the property exchange is executed (total of 150). The city is currently preparing an ordinance that would provide a conforming status to properties rendered non-conforming due to a City action such as condemnation. If this ordinance is enacted, it should be applied to this property. If a new business wants to locate at the Unisource site, the parking will have to be re-evaluated, -11- considering that the parking may be less than the standard requirement due to the loss of available parking area. Appropriate compensation for splitting property or loss of parking shall be made to affected property owners." COMMENT 16: By restricting consideration of this proposal against only a "no project" alternative, the City is ignoring a third viable option. A section of land can be acquired from the north end of Dublin Boulevard, rather than the south end (between Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street). This alternative has three benefits over the current proposal: a. Landscape reparations appear to be less extensive and not as costly. Costs can be minimized. b. The integrity of the property on both sides of the street is maximized since they share equally in the burden and benefits of accommodating an expanding community. c. Assuming the parcel on the north side of Dublin Boulevard is not subject to other condemnation actions, a right-of-way acquisition on that parcel would constitute less of a disruption to its configuration, compared to the effect on our property, thereby maintaining its viability and value. Our interest is not to turn our back on a burgeoning community, but rather to ensure that any plans affecting existing property owners are implemented fairly. No one property owner should be required to bare the burden of a condemnation that benefits other property owners unaffected by the subject proposal. All the improvements for the corridor should be part of a larger plan. That large plan should be subject to an EIR. We, therefore, respectfully request that you consider the above arguments seriously in your evaluation of the proposal before yoU. RESPONSE 16: The alternative would significantly affect the existing alignment of Dublin Boulevard (including an area west of Regional Street) and would affect a greater number of parcels. It is not -12- feasible because it would require the removal of a portion of Grand Auto's building. -13- STEVEN L }L&LLGRIMSON ERIC WONG HOWARD $, MILLER j'ANE P. RELYEA HARVEY E. LEVINE RONALD L RAINEY JO ANN DERUVO DONNA L. BECKER MARK L. HIRSCH THOMAS D. MURTHA NANCY 1~ BRANDT STEVEN D. LEVERE WILLIAM F, BURNS WAYNE T. WONG Hallgrimson, Wong, Miller & Relyea Attorneys at Law 7020 KOLL CENTER PARKWAY, SUITE 142 60 S. MARKET STREET. SUITE 900 PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94566 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113-2303 PHONE (415) 462.2424 FAX (415) 462-7818 PHONE (408) 275-6600 FAX (408) 275-0315 August 24, 1990 C382-004 Honorable Mayor Nembers of Council City of Dublin Dublin Civic Center Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Hearing on Widening of Dublin Boulevard The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council: I am writing to you on behalf of Pat Costello, Betty Woolverton and Crown Chevrolet, 7544 Dublin Boulevard. The City's proposed widening cf Dublin Boulevard will have a significant negative impact on Crown Chevrolet's on going business. A review of the plan shows that the widening of the roadway will cause the relocated sidewalk to take the landscape strip, a portion of the car display area, and will require the relocation of the light standards and one of Crown's signs. It is estimated that 30 to 35 car display spaces will be lost. Depending on the replacement site of the sign, visibility from the freeway may be lost, as well. Enclosed is a letter previously sent to your staff that spells out the changes we believe are needed in the environmental document for it to be adequate. The letter notes that these impacts on Crown are cumulative, when taken with the City's action on the property's southern edge (the plan line for the BART generated connector street between Amador Plaza and Regicna! Streets.) The owners of Crown Chevrolet request that you reconsider this widening decision. If, however, you intend to move ahead, please adopt mitigation measures necessary to reduce the impacts of the project to insignificance. Those measures would be: The Honorable Mayor Members of Council August 24, 1990 Page 2 Redesign sidewalk and landscaping requirements so that Crown Chevrolet looses no display area. Relocate the sign to assure continued visibility from the freeway. Assist Crown in developing on-site design changes to mitigate any lose of landscaping and display area. The significance of these impacts on this Dublin business of long standing should not be under estimated or dismissed. Yours very truly, HALLGR~iMSON, WONG, ~ILLER & RELYEA Harvey E. Levine, Esq. HEL/aln Enclosures cc: Betty Woolverton Pat Costello Law Ofhces ol Howell & Hatlgrimson A Prolessional Corporahon May 30, 1989 7020 Kotl Center Parkway, Suite 142 Pleasanton. C31ilorni~ 94.566 Teleohone 415 462 2424 Tetecopier 415-462.?B18 5,20 JO~ff 60 SOU[~ '.'~rkO[ S~reel. Su;le To,ecoa:er ::33 275 03l 5 city of Dublin P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 ATTENTION: LEE THOMPSON AND TRUDY RYAN !R,e: Environmental Assessment Sch. No. MA556 - Dublin Boulevard Dear Lee and Trudy: Thank you for taking the time to meet with Pat Costello, Betty Woolverton and me today regarding the environmental assessment of the proposed Dublin Boulevard widening. After that meeting, it was agreed that I would propose the modifications to the environmental assessment to meet our concerns. You will indicate in writing to me if those modification have been made to the assessment. Once we are satisfied that assessment accurately reflects our impacts, we will provide you with a letter withdrawing cur public hearing request. Attached are our proposed modifications. Sincerely, HOWELL & HALLGRIMSON Enclosures envassmt, ltr PROPOSED CHA}[GES TO EhWIRO~.IENTAL ASSESSMENT Schedule No. M-A556 - Dublin Boulevard Add the underlined language: P. 12. §7.4. Land Use. The existing land use is commercial office, retail use, includin~ an auto dealershi~ ..... P. 15. = 3 1 Yes '~ 37 Yes P. 21. Setting. Land Use - Existing land use adjacent to the project is predominantly commercial office and retail, includins a car dealershie. P. 22. Impacts · . The project is also consistent with the Downtown Dublin'Specific Plan's general goal to maintain downtown Dublin as a strong regicna! retail custom, but is inconsistent with the Specific Plan's policy to encourage continued car uses in the Specific Plan area. The pro~ect will have a significant impact on the Crown Chevrolet site due to its reduction of car display area. The Crown Chevrolet site is also affected ~ue to the adoption of the Dian line for the Dublin Boulevard parallel road at the southern end of the property,. b!ockinc exmansion to the south into a vacant area owned by the car dealer. The take for the ~rc~csed wideninc and the take for the future Daralle! street will shrink the site and prevent exeansion to the south to compensate for the !css in the future. Therefcre, the impact on the Crown site is cumulative. The Further implementation of this project . Improvements to Dublin Boulevard will not cause any displacement of entire businesses, but will effect the crown Chevrolet site adversely ..... P. 22. Mitiqation. The City will acquire the ~roeertv at fair market value and will Day severance damages, if any, due to the impact of this ~roject on loss of business diselav area. P. 23. Right-of-way takings are minimal and, with the exceu=ion of the Crown Chevrolet site, only affect landscaping and private parking areas. Two parking spaces on private property will be lost near Gchtden a~d ar~et=he~r-z='..