HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.4 EDubPropAttach7Vol2Revised Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
East Dublin Properties
Stage I Development Plan and Annexation
Volume 2: Appendices
SCH No. 2001052114
Revised Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
East Dublin PrOperties
Stage I Development Plan and Annexation
Volume 2: Appendices
SCHNo. 2001052114
Lead Agency
City of Dublin
January 2002
CITY'OF
DUBLIN
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568
Notice of Preparation
Website: http://www, ci.dublin.ca.us
TO."
Distribution List (see attached)
Subject:
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report
Date: May 25, 2001
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
Planning Department
] O0 Civic Plaza 1
Dublin CA 94568
Contact: Anne Kinney, AICP, Planning Department, (925)~833 6610
The City of Dublin will be the Lead Agency and hereby invites comments on the proposed scope
and content of the Environmental Impact Report for the project identified below. Your agency
may need to use the EIR prepared by the Lead Agency when considering follow-on permits or
other approvals for this project.
Project Title: East Dublin Properties (PA 00-025).
Project Location: Unincorporated area of Alameda CoUnty, adjacent to City of
Dublin eastern city limits, mediately north of Interstate 580 and east of Fallon Road.
See attached project location map. The site encompasses approximately 1,120 acres of land.
Project Description: Planned Development Prezone / Stage 1 Development Plan and
Annexation/Detachment application to facilitate the annexation of approximately 1,120 acres
of land to the City of Dublin and attachment to and detachment from various service districts.
The Planned Development (PD) Prezone / Stage 1 Development Plan would provide zoning
for various land uses including commercial, industrial and residential development, parks,
schools, open space and other uses.
The attached Initial Study identifies potential environmental effects anticipated to be discussed in
the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.
Due to time limits mandated by State law, your response must be remmed at the earliest possible
time but not later than June 27, 2001. Please send your response to the contact person
identified above.
Signature:
Title:, ~t.,~ e.,~
Telephone:
Area Code (925) - City Manager 833-6650 · City Council 833-6650 · Personnel 833-6605 - Economic Development 833-6650
Finance 833-6640 - Public Works/Engineering 833-6630 - Parks & Community Services 833-6645' · Police 833-6670
Planning/Code Enforcement 833-6610 · Building Inspection 833-6620 - Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606
Printed on Recycled Paper
DISTRIBUTION LIST
TO:
Office of Planning and Research- Terry Roberts (15 copies)
Dublin San Ramon Services District (Brace Webb)
Dublin Unified School District- John Sugiyama
LAVTA
Zone 7, ACFC&WCD - Diane Gaines
Alameda County Planning Department - Adolph Martinelli
Surplus Property Authority of Alameda County - Pat Cashman
Alameda County Public Works Department
Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission
Congestion Management Agency (CMA) - Jean Hart
East Bay Regional Parks District
Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District
U.S. Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks) - Lt. Col. Dale Bain
PG&E
Pacific Bell
TCI Cable
U.S. Postal Service - Postmaster
City of Pleasanton Planning Department
City of Livermore Planning Department
Livermore Area Recreation and Park District - Doug Bell
CalTrans - District 4 CEQA Coordinator and Project Development
BART
LAVWMA
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Regulatory Branch
California Department of Fish and Game - Region 3
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - State Supervisor
LAFCO - Lou Ann Texteria
Citizens for Balanced Growth
Smart Flashman
Richard Ambrose, City Manager
Captain Thuman, Police Services
Eddie Peabody, Jr., Community Development Director
Lee Thompson, Public Works Director
Carole Perry, Finance/Administrative Services Director
Elizabeth Silver, City Attorney
Diane Lowart, Parks and Community Services Director
Jim Ferdinand, Dublin Fire Prevention
East Dublin Property Owners
APPENDIX A: INITIAL STUDY
INITIAL STUDY - SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
East Dublin Properties
City of Dublin
Environmental Checklist/
Initial Study
Introduction
This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, as amended), and assesses the potential
environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project describedbelow.
The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist, and a brief explanation
:of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. Because the proposed project is
based on the land use designations, circulation patterns, etc. assigned to the project area
by the City of Dublin's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, this Initial Study
relies upon a Program EIR certified by the City of Dublin in 1993 for the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (the "Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report", State Clearinghouse No.
91103064). That EIR, which is referred to in this Initial Study as the "Eastern Dublin
EIR", evaluated the following impacts: Land Use; Population, Employment and Housing;
Traffic and Circulation; Community Services and Facilities; Sewer, Water and Storm
Drainage; Soils, Geology and Seismicity; Biological Resources; Visual Resources;
Cultural Resources; Noise; Air Quality; and Fiscal Considerations.
Some of the potentially significant impacts identified in the Eastem Dublin EIR apply to
the proposed project and, therefore, the adopted mitigation measures also apply and are
included in this Initial Study by reference. However, as indicated in the environmental
checklist, conditions related to Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources,
Noise, Public Services (schools), Transportation/Circulation,. and Utilities/Service
Systems may have changed enough since the EIR was certified that new potentially
significant environmental impacts may exist for those topics, or a potentially substantial
increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects for those topics may
exist. However, because only minor additions or changes are necessary to make the
Eastern Dublin EIR adequate in light of those changed circumstances, a focused
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) will be prepared for the proposed
project.
1
Applicant/Contact Person
East Dublin Property Owners
c/o Shea Homes, Kathryn Watt
2580 Shea Center Drive
Livermore, CA 94550
Phone: (925) 245-3600
FAX: (925) 245-8833
Project Location and Context
The project site is approximately 1,110 acres in area and is located in an unincorporated
area of Alameda County bounded by Interstate 580 (1-580) to the south and Fallon Road
to/he west. Exhibit 1 shows the project location in relation to the general Bay Area. The
area abuts the eastern city limit boundary of the City of Dublin (please refer to Exhibit 2).
The entire project area is located within the City of Dublin's General Plan Planning Area
and Sphere of Influence. Approximately 472 acres of the project area also are included
within the City's Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area (please refer to Exhibit 4). The
project site consists of thirteen (13) different parcels under eleven (11) separate
ownerships (please refer to Exhibit 7).
The topography of the site ranges from relatively flat at the southern portion near the
freeway, to gently rolling hills at the center of the site, to relatively steep slopes, some
exceeding 30% in some places. A series of low knolls trending from northwest to
southeast bisect the southern portion of the property and provide a backdrop to the flatter
portions of the site near the freeway. A few drainages flow in a north to south
orientation, transecting the project area along its length. Exhibit 3 shows the topography
of the project site. A small number of trees exist beyond those planted around existing
homesteads and scattered in the drainages.
The project properties currently are used primarily for dryland fanning and cattle grazing
with rural residences, a horse ranch and associated outbuildings scattered throughout the
site. Improvements to the agricultural lands generally consist of paved and unpaved
roads, fences, barns, corrals, wells, water tanks, ponds, single-family homes and various
outbuildings.
In 1994 the City of Dublin adopted a General Plan Amendment and a Specific Plan which
addressed long-term development of approximately 4,200 acres of land east of the central
portion of Dublin. The entire project site is located in the easternmost portion of that
General Plan Amendment area and a portion of the site (approx. 472 acres) is located
within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project would implement the easternmost
portion of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan. For the portion of the
project area located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), the Specific Plan
identifies land uses, circulation patterns, infrastructure requirements, and programs and
policies which. At build-out, this portion of the project's 472 acres would provide
2
approximately 1,240 dwelling units and almost 1.4million square feet of office,
commercial and industrial floor space at the mid-point densities contemplated by the
EDSP. This represents approximately 10% of the total EDSP residential units and 11%
of the total office, commercial, industrial and institutional floor space (Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, page 16). This portion of the project site also provides 103 acres for
schools, public parks and open space, approximately 11% of the total EDSP acreage
designated for such uses (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, pp. 24-25). The other 637 acres
of the project site have been designated by the General Plan for residential land uses and
would provide 1,286 dwelling units at mid-point densities for low density and rural
residential/agriculture uses indicated by the General Plan, with 34.5 acres dedicated to
schools, parks and open space.
Project Description
All of the subject property is located within the unincorporated area of Alameda County.
The proposed project consists of: a Stage 1 Development Plan application to the City of
Dublin requesting a pre-zoning of the site in accordance with the City's General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin and the
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD); execution of a Pre-Annexation
Agreement between the City of Dublin and the project proponents/property-owners;
detachment from the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD) upon
annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin; and, post-annexation, probable
cancellation of Williamson Act contracts for several of the properties within the project
area. Although not requiring City action, the project proponents also are requesting
detachment of the project area from the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District
(LVJUSD) and attachment to the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD). This Initial
Study evaluates all of those actions.
Stage 1 Planned Development (Prezoning)
State law requires property to be prezoned before annexation can take place. Prezoning is
an action to indicate what city zoning will take effect once the annexed property becomes.
part of the city. The City of Dublin uses a Stage 1 Planned Development (PD) under
Chapter 8.32 of its zoning ordinance to prezone property in accordance with the City's
General Plan and, in this case, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations. Under
the City's zoning ordinance a Stage 1 development plan must establish: a plan of
proposed land use by type and density of use; the maximum number of dwelling units and
commercial/office/industrial areas; a master landscape plan; and a preliminary
development phasing plan. Once the site is annexed, project proponents will apply for a
Stage 2 PD for site-specific zoning and development plan approval. City approval of a
Stage 2 development plan must be received to complete the PD zoning process.
Table 1 indicates the land uses and development intensities proposed for the project site.
Proposed land uses, residential densities and development intensities are consistent with
the City's recommended midpoint densities of the'General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan. The project proposes a maximum of 2,526 dwelling units and
3
approximately 1.4 million square feet of neighborhood commercial, general commercial
and industrial park development. Also included in the plan are approximately 32 acres
for school sites, 41 acres for parks, and a minimum of 77 acres of open space.
Residential densities range from Low (0.9 - 6 du/acre) to Medium High (14-25 du/acre),
although 270 acres of the project area is designated for Rural Residential density which
allows only 1 unit for every one hundred acres.
Exhibit 6 shows the proposed land uses and pre-zoning designations for the project area.
Commercial and industrial uses are located generally along the freeway corridor where
noise would overly impact residential uses and where access is easiest for such uses.
ReSidential uses are located in the northern two thirds of the project area. Parks and
schools are distributed throughout the project site as indicated by the Specific Plan and
General Plan: two elementary schools, one junior high school, four neighborhood parks,
and a neighborhood square with additional acreage to be dedicated to a large planned
community park just west of the proposed project. The EDSP anticipated that the
Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission might adopt an Airport Protection Area
(APA) for the Livermore Municipal Airport which would prohibit residential uses within
5000 feet of the airport runways. Some areas of the EDSP designated for residential land
uses and which were anticipated to be within the future APA, also are designated in the
EDSP as Future Study Area, requiring additional review and action by the City to
determine the most appropriate land use (see also page 16 of the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan). This designation affects 92.6 acres of the project site.
As part of the proposed project, the project developers would construct all major
roadways and public infrastructure such as water, wastewater, recycled water, and storm
drainage facilities. Major roadways would be constructed to and through the project area
with project proponents utilizing assessment districts, Mello Roos districts or other
appropriate financing mechanisms to help fund construction.
Grading activities would occur within the project area to accommodate planned land uses,
roads and utilities, although the amount of grading will not be established until the Stage
2 Planned Development when detailed site and grading plans are developed. Water,
sewer and recycled water services would be provided to the area by DSRSD in
accordance with plans formulated by DSRSD and the City's General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan. As development in Dublin continues expanding eastward to Fallon
Road and the project site, public utilities will be extended concomitantly. The project
developers would continue the extension of these services throughout the project site as it
is developed.
Water distribution mains are planned to be located in all major streets. Construction of
water storage reservoirs are not anticipated to be part of this project. Sewer service for
the project would be provided through connection to the DSRSD sewer system once it is
extended through Dublin Ranch, located to the west of the project area. Gravity flow
sewer mains would be installed along Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard.
Temporary pumping stations may be needed in the initial stages of development. When
and where available, DSRSD would provide recycled water for irrigation purposes,
reducing the need for potable water.
The storm drainage system would consist of underground pipes and culverts throughout
the site connecting to box culverts and/or open channels that would flow southerly and
westerly along 1-580 to the existing G-3 drainage channel, an Alameda County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District facility.
The City of Dublin's inclusionary zoning ordinance requires that 5% of a project's
dwelling units must be affordable to very low, Iow and moderate income households.
Compliance could consist of constructing the required number of inclusionary units or
paying an in-lieu fee to the City. The project proponents will be required to comply with
the ordinance, although the specific method generally would not be determined until the
Stage 2 PD and related subdivision maps are reviewed.
The project applicants indicate that land uses and infrastructure would be phased over a
number of years to ensure that roads and other infrastructure facilities would be available
to support land uses as they are needed. As indicated in the applicants' Stage 1 PD
submittal to the City, preliminary development of the first phases could commence in two
years with project build-out anticipated to be completed over the ensuing five to ten
years.
Proposed Reorganization (annexations and detachments)
The project site is contiguous with the City of Dublin and all of its 1,120 acres lie within
Dublin's Sphere of Influence and within the Sphere of Influence of the Dublin San
Ramon Services District (DSRSD). The City's General Plan and the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan (which addresses 472 acres of the project area), contemplated the eventual
annexation and development of the project site in accordance with the land use
designations, programs and policies of each Plan. The annexation of the project site by
Dublin would complete the expansion of the City in this area per its current Sphere of
Influence.
Similarly, the project area is within the expected service area of DSRSD and all of
DSR. SD's master plans for the provision and distribution of water, wastewater service,
and recycled water include the annexation of, and service to, the project site. Because the
water, wastewater, and recycled water services are provided to the City of Dublin by
DSRSD, the City and DSRSD have concurred in policy that their boundaries and Spheres
of Influence will be coterminous (except for that portion of DSRSD's service area which
extends to portions of Contra Costa County). Hence, annexation of the area to the City
also requires annexation of the area to DSRSD to provide needed services.
One of the City's General Plan Guiding Policies (3.3 A) is to expand park area to serve
new development. Both the City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
contemplate the expansion of park services to the project site and indicated preferred park
locations within the project area. However, the project site currently is within the
boundaries of LARPD. Detachment of the project area from the LARPD service area is a
logical step once annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin is assured,
particularly since Dublin has planned for the expansion of its park services. A similar
5
detachment was carried out when the property immediately to the west was annexed to
the City.
The project site is located within the City's General Plan Eastern Extended Planning
Area. A City of Dublin Guiding Policy (4.1 B) promotes cooperation with the Dublin
Unified School District to ensure provision of school facilities in the Extended Planning
Area, thereby ensuring that all incorporated areas of the City are served by one school
district. The General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan have indicated potential
school sites within the project area which are to be offered for dedication to DUSD.
Dublin Unified School District has considered the project area for service since adoption
of the Eastern Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Extended Planning Area. However,
as above, the project area currently is within the boundaries of the Livermore Valley Joint
Unified School District. Deannexation of the project area from the LvJUSD service area
is a logical step once annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin is assured,
particularly since DUSD and the City have planned for school service to the project area.
A similar reorganization of school district boundaries occurred when property
immediately to the west was annexed.
A reorganization of school district boundaries, however, does not require a City action or
LAFCO action, but does require approval by the two involved school boards. The project
applicant already has been in contact with the staff's of both school districts and will
make a request for reorganization to the ~'o boards.
Pre-annexation Agreement/Development Agreements
The City requires that the project proponents and property owners enter into pre-
annexation and development agreements with the City. Pre-annexation agreements
encourage project proponents and the City to meet certain mutual obligations while the
area proposed for annexation is proceeding through entitlement processes and ensure that
the proposed project will not be a financial burden to the City. Development agreements
vest development approvals for a specified period of time so that developers of large,
time extensive projects have the ability to construct such projects in a time frame and
under mutual obligations beneficial to the City and the project proponent. Issues typically
.addressed in development agreements include, but are not limited to: density and
intensity of land use; timing of development; financing methods and timing of
infrastructure; determination of traffic, noise, public facility and other impact fees; and
obligations for construction of streets and roads. Development agreements would be part
of a later City action generally occurring with City approval of a Stage 2 Planned
Development, Site Development Review and tentative subdivision map..
Williamson Act Cancellation
Four of the thirteen parcels, approximately 637 acres, are under Williamson Act
contracts (please refer to Exhibit 8). Under the Williamson Act, the landowner agrees to
limit the use of land to agriculture and compatible uses for a minimum period of ten
years. In turn, the county in which the land is located agrees to tax the land at a lower
rate based upon its agricultural use rather than its real estate market value. To withdraw
6
from a contract, the land-owner must notify the county with a Notice of Non-Renewal.
Withdrawal involves a ten-year period of tax adjustments based upon full market value
before land can be removed from the preserve program. Notices of non-renewal have
been filed on the four parcels noted above, with contracts expiring in 2006, 2009 and
2010. It is anticipated that at least several of the property-owners of these four parcels
will request early cancellation of these contracts upon annexation to the City.
1. Project description
2. Lead agency:
3. Contact person:
4. Project location:
5. Project contact person:
6. General Plan designations:
7. Proposed Pre-zoning:
Application for a Stage 1 PD (prezoning), request
for annexation to the City of Dublin and DSRSD,
detachment fi.om LARPD, request to enter into pre-
annexation agreements; and potential
Williamson Act contract cancellation for the four
parcels in Exhibit 8.
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94583
Anne Kinney, Dublin Planning Department
(925) 833-6610
North ofi-580 and east of Fallon Road
East Dublin Property Owners
c/o Shea Homes, Kathryn Watt
2580 Shea Center Drive
Livermore, CA 94550
(925) 245 3600
Low Density Residential (0.9-6.0 da/ac), Medium
Density Residential (6.1-14.0 da/ac), Medium High
Density Residential (14.1-25.0 da/ac),- Rural
Residential/Agriculture (0.01 da/ac), Neighborhood
Commercial (.25-.60 FAR), General Commercial
(.20-.60 FAR), Industrial Park (.35 FAR maximum),
Elementary School, Junior High School, Neighbor-
hood Park, Community Park, Neighborhood Square,
Open Space and Stream Corridor
PD-Single Family Residential, PD-Medium Density
Residential, PD-Medium High Density Residential,
PD-Neighborhood Commercial, PD-General
Commercial, PD-Industrial Park, PD - Future Study
Area (Rural Residential/Agriculture and General
Commercial), PD-Elementary School, PD-Junior
High School, PD-Neighborhood Park, PD-
Neighborhood Square, PD-Community
Park, PD-Rural Residential/Agriculture, and PD-
Open Space.
8. Other public agency required approvals:
Annexation (City of Dublin)
Annexation (DSRSD)
Referral to Alameda County Airport Land'
Use Commission (ALUC)
Detachment (LVJUSD)
Detachment (LARPD)
Attachment (DUSD)
Stage 2 Development Plans (City of Dublin)
Development Agreement
Vesting tentative and final subdivision maps
(Dublin)
Site Development Review
Grading and building permits (City of
Dublin)
Sewer and water connections (DSRSD)
Encroachment permits (City of Dublin)
Potentially:
Notice of Intent (Water Resources
Control Board)
404 Permit (US Army Corps of
Engineers)
Streambed Alteration Permit (California
Department of Fish and Game)
Permits fi.om San Francisco Bay Region
Water Quality Control Board
Permits fi.om U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
Encroachment or other permits from
CalTrans
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below may be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics X Agricultural X Air Quality
Resources
X Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Hydrology/Water Land Use/
Materials Quality Planning
Mineral Resources
X Noise Population/
Housing
X Public Services Recreation X Transportation/
Circulation
X Utilities/Service X Mandatory Findings
Systems of Significance
Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the
environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Negative
Declaration will be prepared.
X I find that although the proposed project may have a potentially significant effect, or
a potentially significant effect unless mitigated, on the environment, but at least one
effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards; and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on the attached sheets. A focused Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report is required, but it must only analyze the effects that remain to be
addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
9
· ignificant-efiect~: a) have been andyz~ adequately in an earlier F_II~ pursumt to
at~licable ~'tandm~; and Co) have bccn avoided or mitigated parsumt to that earlier
including rm, i~ions or mitigation me, a, ures that are impos.e,:l on thc proposed project.