--~ Village Parkway. Restriping of this parcel will pessibty gain a parallel or diagonal space. The Crown Chevrolet site will !ocse aD~rcximate!v 30 to ~ ~_ ~.:n ace 35 car dieD!ay s~aces a~t~ restriDinc has ~'~ D! · P. 23. add before 9.6: Hitiqation. Same as eroDosed for 9.4, above. P. 24. §10. Impacts . . The future right-of-way is currently used for private parking, and landscaping and car sales disD!av area. In some areas, the proposed right'of-way eliminates existing parking space on private property and car sales display area. After road widening, these parking areas .... Where appropriate .... However, 3--0 ..... OS~. to 35 car display =Da~s wi!] be ] ~ ne= loss of parking is not sicnificant Loss of car dieu!ay area may be sicnificant unless '~' ated. ml_=lG P. 24. Mitiqation. No mitigati~mn is ~. The City will acquire the needed right-of-way at fair market value and in the case of loss of car display area pay for resultin~ severance damages. Four lanes for through traffic flow on Westbound approach to Regional Street and three lanes of through traffic on eastbound approach to Amador Plaza Road (Figure 1, Sections B, C, and D). Additional right-of- way is required on the north side of Dublin Boulevard between San R~mon Road and Regional Street. On the Southside of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road the requirement is for approximately 180 feet west of Regional Street and between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive. Right-of-way is required at Crown Chevrolet (8 feet) for third through lane and widening at Village Parkway. 6.3 Alternatives to the Proeosed Action The only alternative which was considered for this project was the "ne project" alternative. The "no project" alternative would result in traffic congestion along Dublin Boulevard with unacceptable levels cf sea-{ice at four of the five intersec- tions. In addition, the "no project" alternative would result in lower air qua!itv due to idling vehicles; and lack ef eff{ci~nt access t~ downtown commercial areas of ~ion~i significance which could adversely affect the economic viability of the bus~ ~ _, Resses. 7.1 ~'oe~r'~h ~'.~.~.~ .· . The ~~~_=~_~ o~_ the road is essen~ia''~'-~ flat, as are the adjacent properties. 7.2 Goo!ocr. The Ca!averas Fault is located to the west of this project. The last major earthquake along the Ca!averas Fault was in 1861, but no recordings were made of its intensity. 7.] Veeetation. The area has been developed and supports ornamental landscaping. There is no native vegetation. 7.4 Landusa. The existing land use is co,mercia! office, retail use. The proposed project is in conformance with the Dublin General Plan. 12 E2OLCGZCAL. __ Yes or No if yes, is it signifi- cant? Yes, CE Will ~2-~e o._~-sucsal result in (ei{~.er direct!v or iniirec-~ly): 27. Oha~nge in tlne diversity of ssecies, or nmw~ers of replies fish ~ ~ 1¢~ ~h hen~c or mic~ fa~) ? 28. R~uction of ~ne n,~aers of or ~ecies of No No 29. !n~siuction of .n~w suecies of e-~--r-=ls into Lq area cr result in a ~<~% to =%~ ~c~+~cn or ~v~,ent ..... ~ d~ ~'; or ir~ir~t!';: 35. 36. 20. Cause disrs~--icn cf c~erly p!ar~.ed develc_mzenn? · ~ '~-~t ,~e~ ~-/ ~]~,~ts of -~ , ~-~'~K~ U~hsn ~ ~ (if ~A p~jec~) ? 32. ~fect rate of ~he h~q ~p~a~cn of ~n area? 33. ~f~t lifestyles, or neig~rh~ ~cter or s~ility? .~f~_ ~_rf or o~er ~ific ~erest g~s? Divide or ~s~ ~n e~lish~ ~ty? ~f~ exis~ ~i~, r~re ~ne ~sptac~nt' of pple or cr~te a d~ ~r 37. '}lf~ ~!~m~, ~~; or ~~e, or r~re ~he ~sulac~ of b~sses cc f~? 38. Aff~ p~~; s~ues or the !cd ~ ~se? No ~o ___------ Heas'are s. DLscussion of En-ziro.~nental Evaluation and !5 (FHPP[) 7-7-3, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and construction Noise. FHPH 7-7-3 defines a traffic noise impact to be "when the predicted traffic noise levels approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria, or when the predicted traffic noise levels subs=an=la!ly exceed the existing noise levels.I, Because there are no sensitive receptors located within the .. project limits, a federal noise study was not required. Mitication Project related noise levels are within the normally acceptable range 'as set forth in the City of Dublin General Plan and are not expected to exceed these levels. The project is within a commercial area with no sensitive receptors. Because of existing Town design guidelines, businesses are see back from the street and most have parking s~aces in front which provide '~' addl~!onal noise buffering. ~ ~ Tn _ hours of c ~ ~ ' ons~ruc=len would be limited to between 7:30 A.M. and muffled.6:00 P.H. and construction equipment, would be a_~pro~rla~_ ' ~e!y Cattrans has developed construction noise performance standards for new roadways. The incorporation of these s~ec~fications into the construction -~ g .... ~ .... aha ...... nt for this project will reduce construction noise. 9.4 SOCIAL ~[D ECONOMIC Question ~30 Cause disruption of orderly planned development? Question ~ =31 Be inconsistent with any elements of adopted community plans, policies, or goals, the Governor's Urban Strategy or the President's National Urban Policy (if NEPA project)? Question ~37 Affect employment, industry or commerce, or req~aire the displacement of businesses of farms? Settinc Land Use - Existing land use adjacent to the project is predominately commercial office and retail. {, ~ The City of Dublin ~1 ~-~ G ....... Plan designates Dublin Boulevard as an arterial street. Th~ proj~ 1:~ ~~ · · ..... = CBD cf the Cit-; of Dublin. Downtown Dublin serves a major role as a regional retail cente~ '-_he City cf Dublin t~_~n~_ ~,~- C_~s o~ n .... ~e' ~ with ~ ~ ~'~ - Sa Ramcn and ~ ~ rzeasan~cn, are ..... r~=.s~_~ to as th~_ Tri-Va!!ev Area. TheTri-Vai!ey is projected to grow substantially over the 21 ~ ~.,-~., ~ .-~,~,.~, .,,- ~i~ ~ nro4ec~d to increase zrom a~Droxlm ±y ±u,000 to 40~000 Y The proposed project is consistent with the Dublin General Plan guidelines for planned deve!opmenU of the CBD and is compatible with .surrounding office, commercial and retail uses. 'The project is also consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan's general goal to maintain downtown Dublin as a strong regional retail center. Further, implementation of this project will carry out the recommendations of the city of Dublin" s Downtown Imurovement Plan Traffic and Parking Constraints study, to provide additional capacity in the CBD along Dublin Boulevard and at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road. Imorovements to Dublin ~oulevard will not cause any dis~lace- mont. The lack of capacity improvements may azze~= the economic develecment of the CBD and adversely affect employ- ~ merit, industry and c~m ..... c~ N~iti~at ion No mitigation is required. 