Printed Nm,e: t~"'"~ g-[~'*'*;,', l=or:
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1)
A brief explanation ia r,qui~ed for all answers except "no impact" ~n~,vers that are
supported by the information som'c~ a load agcrmy cites in the partmth~is
following each question. A "no imp~t" art~wer is adequately supported if the
r~fer~nccd informat/on soume~ ~ow tlmt the impact ~imply does not apply to
pmjoct~ like the one involved (c.g. tho project falls out.~_de a fault rapture zone),
or, in this case, there is no impact of the proposal project b~vond thai which
was a>nsldered prerlou,ly In the E~tern Dubltn EIR and/or for which a
Stalzment of Overriding Conwidertrtion waz adopted by the City Council at
the time the E~,,~teru Dublin EIR wu ct,~rified. A "no impact" arum, er should
be cot?!_ained where it is b~ed on project-~pecific factor~ az well m general fat:tors
(e.g. the project will not expose semitive receptors to pollutants, b~ed on a
projcct-~ecific ~'-reening analysis).
2)
All answers must take ~Ccount of the whole action, including off-site as well
amsitc, cumulative a~ well az project-level, inclirect as well a~ direct, and
cormtmction a~ well a~ operational impm:t~.
3)
"Potentially Significant Impact~ is appropriate if thor, i~ substantial cadence that
an effect is significant. It th~rc arc one or more "potcntislly significant imp~t"
entries when the cl~ermination is made, ~.u EIK is required.
4)
"Negative D,claration: Potentially Significmt Unless Mkigafion Incorporated"
implies elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation rnea~ures hax reduced mu effect
from "potentially significant efft~" to a "less than significant impact". The lead
~.lleucy mm d~cribe the mitigation measures and briefly expNin how they r~:luce
the effect to a less than ~ignificaut level.
Environmental Impacts (Nme: Sea, cc ofcleterminafion li~ed in parenthesis. See
listing of sources used to dc~,,~irm each potential impact at the end of the checklist.)
10
Issues:
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings,
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings?
d) Create a new source, of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime vie. ws in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
In determining whether impacts to
agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
(1997) prepared by the California Dept.
of Conservation as an optional model to
use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
X
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
x
-X
No
Impact
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricUltural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available,
the significance criteria established by
the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be
relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would the project:
12
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department offish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal Pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
X
X
x
X
Less. Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impact
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
X
X
13
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES --
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeolo~cal
resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would
the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication
42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
x
x
x
No
Impact
14
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS-Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
c) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials s:ites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Les[Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
x
X
x
X
X
X
No
Impact
X
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment?
d) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
e) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
g) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY -- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less. Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
x
x
x
X
x
NO
Impact
X
16
level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as
a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less.Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
x
X
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
IX. LAND USE AND'PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
X. MINE~ RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
XI. NOISE -- Would the project result
in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
18
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
x
X
X
x
X
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundbome noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
.Impact
X
X
X
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
-- Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
X
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public
facilities, including roads?
XIV. RECREATION--
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deter/oration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
Potentially
Significant
Impact
X
Less. Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
x
x
X
X
No
Impact
X
X
2O
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
-- Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS -- Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
X
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the. construction of whiCh could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the projects
projected demand in addition to the
providers existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
h) Have sufficient gas and electricity
supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
x
X
x
x
x
X
x
Less. Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
22
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or'prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are.considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
X
X
X
]NO
Impact
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts:
1. City of Dublin General Plan (Revised July 7, 1998)
2. Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, City of Dublin (June 6, 1998)
3. Certified Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 91103064), Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (including the Draft and Final
EIRs, Addenda, etc.)
-- 23
These documents are available for review at:
City of Dublin Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
XVII. Earlier Analyses
This Initial Study is being prepared to determine whether an earlier EIR (the EIX prepared
for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, State Clearinghouse
No. 91103064) may be. used to evaluate the proposed project pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines (Section 15063 (c)(7)).
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are
available for review.
Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this
Initial Study refer to environmental information contained in the 1992 Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State
.Clearinghouse No. 91103064), hereinafter referred to as the Eastern Dublin EIR. The
Eastern Dublin EIR is a Program EIR which was prepared for the Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment and Specific Plan of which this Project is a part. It was certified by the
Dublin City Council on May 10, 1993. As part of the certification the Council adopted a
Statement of Overriding Considerations for the following impacts: cumulative traffic,
extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service),
regional air quality, noise and visual.
The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a large number of mitigation measures which apply to
this Project and which would be applied to any development within the Project area.
Specific mitigation measures identified in the certified Eastern Dublin EIR for potential
impacts are referenced in the text of this Initial Study.
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, several changes in circumstances in which
the Project will take place have occurred and which could effect the impacts and/or
mitigations analysis of the Project. Such changes in circumstances include, but are not
limited to: '1) additions of species to the California and/or Federal Endangered or
Threatened Species Lists; 2) continued development in the Tri-Valley area and beyond
with potential changes in commute patterns and traffic intensities, which also may affect
air quality and noise within or on the project area; 3) changes in California law regarding
annexations (i.e., adoption of AB 2838) which may affect the designation of portions of
the project site as pr/me agricultural soils; and 4) changes in the provision and
distribution of some public services (schools) and public utilities (water, wastewater,
storm drainage and gas and electricity).
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, this Initial Study is intended to
identify the potential for any new or substantially increased significant impacts on or of
24
the Project which were not evaluated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. and which would require
additional environmental review.
Attachment to Initial Study
Discussion of Checklist
Legend PS:
LS:
NI:
Potentially Significant
Less Than Significant; or Less Than Significant due to the
previously adopted mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin EIR
No Impact; or No Additional Impact beyond that which was
previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and/or for which a
Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted
I. AESTHETICS
Environmental Setting
The project site is vacant .except for nine residences and some scattered agricultural
buildings. The Eastern Dublin EIR classifies the project site mainly as "dry-fanning
rotational cropland" covering approximately the southern two-thirds of the site and "non-
native grassland" covering the northern one third. Where agricultural activity, including
grazing, historically has taken place, the visual image of the land is formed by patterns of
the soil that have been furrowed by mechanical means or livestock.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (pp. 71-72) identifies certain ridgelands and ridgetines
within the Project area as "visually sensitive". The lower spur ridges may be developed
consistent with Specific Plan land use designations as long as they meet certain
requirements specified in the Specific Plan. These include the lower, southern series of
east-west trending foothills and three other ridgelines behind these at a general elevation
of 500 feet. Development is prohibited on other ridgelines further to the east and north
(please refer to Figure 6.3 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan). The City's General Plan
also identifies an elevation "cap" above which certain development is prohibited and
provides guidelines for sensitive development at certain elevations and slopes.
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista?
LS. Approval and construction of the proposed Project would alter the character of
existing scenic vistas and could obscure important sightlines if not mitigated.
25
This impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impacts 3.8/C, 3.8/I), 3.8/E, 3.8/G
and 3.8/1)) and with implementation of mitigation measures the identified impacts on
scenic vistas are less-than-significant.
These mitigation measures include: 3.8/3.0, 3.8/4.0-4.5, 3.8/5.0-5.2, 3.8/6.0, 3.8/7.0 and
3.8/7.1 (pages 3.8-4 through 3.8-9 of the. Eastern Dublin E[R). These mitigation
measures encourage preservation of important visual resources, minimized grading for
development; grading and building to preserve natural contours; prohibition of
development along identified ridgelines; and preservation of views of designated open
spaces. These mitigation measures apply to the entire project area.
In addition, Policies 6-29 through 6-38 and text discussion within the Specific Plan
provide direction for the type of development which may occur in "visually sensitive"
areas. These policies are directed towards preserving scenic vistas and view corridors and
provide guidelines for grading and building design and apply in addition to the above-
listed mitigation measures, to the 472-acre of the project within the Specific Plan area.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including state scenic highways?
LS. Development of the project site will alter the visual experience of travelers on
scenic routes in eastern Dublin. Interstate 580 has been designated as a scenic corridor by
Alameda CoUnty. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan anticipates that the proposed Fallon
Road, which borders the Project area to the west, may be designated by the City as a
scenic corridor.
This potential impact (Impact 3.8/J) was identified and addressed in the Eastern Dublin
EIR and implementation of mitigation measures 3.8/8.0 and 3.8/8.1 (page 3.8-9) reduce
this impact to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures encourage the City
to adopt certain roads as scenic corridors (including Fallon Road), and encourage the City
to require detailed visual analyses with development project applications (i.e., Stage 2
Planned Development applications). These mitigation measures apply to the entire
project area. Additionally, Policies 6-30 and 6-31 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
provide guidance for areas of the Project visible fi.om a scenic corridor. These policies, in
addition to the above-listed mitigation measures, apply to the 472-acre of the project
within the Specific Plan area
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
26
c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site?
NI. This impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.8/B - Alteration of
Rural/Open Space Visual Character and Impact 3.8/F - Alteration of Visual Character of
Flatlands). Development of the Project area would alter the existing rural and open space
qualities and alter the existing visual character of valley grasses and agricultural fields.
The EIR concluded that no mitigation measures could be identified to either fully or
partially reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, the'EIR concluded
this impact would be a potentially significant unavoidable impact and an irreversible
change and, pursuant to CEQA, the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding
Consideration for this impact. The proposed project would not change' the scale of
development anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR for the project area and would not
change the level of intensity of impact, therefore, no additional discussion or analysis is
necessary.
d) Create light or glare?
LS. Construction of the proposed project would increase the amount of light and glare
due to new street lighting and building security lighting. In some instances the additional
lighting could result as perceived negative aesthetic impacts through the "spill over" of
unwanted lighting onto adjacent properties, parks and other areas that are not intended to
be lighted. The anticipated light and glare generated by the proposed Project would not
be unique or sufficiently different from other development projects within the City or the
Eastern Dublin planning area. In addition, development within a portion of the proposed
Project area is subject to review by the Airport Land Use Commission for the Livermore
Municipal Airport: all potential li~t sources must meet the criteria established by the
ALUC prior to development. The City of Dublin has adopted regulations which limit the
amount of "spill-over" lighting and conditions of approval also are routinely adopted with
each project which address potential light and glare impacts. The City's zoning
ordinance, adopted site development review guidelines, and conditions of approval
become part of the project, if approved and the project would have impacts that are less-
than-significant.
Because light and glare created by the proposed Project would be typical of development
elsewhere in the City, and due to standard City regulations, light and glare impacts would
be less-than-significant.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Setting
Historically the Project site has been used for grazing, dry-land farming, a horse ranch,
and other non,intensive agricultural endeavors. The Eastern'Dublin EIR characterizes the
majority of the area as farmland "of local importance" (Figure 3.l-B), which is defined as
those 'farmlands which contribute to the local production of food, feed, fiber, forage and
oilseed crops (p. 3.1-2). The Eastern Dublin EIR considered the discontinuation of
27
agricultural uses as an insignificant impact due to the high percentage of Williamson Act
contracts which were non-renewed and the limited value of the non-prime soils. And,
because the farmlands on the Project site were not considered "prime", their loss was
judged to be insignificant.
However, since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the evaluation of soils considered
as "prime" for annexation purposes has been modified through adoption of criteria
established by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act
(Government Code Section 56064, referred to as Assembly Bill 2838). Soils which
previously would not have been considered as "prime agricultural soils" and land which
was not considered significant or important for agricultural purposes may now be
considered as such by the new law.
Pro_iect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, c) Convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use or involve other changes which
could result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use?
PS. According to the Agricultural Suitability Map for the Project area prepared by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, much of the site supports farmlands of "local
importance" since it contributes to the production of feed (grazing). Almost 59 acres of
the site are shown as containing Class I and 12[ soils in the Land Use Capability
Classification system of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Under Assembly
Bill 2838, Class I and II Soils are considered "prime" as long as they have not been
developed with non-agricultural uses. Since the proposed Project includes annexation to
the City of Dublin and the Project area contains Class I and II soils, the effect of
conversion of the property from grazing use to non-agricultural, planned urban uses may
be a potentially significant environmental impact.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a V~illiamson Act contract?
PS. Four of the thirteen parcels, approximately 637 acres, are under Williamson Act
contracts (please refer to Exhibit 8). Under the Williamson Act, the landowner agrees to
limit the use of land to agriculture and compatible uses for a minimum period of ten
years. In mm, the county in which the land is located agrees to tax the land at a lower
rate based upon its agricultural use rather than its real estate market value. To withdraw
from a contract, the land-owner must notify the county with a Notice of Non-Renewal.
Withdrawal involves a ten-year period of tax adjustments based upon full market value
before land can be removed from the preserve program. Notices of non-renewal have
been filed on the four parcels noted above, with contracts expiring in 2006, 2009 and
2010. It is anticipated that several of the property-owners of these four parcels will
request cancellation of these contracts. With recent amendments to annexation statutes
regarding the definition of prime agriculture lands further investigation of this potential
impact is warranted to determine if this will be significant.
28
III. AIR QUALITY
Environmental Setting
Dublin is located in the Th-Valley Air Basin. Within the Basin, state and federal
standards for nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and lead are met. Standards for other
airborne pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide and suspended particulate matter ·
(PM-10) are not met in at least a portion of the Basin.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan?
PS. Although the project itself may not contribute any more pollutants than originally
anticipated by the Eastern Dublin EIR, as a result of more rapid urbanization in the Tri-
Valley area than originally expected, an increase in traffic through the Th-Valley from
other areas, and changing commute patterns, the environment in which the project would
occur may have changed enough such that the project could contribute to emissions
exceeding Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) significance
thresholds. This may be a potentially significant impact.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standards?
PS. For the reasons noted above (i.e., changed environmental setting of the project), the
project could contribute.to emissions exceeding BAAQMD significance thresholds. This
may be a potentially significant impact.
c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants?
PS. For the reasons noted in a) above (i.e., the changed environmental setting of the
project), the project could contribute to emissions exceeding BAAQMD significance
thresholds. This may be a potentially significant impact.
d, e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create
objectionable odors?
NI. Development of the Project area with urban uses will create emissions fi'om a variety
of miscellaneous stationary (non-vehicular) sources such as fuel combustion in power
plants or water heaters, industrial and commercial uses, evaporative emissions from
paints and cleaning products, etc. The Eastern Dublin EIR noted that although such
emissions would be extremely small for any individual resident, they could be substantial
when summed over the entire scope of the project (Eastern Dublin EIR, p. 3.11-6). The
Eastern Dublin EIR identified this impact as a potentially significant cumulative impact
which could not be mitigated to achieve the eight-fold reduction in stationary source
emissions needed to meet the'insignificant threshold and, pursuant to CEQA, the City of
Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration for this impact. The proposed
project would not change the scale of development anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR
29
for the project area and would not change the level of intensity of impact, therefore, no
additional discussion or analysis is necessary
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Environmental Setting
Figure 3.7-A of the Eastern Dublin EIR indicates that the Project area is dominated by
dry-farming rotational cropland and non-native grasslands. A small area of arroyo willow
riparian woodland is located just to the east of Fallon Road. Several intermittent streams
and stock ponds also are indicated in this figure. Fields utilized for dry-farming typically
are cropped through various seasonal and annual rotations followed by fallow years.
Crops and croplands are not irrigated. The site is traversed generally north to south by
several drainages which may contain sensitive plant and/or animal species.
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Have a substantial adverse impact on a 'candidate, sensitive, or special-status
species?
PS. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified twelve special status plant species, seventeen
special status amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal species, and ten special status
invertebrate species which could potentially occur within the entire Eastern Dublin
planning area (Tables 3.7~I and 3.7-2, pp. 3-7.19-21), based upon the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the California Fish and Game Commission listings at that time.
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the regulatory status of some of these
species may have changed.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan includes policies to protect special status species
(Policies 6-17 and 6-20). Although the proposed Project would adhere to the.adopted
mitigation measures and Specific Plan policies, changes in regulatory circumstances such
as the adoption of the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytoniO critical habitat
area and its recommendations for habitat preservation and creation, could create a
potentially significant environmental impact if not re-addressed.
b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally pr° tected
wetlands?
PS. Figure 3.7 - B of the Eastem Dublin EIR identifies areas within the Project area
which potentially contain riparian habitat and springs based upon the location of
intermittent streams, stock ponds, seeps, etc. Utilizing Figure 3.7-B, it is estimated that at
least 14,000 linear feet of potential riparian habitat could exist within the Project area.
Although the EIR identifies mitigation measures and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
contains policies to address stream corridors and riparian and wetland areas (Policies 6-9
through 6-13 and 6-15), regulatory standards for such riparian habitats may have changed
since certification of the EIR (e.g.,. new standards for the California red-legged frog
3O
identified in the recently approved critical habitat designation may require different
treatment of riparian and upland habitats). Although the proposed Project would adhere
to the adopted mitigation measures and Specific Plan policies, due to a change in
regulatory circumstances, the Project could have .a potentially significant environmental
impact.
d) Interfere with movement Of native fish or wildlife species?
PS. As noted above, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified a number of special status
wildlife species. Although mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR and policies
within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Policies 6-18 through 6-20) address potential
impacts to the movement of wildlife species, and this Project would be required to adhere
to those mitigation measures and policies, the Project may still have a potentially
significant impact due to changed regulatory standards regarding the movement of
wildlife. For example, recent approval of the critical habitat designation for the
California red-legged flog could require refinement of the impacts and/or mitigations
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
e,f)
Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any
adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans?
PS. The Project would be required to comply will all local policies and ordinances
imposed by the City of Dublin. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains policies and
programs intended to 'protect biological resources and habitat areas and restore and
revegetate habitat where necessary and appropriate (Policies 6-15 through 6-23; Programs
6K-60). However, the Project site lies within the boundaries of the approximately 5.3
million acres in California recently approved as critical habitat for the California red-
legged frog. The proposed designation of the Project area as critical habitat is a changed
regulatory circumstance which could impact local poticies and implementation of the
project as contemplated by the Eastern Dublin EIR. Hence, the changed regulatory
circumstance would result in apotentially significant environmental impact.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Setting
Chapter 3.9 of the Eastern Dublin EIR addresses the potential impacts on cultural
resources which may be located within the Project area. A field inspection of the entire
Eastern Dublin areas was performed in 1988. Three potential pre-historic sites (two of
them isolated' locales) and two historic sites were identified within the proposed Project
area (see pp. 3.9-4 - 3.9-6 of the Eastern Dublin EIR). Maps of these sites were not
included in the EIR to protect them fi.om possible vandalism. The Eastern Dublin EIR
mandated additional project-level archeological surveys.
Project Impacts and Mitieation Measures
a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources?
LS. Only two historic sites (a 1940's-era barn and an early 20th-century ranch/homestead
complex) were identified in the Project area. Due to the expected level of development
within the Project area, the Eastern Dublin EIR assumed that all historic sites would be
disturbed or altered in some manner, even those located in areas designated for Open
Space. This potential impact was identified and addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR
Impact 3.9/C) and mitigation measures 3.9/7.0 through 3.9/12.0 (.page 3.9-8) will reduce
this impact to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require detailed
archival research for each structure to assess the structure's significance; encourage
adaptive re-use where feasible; and encourage the City to develop a preservation program
for historic sites which qualify under CEQA guidelines. Additionally, mitigation
measures 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0 (page 3.9-7) also would apply to the project. These
mitigations require cessation of all construction activities upon discovery of any
previously-unidentified historic sites.
Additionally, Policies 6-26 and 6-27 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan require in-depth
archival research to determine the significance of any resource prior to alteration and
encourage the adaptive re-use or restoration of historic structures whenever feasible.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or
paleontological resources ?
LS. There is a remote but potentially significant possibility that construction activities,
including site grading, trenching and excavation, may uncover significant archeological
and/or paleontological resources on the site. The Eastern Dublin EIR categorized these
resources as pre-historic cultural resources. Three potential pre-historic sites were
identified by the EIR within the.proposed Project area. The Eastern Dublin EIR assumed
that all pre-historic sites would be disturbed or altered in some manner. This potential
impact was identified and addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.9/A) and
implementation of mitigation measures 3.9/1.0 through 3.9/4.0 (page 3.9-6 - 3.9-7)
reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require
subsurface testing for archeological resources; recordation and mapping of such
resources; and development of a protection program for resources which qualify as
"significant" under Appendix K of CEQA. Mitigation measures 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0,
described above, also were adopted to address the potential disruption of any previously
unidentified pre-historic resources and these mitigation measures reduce the potential
impact to a less-than-significant level.
32
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies (Policies 6-24 and 6-25) requiring
research of archaeological resources prior to construction and determination of the
significance and extent of any resources uncovered during grading and construction.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
d) Disturb any human resources?
LS. A remote possibility exists that historic or pre-historic human., resources cOuld be
uncovered on the site during construction activities. Implicit in the mitigation measures
of the Eastern Dublin EIR and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies is the potential for
discovery of human resources near or within the identified pre-historic and historic sites.
With implementation of the above-mentioned mitigation measures adopted with
certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR (mitigation measures 3.9/1.0 - 12) and adherence
to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies relating to cultural resources (Policies 6-24
and 6-25), this impact is less-than-significant.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
V. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Environmental Setting
This section of the Initial Study addresses seismic safety issues, topography and.
landforms, drainage and erosion and the potential impacts of localized soil types.
Seismic
The Project area is a part of the San Francisco Bay area, one of the most seismically
active regions in the nation. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes the presence of several nearby
significant faults, including the Calaveras Fault, Greenville Fault, Hayward Fault and San
Andreas Fault (pp. 3.6-1 - 3.6-2 and Figures 3.6-A and 3.6-B). The likelihood of a major
seismic event on one or more of these faults within the near future is believed to be high.
However, no active faults .are known to traverse the Project site and the site is not
identified as located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as determined by the
California Division of Mines and Geology.
A second thrust fault system has been inferred in the Coast Ranges of the Bay Area that
may be seismically active. A belt of faults and folds has been mapped in sedimentary
rocks south of Mount Diablo, including one identified as the "leading edge-blind thrust,
-- 33
Mount Diablo Domain". Further investigation of this inferred fault has concluded that
the risk of ground rupture from this inferred fault is low within the Project area.
Site Geology and Soils
The site is underlain by the Tassajara geologic formation on the south and extensive
landslide deposits to the north. The Tassajara Formation consists of undifferentiated
claystone and siltstone, locally undifferentiated into sandstone, conglomerate and
siltstone-claystone members.
Landforms and Topography
The project area is part of a broad north-south trending plain known as the Livermore-
Amador Valley. Elevations of the subject site range from approximately 350 feet to 910
feet above sea level. Much of the property is gently rolling to almost flat but the extreme
northern and northeastern portions are steeply sloping terrain.
Geotechnical reports cited in the Eastern Dublin EIR indicate a history of landslides on
the site. The more steeply sloping northern and northeastern portions of the site contain
landslide areas. Many of these slides are relatively shallow and it is estimated that all can
be repaired or mitigated in the areas slated for urban development.
Drainage
Existing drainage patterns on the site includes a series of small, unnamed intermittent
streams. These streams are shown in Figures 3.7-A and -B in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
These intermittent streams generally follow a north-to-south direction, consistent with the
overall topography of the Eastern Dublin area. These streams are not delineated
drainages and do not terminate in other local creeks (such as Tassajara Creek) or
modified natural drainages (such as the Arroyo Mocho).
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including
loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground
failure or landslides?
LS. Similar to many areas of California, the site could be subject to ground shaking
caused by the regional faults identified above. Under moderate to severe seismic events
which are probable in the Bay Area over the next 30 years, buildings, utilities and other
improvements constructed in .the project area would be subject to damage caused by
ground shaking. However, since the Project area is not located within an Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone, the potential for ground rapture is anticipated to be minimal.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified that the primary and secondary effects of ground-
shaking (Impacts 3.6/B and 3.6/C) could be potentially significant impacts. With
implementation of mitigation measure 3.6/1.0 the primary effects of ground-shaking
34
(Impact 3.6/B - damage to structures and infrastructure, potential loss of life) are reduced
to a less-than-significant level by using modern seismic design for resistance to lateral
forces in construction, which would reduce the potential for structure failure, major
structural damage and loss of life.
Mitigation measures 3.6/2.0 through 3.6/8.0 will be implemented to reduce the secondary.
effects of ground-shaking (Impact 3.6/C - seismically induced landslides, differential
compaction/settlement, etc.), to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures
require: stabilization of unstable landforms where possible or restriction of improvements
from unstable landforms; appropriate grading in hillside areas; utilization of properly
engineered retention structures and fill; design of roads and infrastructure to
accommodate potential settlement; and completion of design-level geotechnical
investigations (pp. 3.6-8 through 3.6-9).
Adherence to Mitigation Measures MM 3.6/1.0 through 8.0 will ensure that new
structures and infrastructure built within the project area will comply with generally
recognized seismic safety standards so that effects due to ground shaking will be less-
than-significant..
The majority of the Project area contains gently to steeply sloping hillsides. The northern
and northeastern portions have a history of landslides. As part of the development of the
area the site is proposed to be graded and re-contoured to accommodate building pads,
roads, infrastructure, parks, schools, parking areas and other development features. The
Eastern Dublin EIR noted that development of the Project site could result in permanent
changes in existing landforms, particularly if substantial grading occurs. Two mitigation
measures reduce this impact to less-than-significant.
Mitigation measure 3.6/9.0 states that grading plans which adapt improvements to natural
land forms, use retaining structures and steeper cut and fill slopes where appropriate, and
construction of roads on ridges reduce impacts to landforms. Mitigation measure
3.6/10.0 states that specific project lot and infrastructure alignment should be based on
the identification of geotechnically feasible building areas, clustering structures, and
avoiding adverse conditions by utilizing lower density development in the hillside areas.
The Eastem Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies aimed at reducing impacts related '
to landform changes and reducing potential impacts related to landslides. Policies 6-40
through 6-42 restrict structures on slopes of 10-30% and generally preclude structures on
slopes of greater than 30%.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472oacre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
35
b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil?
LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that development of the Project site will modify the
existing ground surface and alter patterns of surface runoff and infiltration and could
result in a short-term increase in erosion and sedimentation caused by grading activities
(Impact 3.6/K). Long-term impacts could result from modification of the ground-surface
and removal of existing vegetation (Impact 3.6/L). With implementation of Mitigation
Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0 (pp. 3.6-14 - 3.6-15) these impacts are less-than-significant.
These mitigation measures specify and require the .preparation and implementation of
erosion control measures to be utilized on a short-term and long-term basis. In addition
to these measures, the Project would be subject to erosion control and water quality
control measures implemented by the state Regional Water Quality Control Board. The
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains a policy (Policy 6-43) which requires that new
development be designed to provide effective control of soil erosion as a result of
construction activities.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
c, d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or will result in potential
lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse?
LS. Portions of the Project area are underlain by soil types with high shrink-swell
potential which have the potential to cause damage to foundations, slabs, and pavement
(Impact 3.6/H). With adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0 through 16.0 (,pp. 3.6-
11 - 12) and by requiring appropriate structural foundations and other techniques to
overcome shrink-swell effects, potential shrink-swell impacts will be less-than-
significant.
The Eastern Dublin EIR also notes that impacts of slope instability are considered to be
potentially significant (Impacts 3.6/1 and 3.6/J), but can be reduced to a less-than-
significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0 -26.0 (pp. 3.6-12
- 3.6-14). These mitigation measures require the preparation of site-specific soils and
geotechnical studies minimizing grading on steep slopes and the formulation of
appropriate design criteria; removal/reconstruction of unstable materials; construction of
surface and subsurface drainage improvements; reduction of cut-and-fill; maintaining 3:1
cut slopes unless retained; maintaining minimum 2:1 fill slopes unless properly benched,
keyed or treated with a geo-grid; utilizing engineered fill; and adherence to the Uniform
Building Code and other City requirements for grading.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There are
no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional
review or analysis is necessary.
36
e)
Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not
available?
NI. All new development within the Project area would be connected to a public sanitary
sewer system installed by the Project developer and maintained by the Dublin San Ramon
Services District which serves all of the City of Dublin. No septic systems are proposed.
Therefore, no impact is anticipated with regard to septic tanks.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Environmental Setting
The site is primarily open grasslands and currently contains nine single family residences
and some agricultural out-buildings. Historically, the Project site has been used for
agriculture, primarily as grazing land and limited dry-farming of crops. Much of the
Project area currently is utilized for grazing. Some pesticide and organicide use may be
associated with these agricultural uses and some petroleum-based products probably have
been used to mn and maintain farm equipment. Similar types of petroleum-based
products may be in use at a limited trucking and truck storage use located on one of the
parcels. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has been performed for each parcel
comprising the Project site and typical levels of organicides, pesticides and limited
amounts of petroleum-based products have been identified in localized areas around
outbuildings. Additionally, one of the parcels was discovered to have been used as a
gasoline service station but this use was discontinued in the 1960's and no structures
remain. No parcels within the Project area have been listed as a hazardous site or as a
hazardous materials generator.
Based upon the results of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessments performed for each
property within the Project area, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment would be
required for some of those parcels to further identify any potential hazardous materials.
Policy 11-1 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires that prior to the issuance of
building permits for sites in the project area, such environmental site assessments are
required. If applicable, remediation measures would be recommended and required prior
to development in accordance with State law.
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, b) Create a significant hazard through transport of hazardous materials or release
or emission of hazardous materials?
LS. Proposed uses of the site would include residential, general and retail commercial,
industrial park, schools, and parks. Only minor less-than-significant quantities of
potentially hazardous materials such as lawn chemicals, household solvents, etc., would
be associated with the majority of the proposed uses. The Project's proposed Industrial
Park designation and the Project's proposed uses relate most closely to the City of
Dublin's M-1 or Light Industrial District, although the types of industrial uses permitted
-- 37
under the zoning ordinance include light and heavier industrial uses with some
manufacturing. Some potentially hazardous materials may be utilized by these industrial
type uses but the storage, use and disposal of such materials would be controlled through
a hazardous materials business plan required to be filed by any such user with the
Alameda County Fire Depa.~ment which provides such service to the City of Dublin.
With the expected minimal use of hazardous materials and the requirement for adhering
to a hazardous materials business plan, this impact is less-than-significant.
c) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site?
LS. None of the parcels comprising the Project area have been listed as a hazardous
materials site. As noted above, Phase I Environmental Site Assessments have been
completed for each individual parcel comprising the Project area. Levels of organicides,
pesticides, and petroleum-based products typical of agricultural uses have been
discovered near existing agricultural outbuildings but these levels are less-than-
significant. Should the Project'be approved, Phase 1I Environmental Site Assessments
will be performed on each parcel prior to construction. Remediation measures, if needed,
would be recommended and completed in accordance with State and Federal
requirements. This impact is considered to be less-than-significant.
d)
Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private
airstrip?
LS. The Livermore MuniCipal Airport is located to the south of the Project area across 1-
580 and south of the Los Positas Golf Course. The Federal Aviation Administration
classifies the airport as a "general transport" airport and the airport can accommodate
turbojets under 60,000 pounds and general aviation aircraft of lesser weight.
The Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopted an Alameda
County Airport Land Use Policy Plan in 1986 which defines "General. Referral and
Height Referral Areas" for the Livermore Municipal Airport. Portions of the Project area
fall within these referral areas. The General Referral Area extends 4,000 feet north of 1-
580. Proposed land uses and activities subject to review Under State ALUC law must be
referred to the County ALUC. The Height Referral area encompasses an area 20,000 feet
from the runways in all directions (approximately 15,000 feet north ofi-580) and 200 feet
above ground level in the Height Referral area.
The ALUC amended the Policy Plan in 1993 to create an Airport Protection Area (APA)
around the Livermore Airport. Development or expansion of residential uses within the
APA is prohibited. At the time the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Eastern Dublin EIR
were adopted, this APA had not yet been established. However, the Specific Plan
anticipated that some residentially-designated land within the Eastern Dublin area would
be located within the future _A_PA. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan indicates that
residentially-designated lands so affected, by adoption of the APA must be designated
"Future Study Area" (p.16). The APA does affect approximately 22 percent of the
southern portion of the Project area. Approximately 96 acres of the project area,
originally slated for potential residential development, now are designated as Future
38
Study Area with an underlying designation of rural residential/aghculture, a designation
which essentially will not allow for any intensity of land use greater than what is existing.
The project is not proposing any changes to this land use designation and hence, is in
compliance with the established APA. Since the Specific Plan already anticipated land
use changes which might occur as a result of the ALUC's actions, and designated the land
accordingly, this is a less-than-significant impact.
e)
Represent a safety hazard to persons if located within two miles of a private
airstrip?
NI. The project is not located within two miles of a private airstrip.
f) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan?
LS. The proposed Project would be developed in phases, as is feasible with the
extension of services and utilities to the area. Adequate emergency access to all portions
of the Project site under construction would be required to be provided per the City of
Dublin's ordinances and policies. Emergency access requires that structures and
occupants of structures can be accessed by emergency vehicles and personnel and also
requires that residents are able to evacuate an area in case of some form of hazard or
threat of hazard. Adequate water service for fire-fighting and installation of hydrants or
other approved alternative water supply systems would be required per City policy as the
project develops.
The Eastern Dublin EIR indicated a mitigation measure (3.4/9.0) to address access, water
pressure, fire safety and prevention to reduce this potential impact to a less~than-
significant level. This mitigation measure requires that certain design standards are
incorporated into Project approvals such as: available capacity of 1,000 GPM at 20 PSI
fire flow fi.om project fire hydrants on public mains; installation of a buffer zone along
the backs of homes contiguous with wildland open space areas; and compliance with
minimum road widths, maximum street slopes, parking requirements, and secondary
access road requirements. Policy 8-6 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also requires
provision of emergency vehicle access from subdivisions to open space areas among
other fire prevention methods to address concerns with emergency access and evacuation.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policy would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
LS. The proposed project includes a significant amount of open space intermixed with
proposed residential uses in accordance with the land use designations of the General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. However, the relationship ofwildland open space
to urbanized uses has the potential to increase the risk of wildland fires spreading to
39
urban areas. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the risk of constructing new communities
in proximity to high fire hazard open space areas since it would pose an increasing
wildfire hazard to people and property if open space areas were not maintained for fire
safety (Impact 3.4/E). Mitigation measures 3.4/6.0- 13.0 (pp. 3.4-5 - 3.4-7) will reduce
this impact to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require
construction of new facilities to coincide with new service demands; establishment of
funding mechanisms for construction of such facilities; incorporation of Dougherty
Regional Fire Authority (and, implicitly, any other fire authority which would service the
area), requirements into the project design; integration of fire trails and fire breaks into
the open space trail system; and preparation and implementation of a wildfire
management plan for the area.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains two policies (Policy 8-5 and 8-6, p. 125)
which address the construction of new facilities and requirements to minimize the
potential for impacts from wildland fires.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Environmental Setting
The Project area is located within the Alameda Creek watershed which drains to the San
Francisco Bay. The Project area is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). The northern
portion of the site is hilly and transitions to relatively flat areas immediately adjacent to
the 1-580 freeway. Three intermittent streams flowing in a north-south direction transect
the Project area. These drainages appear to originate in the northern, hilly portions of the
site but do not drain into any distinct creek or channel. In some locations these drainages
have been impounded for use as stock ponds. These drainages do not carry water
consistently year-round and are more apparent during the spring season.
Based on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) published by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) [Community Panel No. 115 of 325, 060001-0115-C,
Alameda County, dated September 17, 1997], none of the Project area is located within a
500-year or 100-year flood plain.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
LS. Site grading (cut and fill) will occur to construct roadways, building pads, utilities
connections and similar improvements. Proposed grading could increase the potential of
40
erosion and increase the amount of sediments carried by stormwater run-off into creeks
and other bodies of water, on and off the Project site. These impacts were identified in
the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impacts 3.5/Y and 3.5/AA). With adherence to mitigation
measures 3.5/44.0 - 46.0, 49.0, 51.0 and 52.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR (pp. 3.5-35 - 3.5
- 27) these impacts would be less-than-sio~nificant.
These mitigation measures require: drainage facilities to minimize any increased potential
for erosion; channel improvements consisting of natural creek bottoms and side slopes
with natural vegetation where possible; preparation of a Master Drainage Plan for each
development prior to development (Stage 2 Planned Development) approval; facilities
and management practices which protect and enhance water quality; specific water
quality investigations which address water quantity and quality of run-off; and
community-based programs to educate local residents and business on methods to reduce
non-point sources of pollutants.
Additionally, development of individual parcels within the Project area will be required
to prepare Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP), listing Best Management
Practices which reduce the potential for water quality degradation during construction and
post-construction activities. These measures can include revegetation of graded areas, silt
fencing and use of biofilters within parks and other landscaped areas. These individual
SWPPPs must conform to standards adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board and City of Dublin and shall be approved by the City of Dublin prior to issuance of
grading permits. Both agencies monitor construction and post-construction activities
according to the SWPPP and adjustments are made during project construction as
necessary to erosion control methods and water quality protection as field conditions
warrant. Specific development projects containing five acres of more are also required to
submit a Notice of Intent from the State Water Resources Control Board prior to
commencement of grading.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies which reflect the mitigation
measures of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan listed above. Policies 9-7 through 9-9 and
Programs 9T through 9X (pp. 133-134) address the potential for erosion and changes in
water quality, storm water mn-off and storm drainage due to development of the Project
area.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
b)
Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lower the local groundwater
table?
LS. Current uses of the property depend upon wells (groundwater), irrigation wells
(groundwater) and impounded surface waters (stock ponds) for domestic use and
agricultural uses. As development of the Project area occurs, public water systems would
be extended to serve the area, reducing the direct need for individual wells to service each
property. The Eastern Dublin EIR noted that development of the Project could have an
impact on local ground water resources and groundwater recharge due to an increase in
the amount of impervious surfaces within the Project site (Impact 3.5/Z). With
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 3.5/50.0 (page 3.5-26), this impact
~s less-than-significant. The Eastern Dublin EIR also noted that the Project is located in
an area of minimal groundwater recharge stating that groundwater reserves and the
majority of the Tr/-Valley's groundwater resources are in the Central Basin, south of the
Project area. Mitigation measure 3.5/50.0 notes that Zone 7 supports on-going
groundwater recharge programs for the Central Basin.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There are
no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional
review or analysis is necessary.
c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including stream courses, such that
substantial siltation or erosion would occur?
LS. Development of the project site could change existing natural drainage patterns in
the area. Approval of the proposed Project and implementation of individual
development projects within the Project area could increase stormwater runoff from the
site due to construction and post-construction activities and thereby increase the potential
for erosion. These impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin EI~R (Impacts 3.5/Y and
3.5/AA) in relation to item a) above. With implementation of Mitigation Measures
3.5/44.0 - 46.0, 49.0, 51.0 and 52.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR (pp. 3.5-35 - 3.5 - 27)
these impacts are less-than-significant. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains
policies and programs (Policies 9-7 through 9-9 and Programs 9T through 9X, pp. 133-
134) which reduce these impact to a less-than-significant level.
Please refer to item a) above for a discussion of these mitigation measures and policies.
With implementation of other mitigation measures enacted to reduce erosion due to
grading .activities (Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0), these impacts would be less-
than-significant. Please refer to the previous section entitled Geology and Soils for a
discussion of these mitigation measures.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
d)
Substantially alter existing drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off
the project site?
LS. Approval of the proposed project and construction of new housing units and other
land uses envisioned in the proposed project would change drainage patterns within the
project area. This impact was identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.5Y) and
with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0 - 3.5/48.0 it is less-than-
42
significant. These mitigation measures require drainage facilities to minimize flooding;
channel improvements consisting of natural creek bottoms and side slopes with natural
vegetation where possible; a Master Drainage Plan for each development prior to
development approval; facilities to alleviate potential downstream flooding due to project
development; and the construction of backbone storm drainage facilities.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There are
no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional
review or analysis is necessary.
e)
Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or
add substantial amounts of polluted runoff?.
LS. Development of the Project area and post-construction activities unrelated to Project
construction could lead to greater quantities of stormwater runoff and could include
pollutants in the runoff. These potential impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin
EIR (Impacts 3.5/Y and 3.5/AA). With implementation of mitigation measures 3.5/44.0-
49.0 and 3.5/51.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR this impact is less-than-significant. Policies
of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Policies 9-7 through 9-9 and Programs 9T through
9X, pp. 133-134) also would be implemented and, as such, these impacts would be less-
than-significant.
Please refer to item a) above for a discussion of these mitigation measures and policies.
The adopted mitigation, measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
f) Substantially degrade water quality?