9 . 5 TRAC~SPORTATION Question ~40 Azfect ~ublic utit~' ~ ~ies, or police, e..~=_c~..c~ or other public ~¢ices? fire, Question ~41 Have substantial inpact on existing transporta- tion systems or alter present patterns of circu- lation or movement of people and/or goods? Question Affect vehicular movements additional traffic? or generate Question Affect or be affected by existing parking facilities or result in demand for new parking? Settinc ~,The proposed project will not alter the present circulation pattern, it is an e~== to provide for additional capacity cn the existing local c~rcu!aticn system to serve anticipated growth and development. Imoacts h~ ~mcsed ~cS{f~na=~ns wi!] not adversely af~ct eublic ut~ ~es. ~ pub~ ~c__ se~'ices. The increased ca~acit-¢ cf the ru'adway and intersection will, in effect, enhance public seNzices to the area. Project improvements will contribute to 22 more effective movement of emergency vehicles on Dublin Boulevard. Also, the proximity of the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road to Interstate 580 makes it important for the expeditious mobility of police, fire, ani emergency vehicles accessing the area to and from the freeway. The proposed improvements are a design effort to mitigate existing and future traffic congestion levels. They are improvements to the existing system and are not anticipated to attract additional traffic, change or impact vehicular movements. Right-of-way takings are minimal and only affect landscape and private p~-rking areas. Two parking spaces on private property will be lost near Golden Gate Drive and another two near Village Parkway. Restriping of these parcels will possibly gain a parallel er diagonal space. All on-street parking (approximately 115 spaces) will be eliminated from Dublin Boulevard in the project area. Parkinc studies for the downtown area indicate a low usage of on-street parking spaces. A parking survey conducted during the Christmas season, which is traditionally the busiest time cf the year, yielded a 4-25% occupancy ratio for on-street Farking. This project will displace current Ch-street parkel vehicles to ether cress-streets and perhaps to the adjacent of~-s~ pa~.-.~_ ~ facillti~s There is a laro~ su~D!y cf downtown - ~'- ' ~ p~;~nc both on- and off-street. 9. 6 A-RCPP~EOIXDGICAL Y2[D HISTORIC Question ~47 Affect any significant archaeological or historic site, structure, object or building? Settin~ The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the proposed project falls entirely within the area disturbed by Dublin Road improvements in the !960's. There are nc historic structures within the APE. !m~acts A recent search was conducted by the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University. An additional records search and field su~;eys conducted by .Archaeological Se~¢ices, Inc. of Stockton, California inlicates that no previously recorded prehistoric or historic archaec!cgica! sites have been found within the project area. Though the projecZ site possesses some geographical features tv~ica!_~ of ~-' {~-_n_s~erica_~ archa~]oc~ca~_-._ ~_ . sites (!ccated at the '~--s~ ~,~ footh{ ~ ~ ~ and a!onc a water course) , ~ ~ has be~n disturbed (mostly paved) by previous Dublin Boulevard imersvements in the 1960's. 23 Archaeological Se~ices, Inc. concluded that it is unlikely that undisturbed archaeological deposits exist within the APE. There are also no structures over 50 years old within the APE. Miticaticn Should buried archaeological materials such as bone, obsidian, chert, midden, ceramic or glass fraglnents, square nails, or bricks be uncovered during excavation or construction, a cualified archaeologist should be retained to evaluate the ~inds and make recoP~mendations as appropriate. 10. MITIGATION OF IMPACTS DUI TO RIGHT-OF-WAY NEEDS Impacts due to the taking of right-of-way in orden to increase substandard lane widths (10-12 feet) are minimal. No structures wi~l~ be demolished er moved. The future right-of- way is currently used for private parking and landscaping. Where the removal of existing landscaping and street trees occurs, news trees, u~eanus acerifolia, will be planted at a 1:! ratio in the adjacent planting strip. All new trees and shrubs will be a minimum of 15 callon and 5 gallon sizes respectively. Trees and shru~s removed from private property, will be replaced by the city as desired by the property owners. in some areas, the proposed right-of-way eliminates existing parking spaces on private property. After reed widening, these areas will be res~riued for angled or parallel parking to reeiace the maximum smaces possible. Where appropriate, spaces may be designated for comuact cars only. The net loss of parking spaces is not significant. The Dublin Downtown Specific Plan, adopted by the City Council on July 21, 1987, revised the parking standards for downtown development. Recent studies revealed that past standards had resulted in an oversupply of parking within the Central Business District. Hitioation No mitigation is re%luired. September 5, 1990 BEDFORD PROPERTIES : c.c c' 2( c.,7 . Mr. Lee Thompson city Engineer P.O. Box 2340 Dublin~ CA 94568 Re: Proposed Modification to/Widening of Dublin Blvd. Between Donlon Way and Village Parkway, Dublin, CA Dear Mr. Thompson: On behalf of Bedford Properties, Inc. owner of the "Orchard Supply" retail shopping center on the south side of Dublin Blvd., between Golden Gate Drive to the east and Regional Street to the west, this letter is our response to the Environmental Assessment report evaluating the above-referenced project. Please enter this letter into the public record for the scrutiny by the appropriate city, state and federal officials responsible for judging the merits of the subject proposal. We recommend against implementing the proposal in its current form: 1. The Environmental Assessment used to consider this project is incomplete in its scope. The report fails to discuss the impact of the proposal in the context of other proposals currently under consideration by the city that also directly affects our property. As a result of a recent adoption (over objection) of a Plan Line for a second proposal to construct a new street, our property is subject to a considerable right-of-way acquisition along its south border. The imposition of this Plan Line restricts tenant access to and use of the rear of the shopping center. It also precludes our ability to further develop or expand the existing structure. The proposed bisecting street destroys the continuity of and impedes our flexibility in expanding the shopping center. Taken together, these resulting conditions substantially reduce the value of our property beyond what we can expect in compensation from the city as part of their right-of-way acquisition. Mr. Lee Thompson September 5, 1990 Page 2 The scenario above is intended to illustrate to you two crucial points: First, aithough the effect of the subject proposal seems limited, cumulatively it is considerable. If this proposal is to be adopted, our property becomes subject to public street boundaries on both its northern and southern