LS. Construction activities related to development of the Project area and post-
construction activities could degrade water quality through improper construction
practices and poor control of storm water runoffresulting in additional sedimentation and
potential pollutants in on-site or down-stream waters. These impacts were identified in
the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impacts 3.5/Y and 3.5/AA). With mitigation measures 3.5/44.0-
49.0 and 51.0 adopted in the Eastern Dublin EIR this impact is less-than-significant.
Policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific P1an (Policies 9-7 through 9-9 and Programs 9T
through 9X, pp. 133-134) also would be implemented and, as such, these impacts would
be less-than-significant.
Please refer to item a) above for a discussion of these mitigation measures and policies.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
43
g, i)
Place housing within a lO0-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood
Insurance Rate Map or expose people or structures to a significant risk due to
flooding or failure ora levee or dam?
NI. None of the project area is located within a 100-year flood plain as mapped by
FEMA and no new dwellings would be located in a flood hazard area. There are no
upstream dams in the Project area which would place people or structures within the
project area in flood danger due to dam failure. There would be no impact in regard to
flooding hazards.
h)
Place within a lO0-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flow?
NI. As noted in the response to "g" above, none of the project area is located within a
100 year flood hazard area as defined by FEMA. Development of the Project site is not
expected to impede or redirect flood flows and no impact is anticipated.
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mud~lows?
LS. The site is not located near a major body of water that could result in a seiche or
'tsunami. The risk of potential mudflow is considered low. With mitigation measures
adopted in the Eastern Dublin EIR (measures 3.6/17.0 - 28.0, pp. 3.6-12 - 3.6-15),
potential impacts of natural and engineered slope stability, and erosion and sedimentation
impacts which could create mudfl0ws would be less-than significant. These mitigation
measures require the preparation of site-specific soils and geotechnical studies
minimizing grading on steep slopes and the formulation of appropriate design criteria;
removal/reconstruction of unstable materials; construction of surface and subsurface
drainage improvements; reduction of cut-and-fill; maintaining 3:1 cut slopes unless
retained; maintaining minimum 2:1 fill slopes unless properly benched, keyed or treated
with a geo-grid; utilizing engineered fill; and adherence to the Uniform Building Code
and other City requirements for grading.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There are
no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional
review or analysis is necessary.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Environmental Setting
The Project area abuts the eastem city limit boundary of the City of Dublin (please refer
to Exhibit 2). The entire project area is located within the City of Dublin's General Plan
Planning Area and Sphere of Influence. Approximately 472 acres of the project area also
are included within the City's Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area (please refer to Exhibit
4). The project site consists of thirteen (13) different parcels under eleven (11) separate
44
ownerships (please refer to Exhibit 7). The proposed land use designations of the Project
reflect the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations for the Project area. The
proposed residential densities and non-residential development intensity are consistent
with the mid-point density and development intensity (floor area ratio) ranges listed in the
General Plan and Specific Plan. The proposed land uses associated with each of the
proposed land use designations are consistent with the City zoning districts which would
implement those land uses and they are consistent with the types of uses approved and/or
developed within other areas of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan.
MeasureD
In November of 2000, voters in Alameda County adopted a local land 'use initiative
known as "Measure D." This initiative created a County Urban Growth Boundary within
the Alameda County East County Planning Area (ECAP). One of the purposes of this
initiative is to "focus urban-type development in and near existing cities where it will be
efficiently served by public facilities, thereby avoiding high costs to taxpayers and users
as well as to 'the environment". The initiative is designed to prohibit the County
government from considering urban development outside the "Growth Boundary." The
472-acre portion of the project site that is within the City's Specific Plan is located within
the Urban Growth Boundary adopted by Measure D. The remainder of the project site,
although within the City's adopted and recognized Sphere of Influence and within the
City's General Plan Planning Area, appears to lie outside of the Measure D Urban
Growth Boundary Limit. [NOTE: Review of Measure D indicates a discrepancy
between the Urban GroWth Boundary Limit Map and the text describing which areas are
within the Urban Growth Boundary Limit. This potential discrepancy does not change
the analysis, below.]
Measure D restricts development in the County, but it does not limit development by
cities that are within the County, nor does it create or impose any urban growth
boundaries on those cities. Because the entire project site is within the City's Sphere of
Influence and the proposed development within the project area is addressed by the
General Plan, the project is not constrained or otherwise limited by Measure D. The
County recognized that, in the case of Eastern Dublin, the area already has been planned
for development and eventual annexation is anticipated. (Alameda County Community
Development Agency Report to Board of Supervisors dated July 25, 2000.)
Measure D also contains language that limits the CoUnty's ability to cancel Williamson
Act contracts. Upon annexation of the project area to the City, the Williamson Act
contracts would be assigned to and assumed by the City. The City would then have the
discretion whether or not to cancel th~ contracts should cancellation be requested for the
proposed Project. Measure D does not restrict the City's actions regarding Williamson
Act contracts, however, any requested cancellation would be processed in accordance
with statutory provisions and procedures.
Measure D provides that the County encourage Zone 7 to pursue, new water supply
sources and storage facilities only to the extent necessary to serve the rates'and levels of
growth established by Measure D and by the general plans of the cities within the service
45
area. Since the City's General Plan provides for the development proposed, any
additional water supply sources or facilities required to serve the Project are consistent
with Measure D. Measure D's restriction on the County's ability to provide or authorize
public facilities in excess of that needed for permissible development consistent with
Measure D does not limit the ability to provide the services needed to serve the project
area.
Hence, Measure D does not contain any language which would create a changed
circumstance or potential for new impacts not already addressed or analyzed by the
Eastem Dublin EIR.
pro_iect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Physically divide an established community?
NI. All parcels which comprise the Project site are contiguous and are not separated by
freeways, arterial roadways, or natural barriers. The Project area is adjacent to the City
of Dublin's eastern boundary and current urban development area; land to the east of the
Project area is as-yet undeveloped. Development of the Project area with the urban uses
designated in the City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ~vould be a
continuation of Dublin as a community. Development of the project site would not
divide any established communities or neighborhoods and hence, there would be no
impact..
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation?
NI. The Project as proposed is consistent with the land use designations of the General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The project's proposed "pre-zoning" designations
are consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations. The Eastern
Dublin EIR evaluated the potential land use impacts of the project based upon the
assumption that residential development would occur at the mid-point of the residential
development densities, and commercial, office and industrial development would occur at
the mid-range of the floor area ratios designated for each of those land uses. The project
does not propose densities or land use intensities different from that anticipated in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. The project is required to adhere to all policies and programs of the
General Plan. and, as applicable to the 472 acres, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The
project is required to adhere to all City ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of
project development.
c)
Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan?
NI. No habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan has been
adopted by the City or other agency. The Project area recently has been included in the
approximately 5.4 million acres in California proposed by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service as critical habitat for the red-legged frog. Although this may not be a
potentially significant land use impact, land uses within the Project area could be affected
46
by this designation and, as such, the location and intensity of land uses indicated in the
.City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan could be impacted by this changed
circumstance There would be no impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan, but changed circumstances due to other agencies' potential
regulatory action could create an impact. This impact, however, is related to biologic
resources and has been identified as a potentially significant impact under the Biologic
Resources section of this Initial Study.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
Environmental Setting
The subject area currently contains no known mineral resources although a now-defunct
gravel pit is located within the. Project area on the Fallon Enterprises property just to the
east of Fallon Road. The gravel pit has not been in operation for a number of years and is
not currently extracting, producing, or processing any resources.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, b) Result in the toss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral
resources ?
NI. The former quarry is not currently extracting resources and there is no indication
that the current property-owners wish to renew quarry operations. In any case, the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan land uses designations for the area do not
specifically permit such use. There are no other known significant mineral resources
located within the Project. Development of the Project as proposed (or modified) would
have no impact on mineral resources.
XI. NOISE
Environmental Setting
Major sources of noise on and adjacent to the project area include noise generated by
vehicles on 1-580, noise generated by traffic on arterial roadways near the project area,
and aircraft flyovers, mainly from aircraft utilizing the Livermore Airport.
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a,d)
Would the project expose persons to generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard or to
substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels?
PS. Vehicle noise from 1-580 would be most apparent to new land uses immediately
adjacent to the freeway. Development of the project as proposed and in accordance with
47
the land use designations of the General Plan and Specific. Plan would include the
construction of new arterial roadways and streets. Traffic would be introduced into new
residential neighborhoods and urban noise associated with commercial, industrial and
other uses would be introduced to the Project area. Although the Eastern Dublin El]q
addresses impacts due to this type of noise (Impacts 3.10/A and 3.10/F) and adopted
mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to a less-than-significant level (Mitigation
Measures 3.10/1.0, 3.10/6.0), changed environmental circumstances related to
urbanization in the Th-valley and beyond with potential changes in commute patterns and
increased traffic along 1-580 - may create apotentially significant impact.
b)
Exposure of peotgle to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
PS. Groundbome vibrations could be caused primarily by heavy traffic along the freeway
and along new arterial streets from heavy vehicles traveling primarily to the commercial
or industrial sites within the project area. These ambient vibrations would increase
permanently due to the proposed change in land use from primarily agriculture to urban
uses, and the traffic associated with them. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified permanent
impacts related to vehicular traffic increases (and implicitly, impacts due to urban noise
and vibration), as an unavoidable and unmitigatable impact and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council for this impact. The
proposed project would not change the scale or type of development anticipated in the
Eastern Dublin EIR for areas within the project area and 'would not change the level of
intensity of impact; therefore, no additional discussion or analysis is necessary.
However, as noted above, development of the Project area according to the General Plan
and Specific Plan includes construction of arterial roads and local streets. These arterial
roadways have the potential to create excessive groundbome noise to the volume of daily
and peak hour traffic. Similarly, construction activities within the Project area could
create temporary vibrations and noise in localized areas. Although the Eastern Dublin
EIR addresses impacts related to ground-borne noise (Impact 3.10/A and F) and indicates
mitigation measures which could reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level,
changed circumstances due to the level of urbanization within the Tri-Valley and beyond
which has changed commute patterns and traffic intensities and could change the
expected level of groundborne noise anticipated by the Eastern Dublin EI2K. This
changed circumstance could result in a potentiatly significant impact.
c) Substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels?
NI. Development of the Project area with urban uses will introduce noise to the Project
area. Ambient noise levels would increase permanently due to the proposed change in
land use from primarily agriculture to urban uses. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified
permanent noise impacts related to vehicular traffic increases (and imPlicitly urban
noises) as an unavoidable and unmitigatable impac~ and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations was adopted by the City Council for this impact; no additional discussion
or analysis is necessary. The proposed project would not change the scale of
48
development anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR for the project area and would not
change the level of intensity of impact.
e, 0
Expose people residing or worla'ng within two miles of a public airport or in the
vicinity of a private airstrip to excessive noise levels?
NI. There is no private airstrip in the vicinity of the proposed project, therefore, no
impact would result. The project area is located near the Livermore Airport and new
residents and workers within the project area could be exposed to aircraft noise from
aircraft traveling to and from the airport. The Eastern Dublin EIR determined that aircraft
noise was a less-than-significant impact (Impact 3.10/C, p. 3.10-4) and no mitigation
measure was proposed.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Environmental Setting
Data from Projections 2000, published by the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG), expects the nine-county San Francisco Bay Region to add approximately
1,096,300 new residents by the year 2020. This represents an increase of about 16
percent over the 20-year forecast period from 2000 - 2020. ABAG expects
approximately 401, 750 new households in the region by year 2020. ABAG estimates
that Dublin's population (including its Sphere of Influence) was 31,500 in the year 2000
and is projected to grow to 66,600 by 2020, and increase of 111%. ABAG estimates that
the increase in new households will create a demand for at least 20,000 new dwellings
each year. The City of Dublin is expected to provide 21,290 dwellings by the year 2020.
The Eastem Dublin EIR anticipated that the Eastem Dublin area would create 12,458 new
dwelling units (Table 3.2-5, page 3.2-7), generating a new resident population of 27,794.
Project Impacts and Miti,~ation Measures
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly?
NI. Development of the project area according to the City's General Plan and as
expected by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would increase population in the project
area but not beyond that anticipated or planned-for according to the City's General Plan
or as anticipated or evaluated by the Eastern Dublin EII~. The City's General Plan
contains Guiding and Implementing policies (6.3.A, 2.1.2.C, 2.1.3.A, 2.1.4.A, 6.4B, and
6.4E) to provide a range of housing types. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains
policies to provide a diversity of housing opportunities that meets the social, economic
and physical needs of future residents (policies 4-2 through 4-6).
49
b, c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or
people?
NI. The project area contains nine existing residences and various agricultural out-
buildings and land uses. Current residents and uses could remain in place until such time
as development of those particular parcels occurs over time. Due to the limited number
of current residents, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing
housing units or people and no impact is expected.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
Environmental Setting
Water~ Sewer. The project area currently is located within the jurisdiction of Alameda
County. The County has limited abilities to provide water or wastewater services to the
project area: current residents and land uses rely upon private wells and septic systems
for these services. The City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District
(DSRSD) have worked jointly to ensure that areas annexed to the City also are annexed to
DSRSD. The Eastern Dublin EIR and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan
anticipated that the Project area would be serviced by DSRSD. Additionally, DSRSD's
master utilities plans for water, wastewater and recycled water include the Project area.
The Project area must be annexed into the DSRSD service area.
Fire Protection. Fire protection services for the project area are provided by the
Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD). Since the City of Dublin contracts with
ACFD for services, upon annexation to the City, the ACFD would continue service to the
Project area.
Police Protection. The Alameda County Sheriff's Office and the. Califomia Highway
Patrol (CI-IP) currently provide police services to the project area. Upon annexation,
Dublin Police Services would provide services to the area including enforcement of
traffic laws which the CHP currently provides and enforcement of city ordinances and
state law. Dublin Police Services is under contract with the Alameda County Sheriff's
office: the City of Dublin owns the department's facilities and equipment but the
personnel are employed by the Sheriff's Office Police and security protection includes
24 hour security patrols throughout the community in addition to crime prevention, crime
suppression and traffic safety.
Schools. The Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (LVJUSD) provides
educational services to the project area. However, a request is being prepared to detach
from the LVJUSD and attach it to the service area of the Dublin Unified School District.
The City of Dublin and the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) prefer that all areas
within the City of Dublin be served by DUSD schools. In this case, the Project area is
more readily served by DUSD than LJVUSD since the project area is adjacent to DUSD.
5O
Maintenance. Other than limited County roads within the project area (Fallon Road and
Croak Road), the County provides limited maintenance service to the Project area. Upon
annexation to the City of Dublin maintenance of streets, roads and other public facilities
within the project area would be the responsibility of the City of Dublin Public Works
Department.
Solid Waste Service. The County does not currently provide solid waste disposal
service: property-owners must dispose 'of waste at local transfer stations. Upon
annexation to the City of Dublin, solid waste service would be provided by the
Livermore/Dublin Disposal Company.
Other services. The project area utilizes the Alameda County library services and other
government services provided to Alameda County residents. Upon annexation to the City
of Dublin, many of these services would be provided by the City.
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Although the Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the impacts of development of the project
area on services and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce the identified impacts to
a less than significant level, some of these impacts still may be potentially significant for
the project area due to changed circumstances.
a) Fire protection ?
LS. The project proposes 'approximately 2,526 new residences and a little over 1.4
million square feet of commercial and industrial building area to be developed in phases.
The number of new residences and amount of commercial, industrial and institutional
floor space was evaluated by the Eastern Dublin EIR for the project area. Demand for
fire services and fire response to outlying areas were considered significant impacts (IM
3.4/D and 3.4/E) and with implementation of mitigation measures (MM 3.4/6.0 -
MM3.4/11), these impacts are less-than-significant. These mitigation measures require
construction of new facilities timed to coincide with development; require appropriate
funding mechanisms for capital improvements; identify and acquire new fire station sites;
and incorporate fire safety measures into project design.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There are
no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional
review or analysis is necessary.
b) Police protection ?
LS. Development of the project as proposed could result in almost 6,000 new residents
and almost 3,000 new employees in the Project area. The number of new residents and
amount of commercial, industrial and institutional floor space was evaluated by the
Eastern Dublin EIR for the project area. Demand for police services and police services
accessibility .were considered significant impacts (IM 3.4/A and 3.4/B) and with
implementation of mitigation measures (MM 3.4/6.0 -MM3.4/ll), these impacts are
less-than-significant. These mitigation measures include provision of additional personal
and facilities; coordination of development timing to services can be expanded;
incorporation of police department recommendations into project design; and preparation
of budget strategies for personnel and facilities as annexing areas become served by
Dublin's Police Department.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the project. There are no
impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional
review or analysis is necessary.
c) Schools?
PS. Up to 1,400 new K-12 students could be generated by the project. Changes in
student generation rates due to changed regional economic circumstances may have a
different impact on the number and age distribution of students originally anticipated and
evaluated by the Eastern Dublin EIR. In addition, the type of schools originally expected
to have been constructed according to the Eastern Dublin EIR may have changed. Also,
the level of funding and amount of school fees which may be charged according to State
law may have changed so that the project could have a different impact on the provision
of school facilities and programs. This could be a potentially significant impact.
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
LS. Numerous arterial, collector and local streets and roads will be constructed in the
project area. All such streets and public facilities would be constructed by the project
developers. Maintenance of these facilities was anticipated by the Eastern Dublin EIR
and considered a significant impact (SVi 3.12/A and 3.12/B). Implementation of
mitigation measures (MM 3.12/1.0 - 8.0) reduce this impact to a level of insignificance.
These mitigation measures encourage development agreements; adoption by the City of
an area of benefit ordinance; creation of Special Assessment of Mello Roos Community
Facilities Districts; City evaluation of Marks-Roos bond pooling; and consideration of
City-wide developer and builder impact fees.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There
are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no
additional review or analysis is necessary.
XIV. RECREATION
Environmental Setting
Since the project area is not currently developed with urban uses the area contains no
parks or other recreational facilities. Nearby community and regional parks include
Emerald Glen Park, a 50-acre city park now being developed by the City of Dublin
immediately west of Tassajara Road, and two community parks slated for development
elsewhere in the Eastern Dublin area. The combined area of the two community parks is
52
126 acres. Each of these parks would allow for organized sports activities and individual
sports as well as for passive recreation. Numerous neighborhood parks and neighborhood
squares have been included in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan
planning areas. The East Bay Regional Park District also has developed a staging area on
the west side of Tassajara Road as part of a regional recreational trail s.,ystem.
The Project proposes adding approximately 14 acres to one of the community parks listed
above and several neighborhood parks and squares to serve the new residents and
employees generated by project development.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks?
LS. The proposed development would cause an increase in demand for neighborhood,
community and regional park facilities due to an increase in the number of people within
the project area. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the demand for park facilities as a
potentially sig~. ificant impact (IM 3.4/K). Implementation of the mitigation measures as
policies within the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (MM 3.4/20.0 -
28.0) reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. These mitigation measures and
policies encourage expanding park areas; maintaining and improving outdoor facilities in
conformance with the City's'Park and Recreation master Plan; acquire and improve
parklands; require land dedication and improvements for parks; designate sites in the
General Plan and Specific Plan areas; and implement Specific Plan policies for the
provision and maintenance of open space.
The Eastern Dublin EIR also identified park facilities as a fiscal impact (IM 3.4/L).
Implementation of the three mitigation measures (MM 3.4/29.0 - 31.0) reduce this impact
to a level of insignificance.
The adopted mitigation measures and General Plan policies would continue to apply to
the entire project and the Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre
portion within the Specific Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
b)
Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of
recreational facilities ?
LS. The project includes neighborhood parks, open space and an addition to a planned
community park in accordance with the General Plan and Specific Plan. The Eastern
Dublin EIR identified the construction of park facilities and the cost of those facilities as
impacts (IM 3.4/k and 3.4/L) and, with implementation of the mitigation measures listed
above, these impacts are less-than-significant (please see a) above for a full discussion).
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There are
no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional
review or analysis is necessary.
-- 53
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Environmental Setting
The project site is served by a number of regional freeways and sub-regional arterial and
collector roadways, including: Interstate 1-580, Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard,
Hacienda Drive, Arnold Road, Gleason Drive, Tassajara Road, Santa Rita Road and
Fallon Road. Development of the Project as proposed or modified would introduce new
arterial roadways and collector streets into the Project area. The Project is proposing a
minor change in the location of one collector street by removing it from a potentially
sensitive intermittent stream area. Other roadways are proposed in the General Plan
planning area which were not considered as part of the Eastern Dublin EIR (residential
collector streets which could occur in the General Plan planning area were not addressed
in the Eastern Dublin EIR).
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the traffic and transportation impacts of development
of the project area and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce some of the identified
impacts to a less than significant level. Due to increased urban development in the Tri-
Valley area and beyond which may impact roadways within the project area, there could
be the potential for additional transportation/traffic impacts.
Cause an increase 'in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street
capacity?
PS. The Eastern Dublin EIR considered the development of the project area with the
proposed 2,526 dwelling units and 1.4 million square feet of commercial/industrial floor
space, and indicated mitigation measures to address the impacts thereof. However,
changes in Tri-Vatley commute patterns and traffic intensities in addition to the
anticipated Project traffic, may cause potentially significant impacts not anticipated by
the Eastern Dublin EIR. These impacts could include traffic impacts within the project
area, or at Project intersection, or on freeways, roads, etc. which the project may utilize.
b)
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the
County CMA for designated roads?
PS. As noted above, the addition of approximately 2,526 dwelling units and 1.4 million
square feet of commercial/industrial building area in the project area were anticipated and
addressed in the Eastern Dublin EI~R but the impacts of development on regional freeways
and local roadways in conjunction with changing commute patterns and traffic intensities
unrelated to the project may cause potentially, significant impacts not anticipated by the
Eastem Dublin EIR.
54
c) Change in air traffic patterns?
NI. The Livermore Airport is located to the south of the project Area. The Airport Land
Use Commission of Alameda County has established land use policies for areas within
the Airport Protection Area and the General Referral and Height Referral area of the
airport. Development of the project area is subject to the policies of the ALUC.
Development of the project area is not expected to create a change in air traffic patterns at
the airport and hence would have no impact on air traffic patterns.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use?
PS. Approval of the proposed project and future development of the site would add new
roads, driveways, sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways where none
currently exist. The Eastern Dublin E[R anticipated and addressed these potential
impacts and suggested mitigation measures to reduce such impacts. However, changes in
Tri-Valley commute patterns and traffic intensities in addition to the anticipated project
traffic may cause potentially significant impacts not anticipated by the Eastern Dublin
EIR. These impacts could include traffic impacts within the project area, or at project
intersection, or on freeways, roads, etc. which the project may utilize, such that traffic-
related hazards to pedestrians or bicyclists using the new roads and other circulation
features could increase.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
PS. The present need for emergency access is low, since there are few current residents
or visitors to the site. Construction of new residences and commercial development
within the project area could increase the need for emergency services and related access
to new residences and commercial establishments. The Eastern Dublin EIR anticipated
and suggested mitigation measures to reduce such impacts. However, changes in Tri-
Valley commute patterns and traffic intensities in addition to the anticipated project
traffic may cause potentially significant impacts not anticipated by the Eastern Dublin
EIR. For example, potential increased volumes of traffic unrelated to the project may
create a potentially significant impact on emergency access capability on project streets or
intersections during peak traffic hours.
f) Inadequate parla'ng capacity?
NI. Parking for individual projects within the project area would be reviewed by the City
of Dublin at the time such proposals are submitted to ensure consistency with City
parking requirements. No impact is anticipated.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs for alternative transportation?
NI. Individual projects within the subject site will be designed with sidewalks, pedestrian
walkways and bicycle routes to minimize potential hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists
and to support these alternative transportation modes. In accordance with the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, bicycle routes and pedestrian trails are included as part of the
-- 55
proposed Project. The City and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan-have standards by which
bus turn-outs, bicycle paths, trails and sidewalks must be planned and constructed. Bus
turn-outs are required to be installed by project developers in accordance with City
requirements and bus service plans. These improvements will be confirmed at the time
each individual development project is reviewed by the City.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Environmental Setting
The project area currently is served by the Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7
as a regional water supplier and distributor and for storm drain facilities. The Dubli.n San
Ramon Services District (DSRSD) would serve the project area as the water retailer;
would provide wastewater collection and treatment; and would provide opportunities for
the use of recycled water for landscape purposes. Since the project area is mainly
undeveloped except for nine residences and scattered outbuildings, current services to the
Project area are minimal.
Upon annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin, project developers would be
required to extend new services to the area to provide a public water supply for domestic
and fire flow use, a recycled water service for irrigation of public medians and parks, and
a public wastewater treatment system, all of which would connect with existing facilities
maintained and controlled by DSRSD. Project developers would be required to install
new storm drainage facilities which would connect with existing facilities maintained and
controlled by the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone
7. Although most of these infrastructure facilities would be installed by Project
developers, all of these systems would be public and would be maintained by public
agencies such as the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District. Cable
TV utilities also would be extended to the project area.
Gas and Electricity (current setting)
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity and natural gas to the
project site. Existing service to the project area includes minor Iow voltage distribution
feeders at 21 kilovolts (kV) and service within the project vicinity is provide by PG&E
distribution lines along Fallon, Croak, and Collier Canyon roads. There are no
transmission lines within the project area. A natural gas main is proposed to be extended
along Dublin Boulevard eastward from its current terminus to within 2,812 feet of the
Project Site when PG&E and Pacific Bell install a joint trench in Dublin Ranch Area G in
late 2001 or early 2002.
Currently, California is experiencing an energy shortfall. PG&E declared bankruptcy in
April, 2001; it is unknown if this will have any effect on the company's ability to
continue to provide service.
56
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the provision and extension of services and utilities to
the project area and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce some of the identified
impacts to a less than significant level. However, additional or new potential impacts
may be potentially significant for the Project area due to changed circumstances
(increased urban development in the Th-Valley area,, changes in water purveyor and
distributor contracts, changes in the handling and disposal of wastewater, changes in
supply and distribution of gas and electricity, etc.)
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB?
PS. Changes in circumstances due to regional policy changes, funding mechanisms and
timing of infrastructure improvements may create apotentially significant impact.
b)
Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities?
PS. As noted above, changes in circumstances due to regional policy changes, funding
mechanisms and timing of wastewater infrastructure improvements may create a
potentially significant impact.
c) Require new storm drainage facilities?
PS. New facilities will be needed as a result of development and may exceed those
previously analyzed, This may be apotentially significant impact.
d) Are sufficient water supplies available?
PS. DSRSD, which would provide water service and supply to project area has included
the project within its master plans and projections. However, water supplier contracts
and recent litigation may have an impact on how, when and how much water is supplied
to the project. This may be apotentially significant impact.
e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project?
PS. Approval of the proposed project and development of the site could result in an
increased demand for wastewater treatment over present conditions. Due to increased
and more rapid development in the Tri-Valley area there may be a potential need to
expand the capacity of the treatment plant earlier than originally anticipated by the
Eastem Dublin E[R. This could be apotentially significant impact.
f) Solid waste disposal?
PS. Development of the project as proposed could incrementally increase the generation
of solid waste. Although this .impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, changed
circumstances due to more rapid development in the Th-Valley area in combination with
57
the anticipated project could have a potentially significant impact on the availability of
solid waste disposal services.
g)
Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
NI. The City of Dublin and the solid waste hauler would ensure that developers of
individual projects constructed in the Project area would adhere to federal, state and local
solid waste regulations; therefore, no impact would result.
h) Gas and electricity?
PS. Prior to the current state-wide energy crisis, PG&E had the ability to adequately
serve the Th-Valley with existing facilities until approximately June 2002. PG&E has
proposed the Th-Valley 2002 Capacity Project to increase electric service by adding
substations in Dublin and North Livermore, expanding the Vineyard Substation in
Pleasanton and installing approximately 23.5 miles of 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission
lines to serve the substations (CPUC, 2000). PG&E is proposing construction of a 5-acre,
230/21 kV substation with four 45 megawatt transformers in eastern Dublin. If the Th-
Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project or a functional equivalent project is not
constructed, PG&E would be forced to respond to growing demand by expanding its
existing sYStem to the extent that is possible and by curtailing service if growth in demand
exceeds the transmission system's capacity or reliability requirements for essential
services (such as hospitals). It is possible that if the Th-Valley 2002 Capacity Increase
Project is delayed, then other alternatives would be identified.
However, given that PG&E has declared bankruptcy and the that there is an apparent
energy provision shortfall within the state and from out-of-state providers, it is unclear
whether PG&E would or could pursue the Th-Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project or,
even if approved and constructed, whether there would be energy available to supply the
new facilities.
The impacts of the project on the consumption of non-renewable resources is identified in
the Eastern Dublin EIR (IM 3.4/S) and mitigation measures (MM 3.4/45.0 - 3.4/46.0) are
adopted as part of the project in an effort to reduce natural resource consumption and
encourage energy conservation, the impact was determined to be unavoidable and
adverse. Pursuant to CEQA, a Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted by
the City Council for this impact. However, the current uncertainty of the supply of
energy to the state as a whole, the potential bankruptcy of the electricity and gas service
provider, and the potential lack of new energy-providers/power facilities may have a
potentially significant impact.
XV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a)
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
58
b)
c)
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
YES. Please refer to the discussion in the Biological Resources section above
(Section IV) regarding changes regulatory circumstances and the adoption of the
critical habitat for the California red-legged frog..
Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumUlatively
considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects and the effects of possible future projects.)
YES. The project constitutes about 25 percent of the overall Eastern Dublin
planning area. Other parts of this area have been or are being developed in
accordance with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Although the Eastern Dublin
EIR addressed the cumulative impacts of development of the Project area within
its evaluation of the overall Eastern Dublin planning area, changed circumstances
mentioned throughout this Initial Study may contribute to changed cumulative
impacts which should be further analyzed.
Does the project, have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
YES. The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the potentially significant adverse
impacts of the proposed Project through its evaluation of the proposed Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. The Eastern Dublin EIR
suggested mitigation measures which reduce many such impacts to a less-than
significant level and where such impacts could not be reduced or otherwise had a
cumulative adverse impact, the City Council adopted a Statement of Over-riding
Consideration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines.
As discussed previously in this document, however, changes in circumstances
since the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified have the potential for significant
effects beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Initial Study Preparer
Anne Kinney, Associate Planner, City of Dublin
References
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental
59
.Impact Report, Wallace Roberts and Todd, 1994.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, June 6, 1998
City of Dublin General Plan, revised July 7, 1998
Projections 2000, Association of Bay Area Governments, December 1999
Persons/Agencies Contacted in Preparation of this Document
Grassetti Environmental Consulting
City of Dublin, Public Works Department
City of Dublin, Planning Department
Dublin San Ramon Services District
Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7
MacKay and Somps
60
TABLE 1: PROPOSED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
ACREAGES, LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT
Proposed Project
Land Use Type Gross (Midpoint Density per City Policy)
Acres density units or square feet
Low Density Residential 433.5 1,734
(0.9 - 6 du/acre)
Medium Density Residential 9.4 94
(6.1 - 14 du/acre)
Medium/High Density Residential 34.8 696
(14.1 - 25 du/acre)
Rural Residential/Agriculture 269.1 2
(1 dull00 acres or parcel)
Future Study Area1 92.6 0
General Commercial 41.0 446,490
(0.25 FAR)
Neighborhood Commercial 10.3 134,600
(0.30 FAR)
Industrial Park 68.9 840,360
(max. 0.28 FAR)
Junior High School 14.6 N/A
Elementary Schools 17.3 N/A
Community Park 14.1 N/A
Neighborhood Parks 24.0 N/A
Neighborhood Square 2.7 N/A
Open Space 76.9 N/A
Totals 1109,2z 2,526 du
1,421,450 sf
Notes:
I
Future Study Area indicates a land use designation for properties located within the Airport
Protection Area, These areas will require future additional City review and action to determine appropriate
land uses.
2 This acreage total is less than the 1,120 acre project area 'because it omits acreage Utilized for
public rights of way.
AntioC
11/ l
East Dublin Properties
EXHIBIT 1
Vicinity Map
San
Francisco
Pacific Ocean
Oaklar
San
Francisco
Bay
DUblin
Project Site
-LiVermore
Tracy
0 (~ ~ 10 Miles
DetailI
Santa
-san
East Dublin Properties
EXHIBIT 2
· ·Location Map.
1.1*l
12;
~,; .:. .... .
%.
\
I
\
ilI~J~&SomPs
4~sup-F. ll~exbibit 4- KDSP¼nds.pad
East Dublin Properties ~
EXHIBIT 4
Lands within the
Eastern Dubli.n.. Specifi~
Lands Within the Eastern ~
Dublin Specific Plan Area
V///3
1-580
Project/~rea
L
eOeneral Commercial may be oermitled by a Ptanned Develooment Zort'ng Process (sea text fo( complete d~scu$$~on )
Will convert to Future Sl~dy Area/Agriculture where daterminad inconsistent wilh APA (see text Iai' complete discus$~ort)
1~19149~upZEIR\exhlbltS-EDGPA
FUTURE
AGRICULTURE.
2743.9 Acres
'14' Acres ['
(Crosby) ]
!
STUDY ABEA]
I
L
i
!
!
General Plan
-Eastern Extended Planning Area
LAND USE MAP
Legend
COMMERCIAL
Neighed Comm~cia~
General Commercial
Camou~ O~'ce
k3duatrial Park
RESIDENTIAL
~ H~h De~y 25-
~ Med~H~h Dens~y 14-25
~ Madam Denaty 6-14
~ LOW Dens~y ~ ~ac
~ R~al Res~entlavAgd~e 1 ~100
PUBL~/SEMFPUBL~/OPEN
Pub~/Se~ub~ Facaty
~ E~ntary ScSI
~ Junior High School
~ H~ School
~ Pub~/Se~-Pub~
Parks & Recreatbn
~ Ciiy Park
~ C~ity
~ N~hborhood Park
Ne~hbo~ood Square
Open Space
Slream Corridor
CIRC~LAT~N
~m Arledal S~eet
------ Co~ctor S~eet
......... TrOt ~
----- SOl Boundary
.... Gen~ ~ Amendment ~ludy
.... , Specif~ R~ S~dy Area
EASTERN
DUBLIN
W~l~ce Rob~t~ & Todd
May lO, 1903
'~ast Dublin Properties
EXHIBIT 5
East Dublin Properties
EXHIBIT 6
Stage I Site Plan
LEGEND
ES - Elemealan.' School
JH - Junior High Sebmd
L- Low Density R~idenlial
M - Medium D~nsiw Residential
Mit - Mtnllum High Density Rlsldenfial
NS - Neighborhood ~lUarc
NP- ~Neighborhood Park
CP- Communio' Park
OS - OI~n Spa~
RRA - Rural Rmidenlial / Agriculture
NC- Neighborhood Commercial
GE - General Commercial
I - lndustrlal Park
\
!
I
i
\
\
Fallon Enterprises
First American
/Title Guaranty CO.
/
/
First American
Title Guaranty Co.
East Dublin Properties
EXHIBIT 7
Property OWners
Braddock & Logan Group
Croak
/
x x.r_\ ' ~ ....... I
~1 1 Anderson
g, ['Second Family ! ! Branaugh
!' Chen ~itea.. l'ann~r~t~p ,
I i Righeffi :
~"~
,
IllAI ¥ & SomPs
19149~a ta gel~'xhlbllT-prop, l~d
EBJ Partners, L.P.~ i Pleasanton hanch
q. ,~ lnvestmlnts
_'-_ _ :
1-580
I I
;au>on Road
i East Dublin Properties
EXHIBIT 8
i Williamson Act Agreements
Agreements Non-Renewed
IllAOgAY & sm~s
~149X~up-E IR~ v h thil g-w _t _l!~
\
\
\
1-580
Eanyon Road
APPENDIX B: CITY OF DUBLIN RESOLUTION NO. 53-93
RESOLUTION NO. ~-93
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
/%MENDMENT AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN; MAKING
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT ~ ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN G~NERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC
PLAN; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE
EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN
Recitals
1. In response to a proposal for residential development of
the Dublin Ranch property, the City of Dublin undertook the Eastern
Dublin Study to plan for the future development of the eastern
Dublin area.
2. The City Council and Planning Commission conducted three
joint public study sessions and three workshops relating to
planning issues in eastern Dublin.
a. The April 18, 1990, study session considered a land
use concept report containing four land use scenarios and the
consistency of each land use concept with existing general plan
policies. Alternative #4 was coDsidered the preferred land use
concept for environmental study by informal consensus.
b. The August 22, 1990.~_ study session considered
Alternative #4 and a fifth concept (based on the 1986..annexation
agreement with Alameda County). The "Town Center" condept, types
of streets, location and types of parks were discussed.
c. The November 15, 1990, workshop solicited comments
from the public regarding the existing and desired life style
qualities in Dublin and what the' public wanted to see in a new
community~
d. The December 6, 1990, workshop continued with a
similar discussion of desired types of commercial development and
discussed circulation systems and parks and open space.
e. The DeCember 18, 1990, workshop presented a
preliminary conceptual land use plan. Inpu~.l~was received on the
transit spine, location of civic center, types'of residential uses,
location of commercial uses, the concentration of high density
residential uses, and jobs/housing balance.
f. The Februa-ry~4, 199i, study session considered-a
land use plan that incorporated ~"~omments made at the three
workshops and included a discussio~'~of major issues, such as the
location of a high school, connect~6h'Lto existing Dublin size of
streets ~nd types of parks '%'" '
3 With the ' ' '
· Identification
, · ~ .~.~.'~- ~- ....... alternative on
February 14, 1991 the Clty.prepared-.a..Draft General Plan Amendment
for approximately 6,920 aeres to pra~i"for future development of a
mixed use community of'single- a~multiple-family residences,
commercial uses (general commerc.~a~, neighborhood commercial,
campus office and induStrial park).~ public and semi-public
facilities (including schools), parks~and open space
Draft General Pla~ Amendment
4. The Draft General Plan A~ndment, dated May 27, 1992,
designates the proposed general distribution and general location
and extent of the uses of East6'~n Dublin for residential,
commercial, industrial, public, open space and parks, and other
categories of public and private uses of land.
5. The Draft General Plan Ameh~ent includes a statement of
standards of population density and Standards of building intensity
for Eastern Dublin.
6. Pursuant to the provisions/~6f State Planning and Zoning
Law, it is the function and duty off,he Planning Commission of the
City of Dublin to review and ~c0mmend action on proposed
amendments to the City's General
~' ~duly
7. The Planning Commission hel'd'.~ noticed public hearing
on the Eastern Dublin Draft Gener.a~'~lan Amendment on October 1,
1992, which hearing was continued t6:~ctober 6, 1992 October 12,
1992, and October 15, 1992. .'.~'~'~'~-'~ '
8. Based on comments receive.d~'during the public hearing,
related text revisions, dated December 21, 1992, were made to the
Draft General Plan Amendment and Were reviewed by the Planning
Commission on December 21, 1992.
9. The Draft General Plan Amendment was reviewed by th~
Planning Commission in accordance.. With the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Ac'~lthrough the preparation and
review of an Environmental Impact Report. On December 21, 1992,
by Resolution No. 92-060, the Pl~hhing Commission recommended
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report.
10. On December 21, 1992, %h~"'Planning Commission, after
considering all written and oral test'~mony submitted at the public
hearing, adopted of Resolution No. 92-061, recommending City
2
December 21, 1992.
Draft specific Plan
11. The Draft Specific Plan, dated May 27, 1992, implements
an approximately 3,328-acre portion of the Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment by providing a detailed framework, including
policies, standards and implementation programs, for evaluation of
development projects proposed in the portion of eastern Dublin
covered by the Draft Specific Plan.
12. Pursuant to State Law, the Eastern Dublin Draft Specific
Plan was prepared and reviewed in the same manner as a general plan
amendment.
13. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on the Eastern Dublin Draft Specific Plan on October 6,
1992, which hearing was continued to October 12, 1992, and October
15, 1992.
14. Based on comments received during the public hearings,
related text revisions, dated December 21, 1992, were made to the
Draft Specific Plan and were reviewed by'the Planning Commission
on December 21, 1992.
15. The Draft Specific Plan-was reviewed by the Planning
Commission in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act through the preparation and review of a
Final Environmental Impact Report. On December 21, 1992, by
Resolution No. 92-060, the Planning Commission recor~mended
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report.