borders. The shopping center development was not designed in anticipation of shrinking boundaries, and cannot therefore be expected to offer vendors and patrons an efficient and convenient shopping venue if the subject proposal is implemented. If it is, Bedford Properties, local shoppers and proprietors, and the City of Dublin (in the form of lost tax revenues) all suffer. Second, in the absence of a comprehensive long range plan, we are now subject to a series of actions that will needlessly impact our property's value and viability. It is our belief that a series of unplanned, ad hoc, "community benefiting" public works programs will end up detrimental not only to us but the community at large. Our interest is in stopping this piecemeal pattern of uncoordinated takings in favor of a long term, dependable plan. 2. By restricting consideration of this proposal against only a "no project" alternative, the City is ignoring a third viable option. A section of land can be acquired from the north end of Dublin Blvd. rather than the south end (between Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street). This alternative has three benefits over the current proposal: a. Landscape reparations appear to be less extensive and not as costly. Costs can be minimized. b. The integrity of the property on both sides of the street is maximized since they share ~equally in the burden and benefits of accommodating an expanding community. c. Assuming the parcel on the north side of Dublin Blvd. is not subject to other condemnation actions, a right- cf-way acquisition on that parcel would constitute less of a disruption to its configuration, compared to the effect on our property, thereby maintaining its viability and value. Mr. Lee Thompson September 5, 1990 Page 3 Our interest is not to turn our back on a burgeoning community, but rather to ensure that any plans affecting existing property owners are implemented fairly. No one property owner should be required to bare the burden of a condemnation that benefits other property owners unaffected by the subject proposal. All the improvements for the corridor should be part of a larger plan. That large plan should be subject to an EIR. We therefore respectfully request that you consider the above arguments seriously in your evaluation of the proposal before you. Si~cer~ly~_, B~b Bronstein Property Manager BB/j C cc: Maureen Drotleff Matt Shippey Bud Lake Frank Morrow Dublin City Council FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR DUBLIN BOULEVARD WIDENING PROJECT IN DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA The Ft-IWA has determined that this project will not have any significant impact on the human environment. This finding of no significant impact is based on the attached environmental assessment, which has been independently evaluated by the FH~A and determined to adequately and accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. It provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an environmental impact statement is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the attached environmental assessment. Date Tr~f Rog~? Bcrc, Division Ad~j/histrator REVISION: 3une 14,1991 Dublin Bouiavard Dublin Boulevard Capaci~-y i-~prcv~_-_ents Ci~-f cf Dub!in . and S tat=- of C~'!iforr..ia Department of Tran~p. orTa[ion and I3. S. Depar~enT of Tr~-r-~porration Federal Elsie's-ay Ad--ini-~urauicn pursuant Ta' ~'2 U.S.C. /-322 (2) (c) Cit7 E?.~ne -r~ . City of Dublin 7 1. Title .... 2. Need .... T~LEOFCO~E~S 2.1 Re~onal Access Needs 2.2 Local Access Needs Background ............................................... 4 3.1 Local Si~mmificance 3.2 Re~onal Sign/ficance 3.3 Adopted Growth Scenario Traffic Implications 7 4. Capacity Constraints ........................................ 5. Alternative Transportation Modes Available ....................... 8 9 6. Description of Proposed Actions ................................ I0. 6.1 Proposed Improvements 6.1.1 Roadway Restriping 6.1.2 Intersection Widening 6.2 Right-of-way Needs 6.3 Alternative to the Proposed Action Environmental Setting ....................................... Environmental Sig-nificance Checklist ............................ Discussion of Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measures ...... 12 13 1S 9.1 Energy 9.2 Air Quality 9.3 Noise 9.4- Social and F, conom~c 9.5 Transportation 9.6 Archaeological and I-[istoric Mitigation of Impacts 24 Due to Right-of-Way Needs .................................. ENVIt{ONbIENTAL ASSESS~NT (NEPA) 1. TITLE DUBLIN BOULEVARD CAPACITY LMiPROVEM]ENTS The project consists of adding one travel lane in each direction of Dublin Boulevard (the total n, mber of lanes will increase from four lanes to six lanes); providing double right- turn lanes on the eastbound approach of Dublin Boulevard to San Ramon Road, triple left-turn lanes on the westbound approach lanes of Dublin Boulevard to San lgamon t{oad, four lanes of through traffic, on Dublin Boulevard, eastbound to Re~onal Street and attendant signalization improvements. The project l~mits are from Donlon Way to Village Parkway in the City of Dublin for a total len~h of 0.$ _miles. (Figure 1) 2. INDEED Dublin Boulevard lacks adequate capacity to meet projected future traffic levels. In addition to poor levels of se~dce on Dublin Boulevard this situation can potentially cause problems downstream at the San Ramon Road and Interstate-5$0 interchange. 2.1 Re~onal Access Needs Dublin Boulevard is a major after/al running parallel to and north of Interstate-580, and is an integral part of the access system for the interstate~580 corridor. Capacity constraints of the present Dublin Boulevard roadway may impact future operating conditions on the interchange by causing evening peak hour vehicles to back up onto the freeway. (Fi=o-ute 2) By virtue of the City of Dublin's location at the junction of tnterstate-5$0 and Interstate-680. Dublin's Central Business District (CBD) serves a major role as a retail center. Excessive traf~c congestion levels on Dublin Boulevard would discourage shopping and set,ncc onente tri~s to Dublin's CBD. 2.2 Local Access Needs Since the adoption of the e~sting roadway des]gn recent traffic studies, for build-out conditions of downtoww Dublin and projected planned community DUBI.IN BOUI.E~AIID PIIOPOSED LEGEND: pllOPOSEfl AIIBITIONAL LANES EXISTING I.^NES '' LANE CONFIGURATIONS FIGURE No. '1 SECTION A SECTION B DTIIII.IN ITl.k/D. O o PnEPARED BY: SAIITIIIA & TllOt41'fiOll IllC. 0 o AIIGII'.;I' ,..q, 1.qllll SF_CTI ON C o SECTION D PROJECT LOCATION-- PREPARED BY: ... S,~NTINA & THOMPSON INC. AUGUST 29~ 1988 PROJECT LIMITS FIGURE 2 growth, have revealed that unacceptable traffic levels will result at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and San R~rnon Road. This is the busiest intersection in Dublin and is currently operating near capacity during peak hoLlrS. Dublin Boulevard is one of four major arterial streets serving downtown Dublin and ftmc~ions as one of the botmdaries for the "central block" which is the core of Dublin's retail and service center. Increased traffic congestion on Dublin Boulevard could affect the economic well being of the community. 