16. On December 21, 1992, the Planning Commission, after
considering'all written and oral testimony submitted at the public
hearing, adopted Resolution No. 92-062, recommending City Council
adoption of the Draft Specific Plan, dated May 27, 1992, as revised
December 21, 1992.
Council Public Hearinq
17. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on
the Eastern Dublin Draft General Plan Amendment and Draft Specific
Plan on January 14, 1993, which hearing was continued to January
21, 1993, February 23, 1993, March 30, 1993, and April 27, 1993.
18. On April 27,. 1993, the City Council, by Resolution No.
45-93, voted to refer Alternative 2: Reduced Planning Area
("Alternative 2") with modifications back to the Planning
Commission for its recommendation, pursuant to Government code
section 65356.
1993,~9. The ~lanning Commission held a public hearing on May 3,
~°c°nsi~er~lternative'2'with'm~dific~tiohs.and-has.~-~f~d
backto the City Council by Planning Commission Resolutio~ No. 93-
013.
20. The City Council considered all written and oral
testimony submitted at the public hearing and all written testimony
submitted prior to the public hearing and the recommendation of the
Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution
Nos. 92-061, 92-062 and 93-013. '
21. On May 10, 1993 the Council held duly noticed a public
hearing to hear testimony regarding the Planning Commission,s
recommendation as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No.
93-013.
22. On May 10, 1993, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
51-93, certifying the Addendum to the Draft EIR and the Final
Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") as adequate and complete.
The Final EIR identified significant adverse environmental impacts
which can be mitigated to a level of insignificance through changes
or alterations in the project Therefore uts
findings ado~tin~ th .... ' -. · , P uant to CEQA,
~ ~ ~ changes or a±~era~ions are required and are
contained in this resolution. Some of the significant impacts
cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance a
~o~err%dlng considerations is therefore ..... ~ .... nd a ~t~tement
· ' ' ~=~u'~u pursuan~ to CEQA
anu is also contained in this resolution.
23. Upon consideration of the land use and environmental
effects of the project, as described in the Final EIR, the Council
has determined to adopt Alternative 2, as described .in the Final
EIR, with certain modifications which are described in the Addendum
to the Draft EIR ("Alternative 2 With ~odifications,,). Alternative
2 With Modifications reduces land use impacts, does not disrupt the
existing rural residential community
reduCes growth-inducing impacts on in Doolan Canyon, potentially
agricultural lands, reduces
certain traffic impacts to a level of insignificance, produces less
demand for infrastructure, reduces the noise impacts for Doolan
Road to a level of insignificance and will have a positive fiscal
impact on the City.
24. Alternative 2 was considered by the Planning Commission
at its hearings, in testimony at the public hearings, in staff
reports presented to the Commission at its hearings, in the EIR
reviewed by the Planning Commission at its hearings and in its
deliberations.
25. Alternative 2 With Modifications includes several
substantial modifications to Alternative 2, as Alternative 2 is
described in the Draft EIR. Although several of these
modifications were considered by the Planning Commission at its
hearings, the Planning Commission has considered Alternative 2 With
Modifications and has reported back to the Council with its
recommend~.0~--~g&~ih~---~l~-~.~-iV~---~2~.--With--Modifi-cations.· -The~
Council has determined to follow the Planning Commission's
recommendation as set forth in its Resolution No. 93-013, except
with respect to the width of the Transit spine and with the
addition of the phrase "or other appropriate agreements" on page
160 of the Draft Specific Plan (§ 11.3.1, first'sentence).
Findinqs/Overridinq Considerations/
Mitigation Monitorin~ Pro~ram
26. Public Resources Code section 21081 requires the City to
make certain findings if the city approves a project for which an
environmental impact report has been prepared that identifies
significant environmental effects.
27. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires
adoption by the City Council of a statement of overriding
considerations if the Council approves a project which will result
in unavoidable significant effects on the environment.
28. Public'Resource Code section 21085 and section 15092 of
the State CEQA Guidelines require the City to make certain
determinations if it approves a project which reduces the number
of housing units considered in the environmental impact-report.
29. The Final EIR for the Eastern Dublin General 'Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan identifies certain significant adverse
environmental effects.
30. certain of the significant adverse environmental effects
'can be reduced to a level of insignificance by changes or
alterations in the project. '
31. Certain of the significant adverse environmental effects
cannot 'be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
32. The Council has selected Alternative 2 identified in the
Final EIR with modifications described in the Addendum to the Draft
EIR, reducing the number of housing units for such property from
the project as reviewed by the Final EIR for the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.
33. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the city
to adopt a reporting or monitoring program for ~hanges in a project
or conditions imposed to mitigate or avoid significant
environmental effects in order to ensure compliance during project
implementation.
34. Government Code section 65300 authorizes a city council
to adopt a general pla~ for land outside its boundaries which in
the Planning Commission s judgment bears relation to its planning.
~ =u~,mssmon has consi'~ered' 'whe~e'~'"'""-'~-~-~d
outside the City's boundaries bears relation to the City's
planning.
36. The City has referred Alternative 2 With Modifications
to the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission ("ALUC,,) pursuant
to Public Utilities Code section 21676 (b). The City has
received a determination from the ALUC. The - · not
the ALUC to make a dete ~=~ = .... 60 day time period for
rm~,~ n~s no~ ye~ run.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT
A. The Dublin City Council does hereby approve "Alternative
2: Reduced Planning Area,, as the Eastern
Amendment, with the Revisions dated December Dublin General Plan
21, 1992 and with the
Modifications described in the Addendum to Draft EIR, dated May 4,
1993. '
B. The Dublin City Council finds the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan, as described in the Final EIR ,, ·
Planning Area,,,. with ~---~-~ _ . _ as Alternative 2: Reduced
~=v~ons ~a~ed D
the modifications ~=~= : ...... e~ember 21, 1992, and with
..... ~w=u ~n =ne A~dendum to Draft EIR
, dated May
4, 1993 to be consistent with the Dublin General Plan, as revised
by the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment.
C. The Dublin City Council does hereby approve the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, with the Revisions dated December 21, 1992,
and with the Modifications described in the Addendum to Draft EIR,
dated May 4, 1993 and with the revision to page 160 referred to in
paragraph 25 above.
D. The Dublin City Council does hereby direct the Staff to
edit, format, and print the up-to-date Dublin 'General Plan with
all City Council approved revisions and without any other
substantive changes.
E. The Dublin City Council does hereby direct the Staff to
edit, format, and print the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan with all
City Council approved revisions and without any other substantive
changes.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does
hereby make the findings set forth in Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of
Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by 'this
reference, for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council finds and
declares that the rationale for'each of the findings set forth in
Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of its findings (Exhibit A) is contained
i~ the paragraph entitled "Rationale for Finding,, in Exhibit A.
6
The Council further finds that the mitigation measures for each
identified i~P-a¢'tinExhibit--A''~make~''changes %°~°r~-a-lterati°ns~t°'
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan,'.or are
measures incorporated in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that,
once implemented as described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program
(Exhibit B hereto), will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant effects of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
and Specific Plan on the environment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED T~AT the Dublin city Council does
hereby adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth
in Section 6 of Exhibit A, attached hereto, which statement shall
be included in the record of the project approval.
BB IT FURTHER RESOLVED T~AT the Dublin city Council does
hereby adopt the ,,Mitigation Monitoring Program: Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment" attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit B, as the reporting and monitoring
program required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6 for the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED T~AT the Dublin City Council does
hereby direct that the Applicants for land use approvals in the
Specific Plan area shall pay their pro rata share of all costs
associated with the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring
Program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED T~AT the Dublin City Council does
hereby direct that all fees established pursuant to Government Code
Section 65456, to recover costs of preparation of the Specific
Plan, shall include the cost of preparation, adoption and
administration of the Specific Plan plus interest on such costs
based upon the City of Dublin's average monthly weighted investment
yield calculated for each year or fraction thereof that such costs
are unpaid~
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED T~LAT the Dublin City Council does
hereby direct the City Clerk.to file a Notice of Determination for
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project
with the Alameda County Clerk and the State office of Planning and
Research.
BB IT FURTHER RESOLVED T~AT the Dublin City Council does
hereby direct the City Clerk to make available to the public,
.within one working day of the date of adoption of this resolution,
copies of this resolution (including all Exhibits) and the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment, dated May 27, 1992, with the
Revisions dated December 21, 1992, and the modifications described
in the Addendum to Draft EIR dated May 4, 1993, and the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, dated May 27, 1992, with the Revisions to
Draft Specific Plan, dated December 21, 1992, and the modifications
7
described in the Addendum to Draft EIR, all as modified by this
resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this resolution shal.1 become
effective thirty (30) days from the date of passage.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT if, on the effective date of this
resolution or within the remaining 60-day period for ALUC action,
the ALUC has found that Alternative 2 With Modifications is not
consistent with the ALUC's Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy
Plan, the City shall submit all regulations, permits or other
actions implementing the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan to the ALUC for review until such time that the City
Council revises the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan to be consistent with the ALUC's Alameda County
Airport Land Use Policy Plan or adopts specific findings by a two-
thirds vote that the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan are
consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 of Chapter 4 of Part
1 of Division 9 of the Public Utilities Code as stated in section
21670 of such Code.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 10th day of May,
the following vote:
1993, by
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmembers Burton, Houston, Howard, Moffatt & Mayor' Snyder
None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Mayor
ATTEST:
114\RESOL\29\RESOLUTiON
Section
FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, the City
Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to the
Project,sI potential significant environmental impacts and means
for mitigating those impacts. Findings pursuant to section
21081, subdivision (c), as they relate to "project alternatives,"
are made in Section 3.
Section 3.1 -- Land Use
IMPACT 3.1/F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space
Lands. Agricultural grazing land and open space in Alameda and
Contra Costa counties will be converted to urban uses by proposed
projects such as Dougherty Valley, Tassajara Valley, North
Livermore, and Eastern Dublin. Because it would result in the
urbanization of a large area of open space, the proposed Projec~
Would contribute to this Cumulative.loss of agricultural land and
open space in the Tri-Valley.area. This is considered a signifi-
cant unavoidable cumulative impact. Response to Comments ("RC")
= 34-9
Findinq. No mitigation measures are proposed to reduce this
impact to a level of insignificance. Therefore, a Statement
of Overriding considerations must be adopted upon approval
of the Project.
Rationale for Findinq. The total amount of open space
within the RPA that will be urbanized will be cumulatively
significant, in light of numerous other open space areas
within the region that is also anticipated for urbanization.
IMPACT 3.1/G. Potential Conflicts with Land Uses to the West.
The Parks Reserve Forces Training Area ("Camp Parks") is located
due west of the Specific Plan area. Existing and future Army
training activities, such as the use of high velocity weapons and
helicopters, could result in noise and safety conflicts with
adjacent open space and single-family residential areas of the
Specific Plan. The extent of future army activity is unknown and
1The "Project" is Alternative 2 described in the DEIR at
pages 4-9 through 4-14 with the modifications described in the
May 4, 1993 Addendum to the EIR. Alternative 2 calls for
development in the Reduced Planning Area (the portion of eastern
Dublin within its sphere-of-influence) (hereafter "RPA").
114 \ea staub \ find ( 4 )
1
EXHIBIT, A, ,,
the Army has not yet-completed its Camp Parks Master Plan. ~ DEIR
page 3.1-13. ·
~itiqation Measure 3.1/1.0. The City of Dublin should
coordinate its planning activities with the Army to achieve
compatibility with adjacent Camp Parks land uses, to solve,
potential future conflicts, and to reconcile land use incom-
patibilities. The City should consult with the Army for any
specific development proposals within the RPA.
3.1-13, -22. DEIR pages
~- Changes or alterations have been required in, or
Incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for' Finding. Coordinated planning activities will
allow the City and Army to identify potential noise and
safety impacts before they occur and will allow specific
mitigation measures, including redesign, to be incorporated
into development in the Project Area.
Section 3.3 -- Traffic and Circulation
When a mitigation measure referenced in this section requires
development projects within the RPA to pay for a proportionate
cost of regional transportation programs and/or traffic and
circulationlimprovements, the proportion shall be as determined
by regional.transportation studies, such as the current study by
the Tri-Valley Transportation Council.
IMPACT 3.3/A. I-$$0 Freeway, Tassajara-Fallon. Year 2010 growth
without the Project would cause cumulative freeway volumes to
exceed Level of Service E on 1-580 between Tassajara Road..and
Fallon Road. DEIR pages 3.3-21 (as revised), 5.0-3.
~itiqation Measure 3.3/1.0. Caltrans, in cooperation with
local jurisdictions, could construct auxiliary lanes on 1-
580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road to create a total
of ten lanes, which would provide Level of Service D opera-
tions, consistent with the Caltrans Route Concept Report for
1-580. DEIR pages 3.3-21 (as revised), 5.0-3.
1F-~D~. Approval of the construction of the auxiliary
anes, and cooperation by jurisdictions other than the City
of Dublin, are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
other public agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such
actions can and should be taken by other agencies. If
taken, ,sUch actions would avoid or substantially lessen the
significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
ll~\eastdub\find (&) 2
Rat~onate~_fer_.Findin~, ..... This.mitigation__measur_e.P~Qyides
acceptable Level of Service D operations during peak hours
on the freeway.
IMPACT 3.3/B. 1-580 Freeway, 1-680 to Hacienda. Year 2010
growth with the Project would cause 1-580 between 1-680 and
Dougherty Road to exceed Level of Service E. This is also a
significant cumulative impact. DEIR pages 3.3-21 (as revised),
Mitiqation ~easure 3.3/2.0. Consistent with Specific Plan
Policy 5-21 , all non-residential projects with 50 or more
employees in the RPA shall participate in a Transportation
Systems Management (TSM) program to reduce the use of single
occupant vehicles through strategies including but not
limited to encouraging public transit use, carpooling, and
flexible work hours. DEIR pages 3.3-21 (as revised), 5.0-
3.
Mitiqation Measure 3.3/2.!. All projects within the RPA
area shall contribute a proportionate share of the costs of
regional transportation mitigation programs, as determined
by regional transportation studies. Such regional miti-
gation.programs may include enhanced public t~ansit service
and/or upgrading alternate.road corridors to relieve demand
on 1-580 or 1-680. DEIR page 3.3-21 (as revised).
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact might not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Findinq. Approval of Alternative 2 reduces to
a level of insignificance the impact on 1-580 between
Doughetty Road and Hacienda Drive. DEIR page 4-11. The TSM
program strategies will reduce single car occupancy, thereby
reducing the number of cars expected to use the subject
stretch of 1-580. Regional actions may focus not only on
reducing auto use by reducing single occupant vehicles, but
also on increasing Project area road capacities through
2 This policy appears' in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan,
which plan applies only to the identified Specific Plan area.
The provisions of this policy provide useful mitigation outside
the Specific Plan area as well. Therefore, the EIR and these
findings adopt these provisions for the entire RPA. Hereinafter,
those Specific Plan goals, policies, and action programs whose
provisions are similarly adopted for the RPA throughout these
findings will be indicated by an asterisk.
11~\eastdub\find (4) 3 .~.'. ..... -. ·
Construction of routes providing convenie
I'~8'0-'and-~6B.0----~i~.==_._~ ........ ~-.-~ ......... nt alternatives to
' ~=~ ~e overa±~ expe~-6d '~n-~-~ ......... '~
, ase
traffic, however these measures are not sufficient %o
reduce the cumulative impacts on 1-580 between 1-680 and
Dougherty Road to insignificance.
IMPACT 3.3/~. 1-580 Freeway, Tassajara-Fallon-Airway. Year 2010
growth with.the Project would cause freeway ~olumes to exceed
Level of Service E on 1-580 between Tassajara Road and Airway
Boulevard. This is also a significant cumulative impact. DEIR
page 3.3-21 (as revised), 5.0-3.
~itiqation Measure 3.3/3.0. The City shall coordinate with
Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton'to construct auxiliary
lanes on 1-580 between Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard.
Ail projects within the RPA shall contribute a proportionate
share of fhe costs of these improvements.. DEIR pages 3 3-
22 (as revised), 5.0-3; RC ~7-6 '
~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effects identified in the Final EIR.
Freeway construction actions are within the ultimate res-
ponsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, who-can and should
take such actions. 'If taken, such actions would avoid or
substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. The auxiliary lanes will provide
sufficient additional capacity oh 1-580 to provide Level of
Service D between Fallon Road and Airway Boulevard, and
Level of Service E between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road.
Both Level of Service D and E are acceptable during peak
.; freeway hours. DEIR pages 3.3-2, -18. Development in the
RPA will be required to contribute its fair share to the
auxiliary lane improvements so that when such improvements
are needed, they will be provided by new development
generating the need. State law authorizes the City to enter
into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to make the
freeway improvements ( e~_~_~=__~_.., Streets & Highways Code
S~ 113.5, 114).
IMPACT 3.3/D. 1-680 Freeway, North of 1-580. Year 2010 growth
with the Project would cause freeway volumes to exceed Level of
Service E on 1-680 north of the 1-580 interchange. This is also
a significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.3-22, 5.0-4.
~itiqa~ion Measure 3.3/4.0. Ail projects in the RPA shall
contribute a proportionate share of the costs of Caltrans,
planned improvements at the 1-580/I-680 interchange, in-
cluding a'new two-lane freeway-to-freeway flyover with
114 \ eastdub \find ( 4 )
4
related hook ramps to the city of Dublin. DEIR page 3.3-22
.... ~--~e-~is--~-~ ~ See. ~'~'~g~ '3 13~-I7-~'~as-revised)J~ ........ -. ~
Flndlnq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen~the significant effects identified in the Final EIR.
Freeway interchange improvement actions are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, who can and
should.take such actions. If taken, such actions would
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. The expected interchanges and
related improvements will provide sufficient additional
capacity on 1-680 to provide Level of ServiceD north of the
1-580 interchange. Development in the RPAwill be required
to contribute its fair share to the interchange and related
improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they
will be provided by new development generating the need.
IMPACT 3.3/~. Cumulative Freewa~ Impacts. Cumulative buildout
with the Project would cause additional freeway sections, in-
cluding 1-580 east of .Airway Boulevard, and the segment of 1-580
between Dou~herty and Hacienda to exceed 'level of service E.
DEIR pages 3.3-22 (as revised), 5.0-4.
Mitigation Measure 3.3/5.0.. The Project shall contribute a
proportionate share to the construction of auxiliary lanes
or a total 1-580 east of Airway Boulevard, for
~plementatio~f 10) on
by Caltrans. The city shall coordinate with
other local jurisdictions to require that all future de-
velopment projects participate in regional transportation
mitigation programs as determined by the current Tri-Valley
Transportation Council study. DEIR pages 3.3-22 (as re-
vised), 5.0-4.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project. Actions by other agencies
and Caltrans to implement this mitigation measure are within
the responsibility and jurisdiction of those other agencies
and not the city of Dublin. Such actions can and should be
taken by the other agencies. However, even with these
change~ the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted.
Rationale for Findinq. The auxiliary lanes will provide
sufficient additional capacity to provide acceptable level
of service on part of 1-580 widening to ten lanes is
consistent with the Route Concept Report. DEIR page 3.3-22
(as revised). Regional transportation mitigations can
114 \ea stdub\ find ( 4 )
reduce cumulative impacts throu h me .
~in~l~_o~.cupan~_vehiC ........ g. asures to decrease
- le-~=~ ~na-tnerease.public..-trans.. _
o further decrease traffic ~ .... ~_ .. It use
.... ~u~. ~owever, even"with
these improvements, part of 1-580 (between 1-680 and
Hacienda Drive) will still be beyond acceptable LOS E. DEIR
pages 3.3-20, 3.3-21 (as revised), 4-11.
IMPACT 3.3/F. Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard. Year 2010
development with the Project would c
~pe~ations at the inte~=:~ ..... au~e Level of Service F
boulevard. /DEIR page ~i~~' u~ ~ug~erty Road with Dublin
~itigation Measure 3.3/6.0. The City of Dublin shall
monitor the intersection and implement construction of
additional lanes when required to maintain LOs D operations.