3. BACKGROUND Many of the projects within Downtown Dublin were approved and constructed prior to incorporation. The City of Dublin was incorporated in 1981. The City's General Plan was adopted in 19S5. To guide key development issues, the City commissioned a Traffic and Parking Constraints study in 19S6, which assessed seven growth development scenarios. The City adopted a land use scenario which included a 1,200 stall BART parking lot located at the south end of Golden Gate Drive. OFig-ure 3) 3.1 Local Sig-nificance Development Growth in Area. Several residential developments are planned north-west of Dub]in Boulevard. In addition, shopping center projects south of Dublin Boulevard, and single-family areas to the east of downtown will be developed in the next few years. These developments w511 add to the congestion on Dublin Boulevard. The need to e~ciently move traffic through intersections will become more critical. 3.2 Re~onal Sigmificance Comunute Traffic Gro~%h. Dublin Boulevard parallels Interstate-580. It functions as the primary and most direct east-west access arterial through dowmtown Dublin. It also provides the most direct route to Interstate-580 for residential traffic from the northern and western residenti~ areas of Dublin. Dublin Boulevard is re~onalty si=m~ificant for the efficient mobility of projected commute tragic growth in the TN-Valley area (Dublin, San Ramon, am_d Pleasanton - Figmze 4). Assumptions for the future regional system network include the extension of Dublin Boulevard to Spring-totem pREpARED BY: SANTINA &' THOMPSON INC. FUTURE BAET FIGURE 3 ' FACILITY .AUGUST 29, 1988 i m 0 0 z :Z © ASA~II'OH I.IV I:. il I'.'I C)fl F. I I i_EGEND' T'FII VALLEY CITIES 3.3 Boulevard in Livermore. This extension is predicated upon projected commuter traffic increases from the San Joaquin Valley to jobs in the TH-Valley area. Adopted Growth Scenario Traffic Implications Intersection traffic analysis results indicate that the four intersections along Dublin Boulevard nearest the future BART station would all be at or near unacceptable traffic levels. The intersection of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road would actually worsen due to the redistribution of traffic from the residential area on the west side of San Ramon Road, which would orient itself to the BAItT parking lot rather than to the Interstate 580 or 680 freeways. Under present conditions the San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard intersection is operatin~ at capacity. Without the proposed improvements only short-term traffic conditions of an acceptable nature can be anticipated up to 1990. Oumulative local residential traffic growth and the ef[ects of a BAI%T station upon LOS at major intersections are shown on Table 1. 4. CAPACITY CO~'ST1R-~'~-TS Traffic volumes for the adopted development scenario for major intersections along Dublin Boulevard during the peak hours were compared with the capacity of the intersection using a modified critical movement analysis which yielded volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. (For an explanation of volume-to-capacity ratios see Appendix A.) This procedure determined the capacity of the e~sting lanes for each critical signal phase. Table 1 shows the results of the intersection tr~-=9ic analysis (conducted in 1986). TABLE 1 EXIST~G VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY P.~i. LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) Niajor Intersections with Dublin Boulevard Future without Present Proiect 1986 2005 Intersection Ratio LOS Ratio LOS Golden Gate Drive .59 A .91 E .g_mador Plaza Road .59 A .S9 D Re~onal Street .67 B .88 D Village Parkway .77 C .76 C San Ramon Road and Dublin .99 E 1.15 F Boulevard 4.1 Intersection Analysis Results 4.2 All intersections, w-ith the exception of San Ramon Road are operating at very acceptable to acceptable levels of service. The intersection of San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard, is the busiest intersect/on in Dublin and has a rating of 0.99. This means that during evening peak hours the intersection is currently operating at capacity. \Vith the e:dst/ng plan line config~uration, the V/C ratio for the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road during the evening peak hour, at bu/ld-out of downtown Dublin and planned community development, would be 1.15 LOS F. Study Conclusions A "no-project" scena~o will result in continued deterioration of LOS on major intersections. Implementation of this project will improve LOS conditions by at least one level and in some cases by two levels. For examole, ~vith the proposed revised plan line confi~ation for the interjection at Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road, the p.m. peak hour V/C ratio would be lowered to .88 or LOS D. Road widening is necessary on Dublin Boulevard between the intersections of Regional Street, Golden Gate Drive, and Amador Plaza Road in order to create a uniform 100 foot right-of-way to accommodate additional lanes. l~Iinor widening at the San tL~.mon Road and Regional Street intersections would be required to accommodate exclusive turn'lanes to improve traffic flow. 5. ALTERNATIVE TILAzNSPORTATION MODES AVAILABI,E Public transportation services are pro,Stied by V/heels and A.C. Transit. Both use Dublin Boulevard to access the CBD. Wheels routes #1, 2, and 3 pro~dde weekday, hourly set-vice on Dublin Boulevard. Reduced frequency of service is offered on weekends. AC Transit provides feeder bus service to the BART station in i-!ayward. Bus stops are located on Dublin Boulevard at Regional Street and Village Parkway. Service is provided at 30 minute intervals. 6. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTIO1N'S 6.1 Proposed Improvements This project consists of ino~cations to the existing Dublin Boulevard roadway for a length of approximately 0.8 miles. These modifications cons{st of: · Roadway restriping · Intersection w-idening · ~Iodifications to Inajor intersection sig-nal systems to accommodate additional tmmJng movements. 6.1.1 Roadway Restriping (Fi-°~ure 1) The existing roadway desig-n is two lanes of through traffic in each direct:ion with right and le~ turn lanes. Pro~-lde three l~mes of through tra~_c by restriping and removing on-street parking lane. Pro~-ide double right-turn lanes on the 9 6.2 6.3 6.1.2 eastbound approach of Dublin Boulevard to San Ramon Road (presently there is one right turn lane). Provide triple leR-turn lanes on the westbound approach lanes of Dublin BouJ. evard to San R~mon Road (presently there are two). Intersection Wideninz (Fi~are 5) The project involves modifying the lane striping and the median location on Dublin Boulevard between 400 feet west of San Ramon Road and Golden Gate Drive. Fi~ure 5 shows t~m. ical cross sections of existing and proposed lane ~ddths. The proposed project will not result in substandard lane widths. Pro~dde four westbound lanes of through traffic on Dublin Boulevard at the westbound approach of Re~onal Street. Right-of-Way Needs (Dublin Boulevard. ]F[_~re 6) o Eastbound approach to San Ramon Road, double right-turn lanes and double left turn lanes (Figmre 1, Section A). Requires the acquisition of up to 12 feet of right-of- way from the Shell service station on the southwest corner of the intersection. o Triple left-turn lanes plus a through lane and a right- turn lane on the westbound approach at San t~amon Road (Fig-ure 1, Section A). Requires the acquisition of up to 8 feet of right-of-way at the northeast corner of San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard for approximately 400 feet. o Four lanes for through traffic flow on westbound approach to Rejonal Street and three lanes of through traffic on eastbound approach to Amador Plaza Road (Fiffure 1, Sections B, C, and D). Additional fight-of- way is required on the north side of Dublin Boulevard between San Ramon Road and Re~onal Street. On the south side of Dublin Boulevard and San Rmmon Road the requirement is for approximately 180 feet west of Re~onal Street and between Re~onal Street and Golden Gate Drive. Right-of-way is required at Crown Chevrolet (S feet) for third through lane and widening at Village Parkway. Alternatives to the Prooosed Action The "no project" alternative would result in traffic congestion along Dublin Boulevard s~dth unacceptable levels of se~-ice at four of the five t0 F Fi/W' ~ ! bIEDIA,N : THRU LANES , · · 14' 2'=' i~F' S 1D EWAL,'"( SIDEWALK: ~ '~ ~' ~ ~ m''~ ,'," t /~' , ~ PROPOSEpTYF1CAL CROSS SECTION R/Y/ THRU LANES ~,IEDIAN ' I ~, __: j t/' ~' ~' S~DE"rYALK SIDEWALK' ~ ~- ~ ~ ' EXISTING T¥?ICAL CROSS SECTION SCAL_E;1'= 20' P. REPARED BY: SANTiNA-& THOMPSON INC. AUGUST 29~ 1985 DUBLIN BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS FIGURE 5. PREPARED BY: ' :SANTINA & THOMPSON INC. ,~U~UST 29, 1988 12 ",~DITIONAL RI G Hq'- OF..-- WAft intersections. In addition, the "no project" alternati~ze would result in lower air quality due to idling vehicles; and lack of eflZident access to downtown commercial areas of re~onal significance which could adversely affect the economic viability of the businesses. During the review period on the Environmental Assessment, the City received a comment proposing that another alternative be considered (refer to the letter from Harvey E. Levine, Howell & Hallg~mson, dated May 1990). The alternative involves acquiring a section of land from the north end of Dublin Boulevard between Golden Gate Drive and Re~onal Street. This alternative would be considerably more expensive than the proposed projection because it would affect the existing alignment of Dublin Boulevard which would require extensive median work (i.e., the e~sting median would have to be relocated to the north). It would also affect a greater m~mber of properties. Unless a port/on of the e~sting Grand Auto supply building on the north side of Dublin Boulevard were removed, this alternative would result in a curve in Dublin Boulevard between Golden Gate Drive ,and lqe~onal Street. If a portion of the Grand Auto Supply building were removed, this would impose a greater economic impact compared to the proposed project. Finally, this alternative would involve acquiring additional right-of-way on the north side of Dublin Boulevard. Such an acquisition would not be consistent with the ali=mmment in the plan line that was estabhshed for Dublin Boulevard (between t)c~on \Vay smd Amador Plaza) in 1984. ENVIRONIIiENTAL SETTING 7.1 Topo.graohv. The terrain of the road is essentially flat, as are the adjacent properties. 7.2 Geoloa~v. The Calaveras Fault is located to the west of this project. The last' major earthquake along the Calaveras Fault was in 1S81, but no recordings were made of its intensity. 7.8 Vegetation. The area has been developed and suppo~s ornamental landscaping. There is no native vegetation. 7.4 Landuse. The e~stin== land use is commerdal' of Sce, retail use. The proposed project is in conformance with the Dublin GenerJ Plan. 13 Yc 12. 13. ~See fo!lc~i--.? secnicn: 14 ~=__= G~ C=--~c ? ~"~' ' v,--- Yes, cr ~ Will ~dne .... _ ~ = ~ -= ~ dir~--__~v' er L-~irec-_ib¢: 16. Resu!U in ~n Lncr~se in air ~: ~,~qz ~zsslcr~, -i--e-~- -ffe_m- cn cr deteric~cn cf au~iecm air 19. u==~ =~. ~n ....... '-l~s * - 20 Viol~me cr he { .... ~ten% c=-=~ Or levels cr . ~EC,~GiOzL. Will ~ne u~s~ result ix (eidner dir~v or lrm .... '--' .: ---------- ~See fol_c~---u 15 27. ~.a_nge in C-.e c~.-- - . ~ecies of ~'=~ c (b!~s, !~ an~s inc!u~ res~les, fish ~ _z ......... critic~A ~~ of ~',' ~e, ~ ~ ,.~ ~cies of or respA= -'~' ,- =~.~?~.~m Will -q =--~ cf c.~erl?' 9l~qe! ceve_~..:=~'-- p~j~} ? rate of ~e hm~n ~s~a~on cf ~s. ~ff~t !if~sty!es or -...~= ~SF~ ~ e~ ...... S 5. uz .... cr 27. 2~fe-- ~l~r.~, L~----. ~See fo! l~'i---? section: Fieas~res - if v~_s, is c =_-.t? --v:--~.-.ta! Eva!uazicn and 16 A~fect ~-.-z c~nr.~-_{ty f=-c~-~iLtes (~'~"m~-~ m~_dic~ , ~ ~ ut~i~es~ cr ~!zc=, =ira, CZ C~ r ~v~.ez% of E~oie ~/cr 42. ~ f e_% ve~c'~ ~ffic? - . facilities 43. f~ff~m cr he -ffe_~ef ~v e:cis~ng or resul~ ir. d~-~ for r~,¢ -_.._;.-= - =u~.~= ........ r- ~ .... accident or ~. ~,.v~'-','- ~ - ' =~o ~,;~% Or ~q -.. i -- 45 ==~,-~t in ~te~_ticr~ ~ ' _t_r~-- ~ cr air ~= =fic? 46. ~=i~% p~lic he~n ~se =~ole ~ ~tart~k! cr result ~n cf ~/ scerzc - · - ~0 Result ;" s-~n~ i~--~ as~ci~t~ ' --' _ _ -, t ~ ~c e *See follcwin? =ac-_zcn: bieasures. .... : ..... ~-=~ xva~uazion a.-J Mi-_igatic- 17 ~c=--'-2 ........ ~il~ifa ~ies, c~usa a :zsa or b~itzn of a fish or - . '~qe r.m~L~r cr re_~i t ~ ~e of a ~= , ~ achieve c~al =? (A c]~-~e~, ~cn on k- er:;~o~.~-- ~= cna ,~r~cn cccurs in a ~=~ =~ivelv Lriez, defirine o~ulative~'f ~ ........ eff~ms of ~n ~vidu~ P~J~% ~e ~.en vie.~ ~n ~rr.~cz ~_~n ~ne effects cf ~e eff~s of ~ner ~j~ts ,,~cE ~.nerac~ ~nis proj~t ~, t~e~nar, -~e ~nsider~ze *See follc'~'ir-? sect'_on: · . __ .~ ..... ~'-_~ Evalua:zcn-:-.d ~LSC'..:£S%.C?- CZ m-~-~ ......... t8 9. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impacts Upon Physical Environment 9.1 ENERGY Question #6 Question #7 Result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource? Result in the suostanti depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? Setting The project is located wdthin an urban built en~Sronment. It is expected that benefits will accrue to the environment and to the community by increasing the efficiency of the existing roadway which wdll decrease the idle time of vehicles stopped at intersections. This Mil result in savings of nonrenewable natural resources, as well as, a decrease in their rate of use. Imoact The project would result in a beneficial impact on the use of non-renewable natural resources. Mitigation No mitigation is required. 9.2 AIR QUALITY Question #16 Result in an increase in air pollutant emissions, adverse effects on or deter/oration of ambient air qu~ity? Question #18 Violate or be inconsistent wdth Federal, State, or local air stanaard- or control plans? Setting Dublin is located within the San Francisco Bay Area air basin, which encompasses a total land area of approximately 5600 square miles. The entire basin is designated by the California Air Resources Board as a non-attainment area for ozone (photochemical oxddant) and carbon monoxide (CO). Non- attainment means that the 19 Federal ambient air quality standards for these pollutants have been violated within the past two to three years. The air quality monitoring station in Livermore, produced the follov~ng air pollution data which was published in the April, 1988 issue of Air Currents. The data is organized by contaminant and indicates the m~rnber of days that the Federal Air Quality standard was exceeded in 1987. TABLE 2 AIR POLLUTION DATA LIVERMORE MONITORING STATION C ONTAZvIiNAa~4T NO. DAYS ST.