All projects within the RPA shall contribute a proportionate
share of the improvement costs
revised). ' . DEIR page. 3.3-25 (as
~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for FindinG. The add. itional lanes at the
Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection ~ill provide
sufficient capacity for Level of Service D operations, which
is acceptable at street intersections in Dublin (DEIR pages
3.3-2, -18 (as revised)). Development in the RPA will be
required to contribute its fair share of the intersection
improvements so that, when such improvements are needed
they will be provided by new development generating the
need. '
IMPACT 3.3/'G .......
~ · hacienda Drive and 1-580 Eastbound Ramps. Year
2010 development with the Project would cause Level of Service F
operations at the intersection of Hacienda Drive with the 1-580
eastbound ramps. DEIR page 3.3-25 (as revised).
Mitigation Measure 3 3/7 0 The City of Dublin shall
implement improvements in coordination with the City of
Pleasanton and Caltrans to widen the eastbound off-ramp to
provide a second left turn lane. All projects in the RPA
shall contribute a proportionate share of the improvement
costs. DEIR page 3.3-25 (as revised); RC ~ 7-9.
~- Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Off-ramp widening actions are within the ultimate respon-
sibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans. Such actions can and
should be taken by Caltrans. If taken, such actions would
ll~\eastdub\find(4) 6
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identi.-
Rationale for Finding. The additional lanes at the east-
bound off-ramp will provide acceptable Level of Service C
operations. Development in the Project area will be
required to contribute its fair share of the intersection
improvements, so that when such improvements are needed,
they will be provided by new development generating the
need. State law authorizes the City to enter into a
cooperative agreement with Caltrans to make the off-ramp
improvements (see, e.q.., Streets & Highways Code ~§ 113.5,
114).
IMPACT 3.3/H. Tassajara Road and 1-580 Westboun~ Ramps. Year
2010 development with the Project would cause Level of Service F
operations at the intersection of Tassajara Road with the 1-580
westbound ramps. DEIR page 3.3-25 (as revised).
Mitiqation Measure 3.3/8.0. The City of Dublin shall
implement improvements in coordination with Caltrans to
widen the 1-580 westbound off-ramp and to modify the
northbound approach to provide additional turn and through
lanes.' All projects in the RPA shall contribute a pro-
portionate share of the improvement costs. DEIR page 3.3-
26 (as'revised).
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially ~
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Coordinating and.ramp widening actions are within the ulti-
mate responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, which can
and should take such actions. If taken, such actions would
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identi'
fled in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. The reconfigured lanes at the east-
bound off-ramp will provide acceptable Level of Service B
operations. Development in the Project area will be
required to contribute its fair share of the intersection
improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they
will be provided by new development generating the need.
State law authorizes the City to enter into a cooperative
agreement with Caltrans to make the off-ramp improvements
(see, e.q., Streets & Highways Code §§ 113.5, 114).
IMPACT 3.3/I. Santa Rita Road and'I-580 Eastbound Ramps. Year
2010 development with the Project would cause Level of Service F
operations at the intersection of Santa Rita Road with the 1-580
eastbound ramps. DEIR page 3.3-26.
ll4\east.dub\ find (4)
7
~iti~ation Measure 3.3/9.0. The City Of Dublin shall
Pleasanton and Caltrans to widen the 1-580 eastbound"off-.
ramp to provide two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and
one right-turn lane to provide Level of Service E at this
intersection. Ail projects in the RPA shall contribute a
proportionate share of the improvement costs· The City of
Dublin shall continue to work with the City of Pleasanton to
monitor level of service at this intersection and partici-
pate in implementing improvements which may be identified in
the future to improve traffic operations. DEIR page 3.3-26
(as revised); RC # 7-11.
. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
ncorporated into the Project. Ramp Widening actions are
within the ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of
Caltrans, which can and should take such actions. However,
even with these changes and actions, the impact will not be
avoided or substantially lessened· Therefore, a Statement
of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval
of the'Project.
Rationale for Finding. The off-ramp widening will provide
LOS E operations, which is still significant·. Development
in the Project area will be required to contribute its fair
share of the intersection improvements, s6 that when such
improvements are needed, they will be provided by new
development generating the need.
IMPACT 3.3/K. Airway Boulevard and 1-580 Westbound Ramps. Year
2010 development with the Project would cause Level of Service F
operations at the intersection of Airway Boulevard with the 1-
580 westbound ramps. DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised)
Mitiqation Measure 3 3/11 0 The City of Dublin shall
· mplement improvements in coordination with the City of
Livermore and Caltrans to replace or widen the Airway .
Boulevard overcrossing of 1-580 and to widen the offramp for
additional turn lanes. Ail projects within the RPA shall
contribute a proportiona%e share of the improvement costs.
DEIR page 3·3-27 (as revised); RC #17-2
~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
ncorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Road and ramp widening actions are within the ultimate
responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, which can and
should take such actions. If taken such actions would avoid
or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
114 \eastdub .~ find (4)
8
Rationale for Findinq. The Airway Boulevard and 1-580
Development in the Project area will be required to c~ntri-
bute its fair share of the improvements so that when such
improvements are needed, they will be provided by new
development generating the need. State law authorizes the
city to enter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to
make the road and ramp improvements (see, e.q~, Streets &
Highways Code SS 113.5, 114).
IMPACT 3.3/L. E1 C~arro Road. Project traffic could introduce
stops and delays for loaded trucks from the quarries on E1 Charro
Road south of 1-580. DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised).
Mitigation Measure 3.3/12.0. The City of Dublin shall
implement improvements in coordination with Caltrans, the
City of Pleasanton, and Alameda County to ensure that
modifications to the 1-580 interchange at Fallon Road/E1
Charro Road include provisions for unimpeded truck movements
to and from E1 Charro Road. All projects in the RPA shall
contribute a proportionate share of improvement costs. DEIR
page 3.3-27 (as revised).
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Freeway interchange modification actions are within the
ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, which
can and should take such actions. If taken, such actions
would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Providing unimpeded access for the
quarry trucks will prevent other traffic from backing up
behind the heavily laden trucks with their slow starts and
stops. Development in the Project area will be required to
contribute its fair share of the improvements so that when
such improvements are needed, they will be provided by new
development generating the need. State law authorizes the
City to enter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to
make the off-ramp improvements (see, e.g., Streets &
Highways Code §§ 113.5, 114).
IMPACT 3.3/~. Cumulative Impacts on Dublin Boulevard. Cumulative
buildout with the Project would cause Level of'Service F opera-
tions at the intersection of Hacienda Drive with Dublin Boulevard
and Level of Service E oPerations at the intersection of Tassa-
jara Road with Dublin Boulevard. DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised),
5~0-4. '~
'114 \eastdub\find (4)
9
~itiqation Measure 3.3/13.0. The City shall continue to
requirements, improvement alternatives, and funding 'pro-
grams. Buildout of proposed projects outside Eastern Dublin
would require.the City to build grade-separated interchanges
on Dublin Boulevard and/or establish alternate routes to
redistribute traffic flow. Ail projects in the RPA.shall
contribute a proportionate share of improvement costs DEIR
pages 3.3-27 (as revised), 5.0-4. '
~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
Incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact might not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Findinq. Regional transportation programs
will attempt to reduce the amount of future traffic and
associated impacts, Even with these efforts, however, the
cumulative traffic impacts on Dublin Boulevard might not be
reduced to insignificance.
IMPACT 3.3/N. Cumulative Impacts on Tassajara Road. Cumulative
buildout with the Project would cause Level of Service F opera-
tions at the intersections of Tassajara Road with Fallon Road,
Gleason Road, and the Transit Spine. These impacts would be
caused primarily by traffic from the Tassajara connection to
Dougherty Valley, and full buildout of the Tassajara Valley.
DEIR.page 3.3-28 (as revised), 5.0-4.
Mitiqation Measure 3.3/14.Q. The City shall reserve suffi-
cient right-of-way to widen Tassajara Road to six lanes
between Dublin Boulevard and the Contra Costa County line
and monitor traffic conditions and implement widening pro-
jects as required to maintain LOS D operations on Tassajara
Road. .All projects in the RPA shall contribute a propor-
tionate share of the improvement costs. DEIR pages 3.3-28
(as revised), 5.0-4 and -5; RC #5-2, 7-13, 8-2
~. Changes or alterations have been required 'in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substa '
lessen the si nificant ~ ~ :_ . ntlally
g ef ..... ~=~f'~d in the Final EIR
Rationale for Finding. Allowing for the widening of
Tassajara Road to six lanes, if needed, will allow the City
to maintain an acceptable LOS D. Development in the Project
area will be required to contribute its fair share of the
improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they
will be provided by new development generating the need.
11~ \eastdub \ find (4)
10
IMPACT 3.3/0. Transit Service Extensions. The Project would
introdu~--~'~ni~'f~6~-H~-~i-6p~t--i-~--a~-"~t~a"-"n-~t--currenT1yserved'
by public transit, creating the need for substantial expansion of
existing transit systems. DEIR page 3.3-28.
Mitiqation Measure 3.3/15.0. Specific Plan Policy 5-10-
requires the City 'of Dublin to coordinate with'LAVTA to
provide transit service within one quarter mile of 95% of
the population, in accordance with LAVTA service standards.
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3.3-28.
Mitiqa~ion Measure 3.3/15.1. Specific Plan Policy 5-11-
requires the City of Dublin to coordinate with LAVTA to
provide at least one bus every 30 minutes during peak hours,
to 90% of employment centers with 100 or more employees, in
accordance with LAVTA service standards. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.3-28.
Mitiqation Measure 3.%/15.2. Ail projects in the RPA shall
contribute a proportionate share to the capital and
operation costs of transit service extensions. DEIR page
~. 3-28.
Mitigation Measure 3.3/15.~. The City shall ~oordinate with
BART and LAVTA to provide feeder service to the planned BART
stations. Until the BART extension is completed (projected
for 1995), the City shall coordinate with BART to ensure
that BART express bus service is available to eastern Dublin
residents. DEIR page 3.3-28.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. Some of the transit service
coordination actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of Bart and LAVTA agencies and not the City of
Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by those
agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or
substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. The mitigations provide for
expansion of existing transit systems to meet Project
demand, not only on the local level through LAVTA but also
on a local and regional level through BART.
IMPACT 3.3/P. Street Crossings for Pedestrians and Bicycles.
Pedestrians and bicycles would cross major streets with high
projected traffic volumes, such as. Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara
Road and Fallon Road, introducing potential safety hazards for
pedestrians and bicyclists. DEIR page 3.3-29.
llt\eastdub\find (4)
11
~itiqation Measure 3.3/16.9. Specific Plan Policy 5~15, and
Spe¢if-i~-Pl-an-~igure~-Sz~'*"-require-~.-a--Cl~ss-i..p~d
bicycle/pedestrian path along Tassajara Creek and t~ails
along other stream corridors in the Project area.
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA ) DEIR
page 3.3-29. ·
~itiqation Measure 3.3/16.1. The City shall locate
pedestrian and bicycle paths to cross major arterial streets
at signalized intersections. DEIR page 3.3-29.
. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
ncorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Placing a major bicycle/pedestrian
path along Tassajara Creek and using trails along other
stream corridors allows bicycles and pedestrians to avoid
traveling on major streets with their high traffic volumes.
Where the paths must cross a major arterial street, re-
quiring the crossing at a signalized intersection minimizes
path and traffic conflicts by stopping traffic on a regular
basis to let path travelers cross the street safely.
Section 3.4 -- Communit. Services and Facilities
IMPACT 3.4/A and B. Demand for Increased Police Services and
Police Services Accessibility. The Project will increase demand
for police services from the Dublin Police Department,s admini-.
strative and sworn staff, and will require reorganization of the
police operations to provide new patrol beats in the Project
area. The hilly topography of most of the Project site may
present some accessibility and crime-prevention problems. DEIR
page 3.4-2.
Hitiqation Measure 3.4/1.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Policy 8-4,* the City shall provide additional personnel and
facilities and revise beats as needed in order to establish
and maintain City standards for police protection service in
Eastern Dublin. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-2.
Mitiqation Measure 3.4/2.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action Program SD,* the City shall coordinate with the City
Police Department regarding the timing of'annexation and
proposed development, so that the Department can adequately
plan for the necessary expansion of services in the RPA.
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3.4-2
114 \eastdub \ find (4)
12
Mitiqation Measure 3.4/3.Q. Pursuant to Specific Plan
A~ti~-n--p~-~ram~SEi,--the Cit~-sha-t~--~i-n¢~mp~e~nto--~he ........
requirements of project approval Police Department recommen-
dations on project design that affect traffic safety and
crime prevention. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-2.
Mitiqation Measure 3.4/4.0. Upon annexation of the RPA, the
City of Dublin Police Department'will be responsible for
police.services. The city'will prepare a budget strategy to
hire the required additional personnel and implement a beat
systeml DEIR page 3.4-2.
Mitiqation Measure 3.4/5.0. As part of the development
review process for residential and non-residential projects,
the Police Department shall review development projects'
design and circulation for visibility, security, safety,
access, and emergency response times and any other police
issues. DEIR pages 3.4-2 to -3.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. The five mitigations ~dentified will
ensure that additional police will be hired and that other
administrative, measures will be employed to provide adequate
protection for Project area residents. Police Department
input into design of Project development will insure that
police services are efficiently provided.
IMPACT 3.4/C. Demand for Increase4 Fire Services. Buildout of
the Project will substantially expand the DRFA service area and
increase demand for new fire stations and firefighting personnel.
This will significantly increase response times and reduce
service standards unless new facilities and personnel are added.
DEIR page 3.4-5.
Mitiqation Measure 3.4~6.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Policy 8-5,* the City shall time the construction of new
facilities to coincide with new service demand in order to
avoid periods of reduced service efficiency. The first
station will be sited and will begin construction concurrent
with initial development in the planning area. (*Specific
Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) -DEIR page 3.4-5.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/7.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action Program 8F,* the City shall establish appropriate
funding mechanisms to cover up-front costs of capital
improvements. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-5.
13
~itiqation Measure 3.4/8.0. Pursuant to S eci '
· -th~ ~ ~nalr coordinate with
identify and acquire specific sites for new fire stations,
with the westernmost site in the Specific Plan area assured
prior to approval of any development plans. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA ) DEIR page 3.4-5; RC
15-26. '
M~itiqation'Measure 3.4/9.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action Program 8H,* the City shall incorporate DRFA
recommendations on project design relating to access, water
pressure, fire safety and prevention into development
approvals. Require compliance with DRFA design standards
such as non-combustible roof materials, minimum fire hydrant
flow requirements, buffer zones along open space areas, fire
alarm and sprinkler systems, road access, and parking
requirements. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR pages 3.4-5 to -6.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/10.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action Program 8I,* the City shall ensure, as a requirement
of Project approval, that an assessment district, homeowners
association, or some other mechanism is in place that will
provide regular long-term maintenance of the urban/open
space interface. (*Specific Plan provisions ~dopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-6.
~iti~ation Measure 3.4/11.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action Program 8J,* the City shall ensure that fire trails
and fire breaks'are integrated into the open space trail
system. And that fire district standards for access roads
in these areas are met while environmental impacts are
minimized. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-6.
~iti~ation Measure 3.4/12.0. The City of Dublin, in
consultation with DRFA and a qualified wildlife biologist,
shall prepare a wildfire management plan for the RPA to
reduce open land wildfire risks consistent with habitat
protection and other open space values. The plan shall
specify ownership, maintenance, use, brush control, and
fire-resistant landscaping measures, as well as periodic
review of these measures, for RPA open lands. Any park
districts or other open space agencies with jurisdiction
over lands within the RPA shall be encouraged to participate
in the preparation of the plan. DEIR pages 3.4-6 to -7.
~itiqation Measure 3.4/13.0. The City shall consult with
DRFA to determine the number, location and timing of
additional fire stations for areas within the RPA outside
ll4\ea~tdu~\find (4)
14
the specific plan when such areas are proposed for
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to determine the'nUmber and location of fire
stations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
DRFA and not the City of Dublin, Such actions can and
should be taken by DRFA. If taken, such actions can and
would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. New fire facilities will be
constructed to meet the needs of Project residents; DRFA
input into Project design features will enable additional
and efficient provision of fire services~ The wildfire
management plan should further limit the Project fire
protection impacts by reducing the risk of wildfires.
IMPACT 3.4/D. Fire Response to Outlying Areas. Based on DRFA's
preliminary locations for new fire stations, the northern-most
portions of the RPA would be outside the District's standard
response area. Development in these areas (especially the north
end of Tassajara Road) Could experience adverse fire hazard
exposure and emergency response impacts. DEIR page 3.4-5.
Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures 3.4/6.0 to 13.0 as
described above. DEIR pages 3.4-5 to -7.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to determine the number and location.~f fire
stations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
DRFA and not the City of Dublin. Such actions should ~e
taken by DRFA. If taken, such actions can and would avoid
or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. New fire facilities will be
constructed to meet the needs of all Project residents,
including those in the outerlying areas; DRFA input into
project design features will enable additional and efficient
provision of fire services. The wildfire'management plan
should further limit the Project fire protection impacts by
reducing the risk of wildfires.
IMPACT 3.4/E. Exposure to Wildfire Hazards. Settlement of
population and construction of new communities in proximity to
high fire hazard open space areas with difficult access poses an
11~ \eastdub \ find (~)
15
increasing wildfire hazard to people and property if open space
areas are notmainta-i~-ed ~or--~ire~-sa.~ety~ ..... Thi~_i~_.a~s~_a ..................
significant cumulative impact in that increased development in
steep grass and woodlands around the edges of the Tri-Valley,s
core communities may reduce response times and strain fire-
fighting resources for regional firefighting services, many of
whom participate in mutual aid systems DEIR pages 3 4-5, 5.0-
~itiqation Measures 3.4/6.0 to 13.0.
3.4/6.0 to 13.0, as described above.
-7, 5.0-5; RC ~26-26.
Mitigation measures
DEIR pages 3.4-5 to
~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to determine the number and location of fire
stations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
DRFA agencies and the City of Dublin. Such actions should
be taken by DRFA. If taken, such actions can and would
substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR. DEIR pages 3.4-4 to -7.
Rationale for Findinq. New fire facilities will be
constructed to meet.the needs of all Project residents,
including those near open space areas; DRFA input into
project design fea%ures will enable additional and efficient
provision of fire services. The wildfire management plan
should further limit the Project wildfire exposure impacts
through fire safety planning and open space management.
IMPACT 3.4/F, G. Demand for New Classroom Space; Demand for
Junior High Schools. Buildout of the Project will increase the
demand for new classroom space;and schooI facilities beyond
current available capacity. At the junior high school level,
classroom demand may exceed bo~h current and planned capacity
levels. DEIR page 3.4-11 to -12.
~itiqation Measure 3.4/13.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Policy 8-1,* the City shall reserve schooI sites within the
RPA designated on the Specific Plan and General Plan
Amendment Land Use Maps. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-12.
Mitiqation Measure 3.4/14.0. The City shall ensure that the
two proposed junior high schools are designed to accommodate
the projected number of junior high school students. DEIR
page 3.4-12.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or
ncorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
114 \ ea stdub \ find ( 4 )
16
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR,
Some...acti-ons...-to-~.determine--j-~ni~--~i~h--~¢ho~l si-tingP~nd
design are within the responsibility and jurisdiction'.of
other public agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such
actions can and should be taken by such other agencies. If
taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the
significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. ProvSding elementary, junior high,
and high school sites will accommodate classroom demand
generated by Project residents. Mitigation Measures
3.4/17..0 through 3.4/19.0 will ensure sufficient funding for
such development.
IMPACT 3.4/H. Overcrowding of Schools. Existing schools may be
overcrowded.if insufficient new classroom space is provided for
new residential development~. DEIR page 3.4-12..
Mitiqation Measures 3.4/13.0 to 14.0. Mitigation Measures
3.4/13.0 to 14.0, as described above.
Mitiqation Measure 3.4/15.Q. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Policy 8-2,* the City shall promote a consolidated develop-
ment pattern that supports the logical development of
planning area schools, and in consultation with the appro-
priate school district(s), ensure that adequate classroom
space is available prior to the development of new homes.
(*Specific Plan' provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3..4-12.
Findinq. Changes or 'alterations have been required in, or
incorporated intQ, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Some actions to site and design schools are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and
not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be
taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions would
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Providing elementary, junior high,
and high school sites will accommodate classroom demand
generated by Project residents, while a consolidated
development pattern ensures that the classroom space will be
available when it is needed. Mitigation Measures 3.4/17.0
through 3.4/19.0 will ensure sufficient funding for such
development.