&NDA!RD EXCEEDED 03 - OZON~E 3 CO - CARBON MONOXIDE 0 NO~ - NITROGEN DIOXIDE 0 SO°` - SULFUR DIO.Y_IDE 0 TSP - TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES 0 Imoact Consistency w-ith the State Imolementation Plan This project is in an air quality non-attainment area which has transportation control measures in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP which was approved by the Environ_mental Protection Agency on December 28, 19S8. The Federal Highway Administration has determined that both the Transportation Plan and the Transportation Improvement Program conform to the State Implementation Plan. The Federal I-Ii~hway Administration has determined that this project is included in the Transportation Improvement Pro=~ram for the ~'~etropolitan Transpo~ation Commission. Therefore, pursuant to 23 CFI% 770, this project conforms to the State Implementation Plan. Ntitigat;ion No mitigation is required. 9.3 NOISE Noise and Vibration 2o Question #19 Result in an increase in noise levels or vibration for adjoining areas? Question#20 Violate or be inconsistent with Federal design noise levels or State or local noise standards? Setting Most of the surrounding land is utilized for mixed use office, commercial and retail. The 1983 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) measurements for the project area was 65 CNEL. Impact A temporary increase in noise levels due to construction is anticipated..Noise impact studies for similar modifications to San P~mon Road, in residential areas north of Dublin Boulevard, yielded the noisiest hour Leq in the design year to be 68clB. The year 2005 projected CiNEL is ?0. The City of Dublin has incorporated th'oise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines into the iN o~s Element of the General Plan which designates an Leq of 70 or less to be the normally acceptable range for ofrnce: retail and commercial land use zones. These guidelines are shown in Table 3. 21 TAB!,E 3 LAND USE COMiPAT~I~ FOR co~TY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS COI~EVILRNITY NOISE EXPOSURE (dB) Conditionally Acceptable Noise Insulation Land Use ,.Normally Features Normally Clearly Category Acceptable Required Unacceptable Unacceptable Residential N[otels, hotels 60 or tess 60-70 70-75 Over 75 60 or less 60-70 70-80 Over 80 Schools, churches, nursing homes 60 or less 60-70 70-80 Over ~0 Neighborhood parks 60 or less 60-65 65-70 Over 70 Offices: Retail/ commercial Industrial 70 or less 70-75 75-80 70 or less 70-75 Over 75 Over SO Source: California Ofi~ce of Noise Control, 1976, as modified by Charles i~g. Salter Assoc{ates, Inc. FI-ISVA Noise Imoact Assessment The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has established noise standards for federally-funded roadway projects. The noise standards are conta{necl {n Federal Aid Highway Program Manual (FI-IPM) 7-?-2, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and construction Noise. FHPM 7-7-8 defines a traffic noise impact to be "when the predicted traffic noise levels approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria, or when the predicted traffic noise levels substantially exceed the existin[ noise levels." Because there are no sensitive receptors located within the project limits, a federal noise study was not required. 22 l~Iitigation Project related noise levels are within the normally acceptable range as set forth in the Genera Plan and is not expected to exceed these levels. The project is ~4thin a com_merMM area w-ith no sensitive receptors. Because of ezisting Town desig~ guidelines, businesses are set back ~rom the street and most have parking spaces in front which provide additional noise buffering. The hours of constr~action would be limited to between ?:30 A.)I. and 6:00 P.M. and construction equipment would be appropriately muffed. Caltrans has developed construction noise pe~ormance standards for new roadways. The incorporation of these specifica~,ons into the construction management for this project will reduce construction noise. 9.4 SOCIAL AN]D ECONO~IIC Question #30 Cause clisruption of orderly planned development? Question #31 Be inconsistent with any elements of adopted community plans, policies, or goals, the Governor's Urban Strategy or the President's National Urban Policy (if I~-EPA project)? Question#3? Affect employment, industry or commerce, or require the displacement o£ businesses of farms? Settin~ Land Use - Existing land use adjacent to the project is predominately commerdal office and retail. The City of Dublin General Plan desi=~nates Dublin Boulevard as an arterial street. The project limits are ~¼thin the CDD o£the City o£Dublin, iDowntown Dublin serves a major role as a re~onal retail center. The City of Dublin to§e~er with the Cities o£ 8an l~mon gnd Pleasanton are referred to as the Tri-Valley Area. The Tri-Valley is projected to grow substantially over the coming fifteen ~ears. The within the City of Dublin is projected to increase from approximately 15,000 to 40,000 residents. One section of the project rea~uires the acquisition of an e~==ht foot wide strip of land in front of the Cro'~n Chevrolet Automobile DeJership, resulting in about square feet of land. This land use currently used as a landscape strip (Sve feet wide) and as parc of the paved vehicle display area for the dealership (three feet 23 strip). This project wou/d result in the reduction of the vehicle display area for the dealership, the 3,200 square feet reduction is about 1.5% of the entire parcel (916,000± square foot parcel); or about 5% of the fron+~age cnsplay are . The reduction · ,,vill be noticeable to the dealership, however it will not disp]ace the business. V/ith the appropriate compensation for the acquisition of the property, the toss of square feet of property is not considered s[gmJiicant. The number of "lost vehicle · . s" would de]send on the size of the vehicles being c]isplayed and the d~spJay sp..ace ~ .... ~^ ~L-~l=~; the vehicles and would range from 0 to 35 spaces. narro~ver new lanc[scape s%r~p ~nr~ ~ ........ The City has prepared a re~dsed parkLng plan for the Crown Chevrolet display area three foot landscaped strip alon~ w~uc meets City parking re(]uirements with a Dublin Boulevard. Compared to the existLng parkEng for the display area (which does not meet City parkin~ requirements), the reprised parking plan would result in the loss of approximately 18 to 90 parkin~ spaces (i.e. 87 e~stin~ spaces would be replaced with 39 revised spaces). The D owmto~vn Dublin Speci~c Plan calls for the retention of the e~stin~ automobile dealerships (tw,o locations in Downtown Dublin) on an inte.~m basis, recogrfizin~ that as land values increase in the dov,-ntown area it ~-111 be more economical for the dealerships to sell their ]and and relocate. Immacts The proposed project is consistent with the Dublin General Plan ~idelines for planned development of the CBD and is compatible with surroundin~ commercial and retail uses. The project is also consistent ~ith the Dow-ntown Dublin Specific Plan's general goal to maintain downtown Dublin as a strony rexona! retail center. Further, implementation of this project %-111 carry out the recommendations of the City of Dublin's Downtown Improvement Plan Traffic and Parkin~ Constraints study, to provide additional capacity in the CBD alony Dublin Boulevard and at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road. Improvements to Dublin Boulevard ~-ill not cause any displacement. The lack of capaclty kaprovement$ may a~ect the economic development of the CBD and adversely affect employment, indust~' and com]merce. ~Iiti_~at~on No mitigation is required. 24 9.5 TRANSPORTATION .Question #40 Affect public utilities, or police, fire, emergency or other public services? Question #41 Have substantial impact on existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people anc]7or goods? Question ==42 Affect vehicular movements or generate additional tra~c? Question #43 Affect or be affected by e~sting parking facilities or result in demand for new parking? Settin~ The proposed project will not alter the present circ,~ation pattern, it is an effort to pro~dde for additional capacity on the emisting local circulation system to se~-e anticipated growth and development. tmoacts The proposed momficat~on~ wdll not adversely affect public utilities or public se~dces. The increased capacity of the roadway and intersection ~d!l, in effect, emhance public services to the area. Project improvements ~ill contribute to more effective movement of emergency vehicles on Dublin Boulevard. Also, the pro,fairy of the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road to Interstate 580 makes it important for the expeditious mobility of police, fire, and emergency vehicles accessing the area to and from the freeway. The proposed improvements are a desi=~n effort to mitigate existing and future tr~M~fic congestion levels. They are improvements to the existing system and are not anticipated to attract additional traffic, change or impact vehicular movements. Right. o~tway takings are minimal and only a~ect landscape and parking areas. Two. parkin% spaces on private property will be lost near Golden Gate Drive and another two near Village Park~vay. Restriping of these parcels ~ill possibly gain a parallel or diagonal space. As described above, the loss of vehicle display spaces can be minimized by ~vortdng out a display comSguration which optimizes the entire display area and by the reduction of new landscape strip along the frontage to three feet (which would result in a net loss of a three foot strip of paved display area). All on-street parking (approximately 115 spaces) will be eliminated from Dublin Bo~evard in the project area. Parking studies for the dowmtown area indicate a low usage of on-street parking spaces. A parking survey conducted during the Christmas 25 season, which is traditionally the busiest time of the year, yielded a 4-25% occupancy ratio for on-street parking. This project will displace current on-street parked vehicles to other cross-streets and perhaps to the adjacent off-street parking facilities. There is a large supply of downtown parking both on- and off-street. 9.6 ARCHAEOLOGICAL A_ND HISTORIC Question #47 Affect any significant archaeological or historic site, structure, obj oct or building? Setting The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the proposed project fa]is entirely within the area disturbed by Dublin Road improvements in the 1960%. There are no historic street within ',Jne APE. Imoacts A recent search was conducted by the Northwest Im%rmation Center, Sonoma State University. An additional records search ad field surveys conducted by Archaeological Services, Inc. of Stockton, California indicates that no pre~-iously recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological sites have been found within the project area. Though the project site possesses some geographical features typical of prehistorical archaeological sites (located at the base of foothills and along a water course), it has been disturbed (mostly paved) by previous Dublin Boulevard improvements in the 1960's. Mitigation Should buried archaeological materials such as bone, obsidian, chert, midden, ceramic or glass frag~aents, square naars, or bricks be uncovered during excavation or construction, a qualified archaeologist should be retained to evaluate the f~nds and make recommendations as appropriate. 10. i~IITIGATIO~- OF L~I]PACTS DUE TO RIGI-IT-OF-WAY hEEDS Impacts due to the taking of right-of-way in order to increase substandard lane widths (10-12 feet) are minimal. No structures ~ilt be demolished or moved. The future right-of- way is currently used for p~vate parking and landscaping. %Vhere the removal of existing landscaping a_nd street trees occurs, ne~v trees platanus acerifotia, wilt be planted at a 1:t ratio in the adjacent planting strip. All 26 new trees and shrubs will be a minimum of' 15 gallon and 5 gallon sizes respectively. Trees and shrubs removed from private property, w~l be replaced by the City as desired by the property owners. Impacts due to the linking of right-of-way in order to increase substandard lane widths (10-19. feet) are minimal. No structures will be demolished or moved. The future right-of-way is currently used for private parking, landscaping and automobile display area for a car dealership. In some areas, the proposed right-of-way etiminatas existing parking spaces and vehicle display area on private property. Afar road widening, these areas will be restriped for angled or parallel parking to replace the ma~mum spaces possible. V~here appropriate, spaces may be designated for compact cars only. The new landscape strip in front of the automobile dealership can be lin~ited to three feet to provide for mip~rnal reductSon of display area. The net loss of parking spaces is not significant. The Dublin Downtown Specific Plan, adopted by the City Council on July 21, 1987, revised the parking standards for downtown development. 1Recent studies revealed that past standards had resulted in an oversupply of par 'trina with/n the Central Business District. Mitigation, All needed right-of-~vay will be acquired at fair market value which is based, amon=~ other things, on the e.,dsting use of the lands. 27 The theoretice! maximum V/C ratio is expre--e- =-- - , however, ratios creater than !.gg a-e o=ten suP~!~=d tc ' ' - _ ...... c for ~ ~n~=~=c~i°~ indicate the d ..... to wn~c~ the d~' ............ ~ exces= of its ohvsica! c~oacitv. The !.gg re=resents t hlgmesu volume of traf=~ tn~t c~n u~! = n_ hour u=riod. Ratios cf !ess ~han i. cues { 0~. d~r{ ~c ~ O. ~ - - - . ' i 6 ' ' - ~ ~; ~ ~ {~ = ~ ~ ~ v ~- ~ traff~ ~ concznzcns. -- at level of service (LOS} E. r.=v=i = of c=r"ic= anco f .... A (~ {cht tra==!c} ts F {song tion, traffic levels above capacit';2 · ln=_rsesli~= are normai!v cons~S~ec to ~ cs~_-tinc _a~__ -_ -- - - -~ LOS C or Deuce=. LOS D { = de=~ ~os as "asuroachinc unsteb~ = ~ cw cf cueues dove!os bun are quickly c]ear=~ ?°~=rab!= LOS E is defined as "unslabl~ ~!cw cf cperetion; the interseg- uion h== rea~m=s u] t{-=to c~sacitv; this condition is non ' -- ~ .......... __z 1 ra~l del uncommon in pe~k hou~s. Concestion { ~to e e - LOS F is "=e .... = flow of operation, intersection cs. er~tes caoecity, j aux~ec.