IMPACT 3.4/I. Impact on School Financing District Jurisdiction.
Development:of the RPA under existing jurisdictional boundaries
would result in the area being served by two different school
114 \ea stdub \ find ( 4 )
17
districts and would adversely affect financing of schools and ~-'~:~
~itiqation Measures 3.4/16.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action Program SA,* the City shall work with the school
districts to resolve the jurisdictional issue to best serve
student needs and minimize the fiscal burden of the service
providers. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR pages 3.4-12 to -13.
~- Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Some actions to resolve the jurisdictional issue are within
the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies
and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be
taken by such other agencies. If taken,-such actions would
avoid or substantially.lessen the significant effects
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Resolving the school district
jurisdiction issue will limit conflicts and ensure that
school services are efficiently provided.
IMPACT 3.4/J. Financial'Burden on School Districts. The cost of
providing new school facilities could adversely impact local
school districts by creating an unwieldy financial burden unless
some form of financing is identified. DEIR page 3.4-13.
~itigation Measures 3.4/17.0 to 19.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 8-3* and Action Program 8B, ensure that adequate
school facilities are available prior to development in the
RPA to the extent permitted by law, for example, by
requiring dedication of school sites and/or payment of
developer fees by new development. Pursuant' to Specific
Plan Action Program 8C,* the City shall work with school
districts to establish appropriate funding mechanisms to
fund new school development and encourage school districts
to use best efforts to obtain state funding for new con-
struction. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR p. 3.4-13; RC ~15-31.
~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated i~to, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Some actions to fund new school development are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and
not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be
taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions would
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects
identified in the Final EIR.
11~ \ea-~tdub \ find (~)
18
Rationale for Findinq. Through these mitigations, develop-
responsibility, for accommodating that demand, with th'e
school'districts being provided with back-up financial
support from other sources.
IMPACT 3.4/K. ~Demand for Park Facilities. Without the addition
of new parks and facilities, the increased demand for new park
and recreation facilities resulting from buildout of the Project
would not be met, resulting in deterioration of the city's park
provision standard and of the city's ability to maintain existing
services and facilities. This is'also a significant cumulative
impact. DEIR pages 3.4-16, 5.0-5.
Mitigation Measures 3.4/20.0 to 24.0. General Plan
Amendment Guiding Policies A, B, and G and Implementing
Policy D require the City of Dublin to provide and maintain
parks and related facilities adequate to meet Project and
citywide needs and in conformance with the City's-Park and
Recreation Master Plan 1992. Implementing Policy K
specifically requires dedication and improvements for the 20
parks designated in the RPA with collection of in-lieu fees
as required by City standards. DEIR pages 3.4-16 to -17,
5.0-5.
Mitigation Measures 3.4/25.0 to 27.0. Sufficient parkland
shall be designated and set aside in the RPA to satisfy the
City's.Park and Recreation Master Plan 1992 and its park
provision and'phasing standards. DEIR pages 3.4-17, 5.0-5.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/28. The City shall'implement
Specific Plan Policies 6-1 to -6* to establish large,
continuous natural open space areas with convenient access
for users, and adequate access for maintenance and manage-
ment; to preserve views of designated open space areas; and
to establish a mechanism for open space ownership, manage-
ment, and maintenance. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-18 to -19.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in/ or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen~the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. These mitigations provide added new
parks and facilities to meet increased demand from Project
residents, and require compliance with phasing plans in the
Park and Recreation Master Plan 1992, to ensure that new
parks and facilities construction will keep pace with new
residential construction.
11~ \ea stdub \find ( 4 )
19
IMPACT 3.4/L. Park Facilities Fiscal Impact. Acquisition and
improvemefl-~--~-f new ~r-k--~-~d-rec'~t'~-~i-i'i-t-i~----~"~I~e-.a ...........
financial strain on existing City of Dublin revenue sources
unless adequate financing and implementation mechanisms are
designed. DEIR page 3.4-18.
Mitigation Measures 3.4/20.0 to 31.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 4-29* and Action Program 4N,* the City shall
ensure that development provides its fair share of planned
open space; for example, through in-lieu fees under the
City's parkland dedication ordinance. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Program 4M,* the City shall develop a Parks Imple-
mentation Plan identifying phasing, facilities priorities
and location, and design and construction responsibilities.
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3.4-18.
Yinding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. These mitigations ensure that needed
park facilities will be provided by developers at the time
of development, thereby avoiding the use of existing revenue
sources to build new parks for Project area residents.
IMPACT 3.4/M, N. Impact on Regional Trail System and Impact on
Open Space COnnections. Without adequate provisions for trail
easements and without adequate design and implementation, urban
development along stream corridors and ridgelands would obstruct
formation of a regional trail'system and an interconnected open
space system. DEIR page 3.4-18 to -19..
~itiqation Measure 3.4/32.0. Pursuant to General Plan
Amendment Guiding Policy H,* establish a'trail system with
regional and subregional connections, including a trail
along the Tassajara Creek corridor. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-19.
~iti~ation Measures 3.4/23.0 and 33.0 to 36.0. Pursuant to
General Plan Amendment Guiding Policy I, Implementation
Policy D, Specific Plan Policies 6-1,* 6-3,* Action Program
40,* and consistent with the City's Parks and Recreation
Master Plan 1992, use natural stream corridors and major
ridgelines as the basis for a trail system with a conti-
nuous, integrated open space network, emphasizing convenient
user access, pedestrian and bicycle connections between
developed and open space areas, and.developer dedication of
ridgetop and stream corridor public access easements.
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
pages 3.4-17, -19.
11¢ \eastdub\ find ( 4 )
20
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final'~IR.
Rationale for Findinq. Establishing a Project area trail
system incorporating planned regional connections contri-
butes to development of a regional trail system and allows
the trail planning to be considered and incorporated into
individual Project area developments in the RPA. By
requiring that open space and trail planning be based on
continuous physical features such as stream corridors and
ridgelines, and that public access be provided along these
features, these mitigations avoid a disconnected open space
system.
IHPACT 3.4/0, P~ Increased Solid Waste Production and Impact on
'Solid Waste Disposal Facilities. Increased population and
commercial land use will cause a proportional increase in the
total projected amount of solid waste and household hazardous
waste generated by the city of Dublin. This increase creates the
need for additional capacity, personnel, and vehicles to dispose
of the wastes. It can create public'health risks from improper
handling. The increased solid waste and household hazardous
waste generated by the Project may accelerate the closing
schedule for Altamont landfill unless additional capacity is
developed or alternate disposal sites are identified. This
impact on the Altamont landfill is also a potentially significant
cumulative impact. DEIR pages 3.4-21 to -22, 5.0-6.
Mitiqation Measures 3.4/37.0 to 40.0. Pursuant to'Specific
Plan Action Program 8K* and other EIR mitigations, adopt a
Solid Waste Management Plan for the RPA, including waste
reduction programs such as composting and curbside and other
collection of recyclables. Include goals, objectives, and
programs~necessary to integrate with the diversiontargets
of the City's SOurce Reduction and Recycling Element and
Household Hazardous Waste Element. New development in'the
RPA shall demonstrate adequate available landfill capacity
for anticipated wastes. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR pages 3-4.22 to -23, 5.0-6.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. These mitigations minimize the
amount of solid waste production and related needs and risks
through compliance with AB 939 solid waste planning.
Reducing the amount of Project-generated waste will also
avoid an accelerated closing schedule for the Altamont
landfill. In addition, these mitigations require that new
114 \eastdub \ find (~)
development anticipate and provide for adequate waste
IMPACT 3.4/Q. Demand for Utility Extensions. Development of the
Project site will ~ignificantly increase demand for gas, electric
and telephone services. Meeting this demand will require
construction of a new Project-wide distribution system. This is
a significant growth-inducing impact. DEIR pages 3 4-24 '5 0-14
to -15. ' ' ·
Mitigation Measures. None proposed. DEIR page 3.4-2.4.
~. No changes or alterations are available to avoid
or substantially lessen this impact. Therefore, a Statement
of Overriding Considerations must be adopted' upon approval
of the Project.
IMPACT 3.4/R. Utility Extension Visual and Biological Impacts.
Expansion of electrical, gas, and telephone lines could adversely
affect visual and biological resources if not appropriately
sited. DEIR page 3.4-24.
Mitigation Measures 3.4/41.0 to 44.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Action Program 8L* and oth6r identified mitigation
measures, development within the RPA must document the
availability of electric, gas, and telephone service and
must place utilities below grade or, preferably, underground
and routed away from sensitive habitat and open space lands.
A development project service ~eport shall be reviewed by
the City prior to improvement plan approval. (*Specific
Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3 4-24
to -25. '
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Undergrounding utilities will avoid
visual ~effects by placing the utility extensions where they
cannot-be seen. Routing the utility extensions away from
sensitive habitat and open space areas will avoid impacts on
biological resources by avoiding the resources themselves.
IMPACT 3.4/S. Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural Resources.
Natural gas and electrical service would increase consumption of
non-renewable natural resources. DEIR page 3.4-25.
Mitigation Measures 3.4/45.0 to 46.0. Major developers in
the Project area shall provide demonstration projects on
cost-effective energy conservation techniques incldding but
not limited to solar water and space heating, landscaping
ll4\eastdub\find (4)
22
for water conservation, and shading. Ail development
projects in the RPA sha~l-~'~-~--~-~-n-~-~g~-'~n~ervation .......
plan as part of their proposals. The plan shall demonstrate
how site planning, building design, and landscaping will
conserve use of energy during construction and long term
operation. DEIR page 3.4-25.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding. Through the demonstration projects,
developers Can educate themselves and Project residents
about available and feasible techniques to reduce
consumption of energy resources. Requiring energy
conservation plans forces both developers and the City to
actively consider various techniques to reduce energy
consumption and to build those techniques directly into the
Project. These actions cannot, however, fully mitigate the
impact.
IMPACT 3.4/T. Demand for Increased postal Service. The Project
will increase the demand for postal service. DEIR page 3.4-26.
Mitiqation Measures 3.4/47.0 to 48.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 8-10 and Action Program SM, the City shall
encourage the U.S.P.S. to locate a· new post office in the
Eastern Dublin town center. DEIR page 3.4-26; RC # 15-37.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to site a new post office within the town center are
within the ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of the
USPS and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and
should be taken by the USPS. If taken, such actions would
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. A post office conveniently located in
the town center area will provide postal service to meet the
Project generated demand.
IMPACT 3.4/U. Demand for Increased Library Service. Without
additional iibrary facilities and staff, the increase in
population resulting from the Project would adversely affect
existing library services and facilities DEIR page 3.4-27.
23
~lan-Polic~_8,.ll_~and Acti°n-Prog~a-~--SN~*-andother. identi_.
...... ~itiqation Measures 3.4/49.0 to 51.0. Pursuant to Specific
fied mitigation measures, the City shall encourage and
assist the Alameda County Library System to provide adequate
library service in eastern Dublin, considering such factors
as location, phasing, and funding of needed library
services. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR pages 3.4-27 to -28; RC #15-38.
. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
ncorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to provide library facilities ~re within the
ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of the Alameda
County Library system and not the City of Dublin. Such
actions can and should be taken by the Alameda County
Library System. If taken, such actions would avoid or
substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Providing library services to the RPA
will meet Project generated demand. Planning how and When
to provide those.services will ensure that they are
efficient and convenient to the maximum number of users.
Section 3.5 -- Sewer Water and Storm Draina e
IMPACT 3.5/A. Indirect Impacts Resulting from the Lack of a
Wastewater Service Provider. Although Specific Plan Policy 9-4
(page 127) calls for the expansion of DSRSD's service boundaries
to include the Specific Plan area, the Project does not provide
for wastewater service to areas in the RPA outside the specific
plan area. ~This could result in uncoordinated efforts by future
developers in this area to secure wastewater services. DEIR page
3.5-5, RC ~ 32-18.
~itiqation Measure 3.5/1.0~. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Policy 9-4,* the City shall coordinate with DSRSD to expand
its service boundaries to encompass the entire RPA.
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) RC #
32-18.
- Changes or alterations have been required in, or
ncorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to expand DSRSD's service boundaries are within the
ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of the DSRSD and
not the Cit~ of Dublin. Such actions can and should be
taken by the DSRSD. If taken, such actions would avoid or
substantially lessen the significant effect identified in'
the Final EIR.
114 \eastdub \ find (4)
24
Rational for Findinq. Expanding DSRSD's service
boundaries-tb--i~d'~th-e-~ntire--RPA--wi-t~-ensu~e~tha~ ..... ~- ...........
securing wastewater services will be coordinated
through one agency.
IMPACT 3.5/B. Lack of a Wastewater Collection System. Estimated
wastewater flow for the RPA is 4.6 MGD; however, there currently
is no wastewater collection system adequate to serve the Project
area. DEIR page 3.5-5.
Mitigation Measures 3.5/1.0 to 5.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Action Programs 9P,* 9I,* 90,* 9M,* and 9N,* all
development in the RPA shall be connected to public sewers
and shall obtain a "will-serve" letter prior to grading
permits; on-site package plants and septic systems shall be
discouraged. The City shall request that DSRSD update its
collection system master plan to reflect Project area
proposed land uses, with the cost of the plan to be borne by
future development in the RPA. All wastewater systems shall
be designed and built in accordance with DSRSD standards.
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3.5-'6;' RC ~ 32-19, 32-20.
.Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. These mitigations will provide a
wastewater collection system adequate to meet Project
generated demand, and will ensure the system meets design
and construction standards of'DSRSD.
IMPACT 3.5/C. Extension of a Sewer Trunk Line with Capacity to
Serve New Developments. Construction of a wastewater collection
system could result in development outside the RPA that would
connect to the Project's collection system. This is also a
potentially significant.growth-inducing impact. DEIR pages 3.5-
6, 5.0-15.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/6.Q. The proposed wastewater system
shall be sized only for the RPA area. DEIR pages 3.5-6, 4-
11, 5.0-15.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid'or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. By sizing the planned wastewater
collection system only to serve the RPA, growth inducing
impacts on lands outside that area are avoided.
114 \ea stdub \ find ( 4 )
25
IHPACT 3.5/D. Allocation of DSRSD Treatment and Disposal .':?%.
Capacit-~,--There--is---t~m~ced avai-tab~e-cap'~city-~t--th-e--DSRSD ............
Treatment Plant, limiting the number of sewer permits available
for new developments. It is very unlikely that any of the
presently remaining DUE's will be available for the Eastern
Dublin Area. DEIR page 3.5-7; RC ~32-21.
Mitiqation Measure 3.5/7.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action Program 9L,* development project applicants in the
RPA shall prepare a design level water capacity investi-
gation, including means to minimize anticipated wastewater
flows and reflecting development phased according to sewer
permit allocation. .(*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.5-7.
Mitiqation Measure 3.5/7.1. Development project applicants
in the RPA shall obtain a wastewater "will-serve,, letter
from DSRSD before receiving a grading permit. RC ~32-22.
~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen.the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. The required investigation will allow
development to be phased to ensure there are adequate
wastewater facilities available to meet Project generated :.~.
demand. The requirement of a "will-serve,, letter will ..~
insure that adequate wastewater facilities will exist for
all new development. If capacity is not available, DSRSD
will not issue a will-serve letter. RC ~32-22.
IMPACT 3.5/E. Future Lack of Wastewater Treatment Plant
Capacity. Development of the Project require an increase in
wastewater treatment plant capacity Within DSRSD to adequately
treat the additional wastewater flows-to meet discharge
standards. This is also a potentially .significant cumulative
impact in that increased demand on area wastewater treatment
facilities exceeds current remaining capacity. DEIR page 3.5-7
to -8, 5.0-6.
Mitiqation Measures 3.5/7.1, 8.0, 9.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 9-6* and mitigations identified in the EIR,
ensure that wastewater treatment and disposal facilities are
available for future development in the RPA through
compliance with DSRSD's master plan to fund, design, and
construct wastewater treatment Plant expansion once export
capacity is available (unless TWA approves export of raw
wastewater, in which case DSRSD's wastewater treatmen~ ~lant
expansion will not be necessary). Also, development project
applicants in the RPA shall obtain a wastewater "will-serve,,
letter from DSRSD before receiving a grading permit.
ll~\eastdub\find (4)
26
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
Finding.' Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Compliance with DSRSD's master plan
will ensure that adequate wasteWater treatment plant
capacity will-be available in the future to serve Project
generated demand once export capacity of treated wastewater
is provided (see Mitigation Measure 3.5/11,0). Alternative-
ly, expanded treatment capacity will not be necessary if
export of raw wastewater is approved. The requirement of a
"will-serve" letter will insure that adequate wastewater
facilities will exist for all new development. If capacity
is not available, DSRSD will not issue a will-serve letter.
RC ~32-22.
IMPACT 3.5/F. Increase in Energy Usage Through Increased
Wastewater Treatment. Development of the Project will result in
increased wastewater flows and will require increased 'energy use
for treatment of wastewater. DEIR page 3.5-8; RC ~32-24.
Mitigation Measure'3.5/10.0. Include energy efficient
treatment systems in any wastewater treatment plant
expansion and operate the plant to take advantage of off-
peak energy. DEIR page 3.5-8; RC ~32-24.
Finding. Such actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of
Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by other
agencies. However, even if such actions are taken, this
impact .will not be avoided or substantially lessened.
Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be
adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding. Use of energy efficient treatment
systems and plant operations will reduce the amount of
energy'use but these actions cannot fully mitigate the
impact.
IMPACT 3.5/G. Lack of Wastewater Current Disposal Capacity. The
increase in wastewater flows from the Project and other sub-
regional development will exceed available wastewater disposal
capacity until additional export capacity is developed. This is
also a significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.5-8, 5.0-6.
Mitigation Measures 3.5/7.1, 11 to 14.Q. Pursuant to
Specific Plan Policy 9-5* and Action Programs 9H,* 9J,* and
9K,* the City shall support current efforts to develop
114 \.a stdub \ find (4)
27
additional export capacity. The City shall require use of _.
'recycled-water~f'or--l-a-ndscape-irrigat-ion-~rn--~cord~_~_~.~.~ith.
DSRSD's Recycled Water Policy and require development within
the RPA to fund a recycled water distribution system model
to reflect proposed land uses. Also, development project
applicants in the RPA shall obtain a wastewater ,,will_serVe,,
letter from DSRSD before receiving a grading permit.
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3{5-9, 5.0-6 to -7, RC f32-22, 32-25, 32-26, 32-27.
~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen'the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to develop additional export capacity are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies,
and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should
take by such agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid
or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale for ~indin~. These mitigations will provide the'
additional wastewater disposal capacity necessary to meet
Project generated demand. The requirement of a "will-serve,,
letter will insure that adequate wastewater facilities will
exist for all new development. If capacity is not avail-
able, DSRSD will'not issue a will-serve letter. RC f32-22.
IMPACT 3.5/H. Increase in Energy Usage Through Increased
Wastewater Disposal.
. Development of the Project will result in
increased wastewater flows and will require'increased energy use
for disposal of wastewater; more specifically, for (1) pumping
raw wastewater to CCCSD for treatment under the TWA proposed
project; and/or (2) operation of an advanced treatment and
distribution system for recycled water. DEIR page 3-5.9.
Mitiqation Measures 3.5/15.0 to 16.u. The City shall
encourage off peak Pumping to the proposed TWA export
system. The City shall plan, design, and construct the
Project recycled water treatment system for energy efficient
operation including use of energy efficient treatment
systems, optimal use of storage facilities, and pumping at
off peak hours. DEIR pages 3.5-10 to -11.
~. Such actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other public agencies and'not the City of
Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by other
agencies. However, even if such actions are taken, this
impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened.
Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be
adopted upon approval of the Project.
114 \eastdub\ find (4)
28
Rationale for Findinq~ The proposed mitigations will reduce
the am6unt of energy used for wa~-~Q-~'~-'~-i~'~I"-but'."thes~--'
actions cannot fully mitigate the impact.
IMPACT 3.5/I. Potential Failure of Export Disposal System. A
failure in the operation of the proposed TWA wastewater pump
stations would adversely affect the overall operation of the'
wastewater collection system for the Tri-Valley subregion, as
well as the Eastern Dublin Project. DEIR page 3.5-10.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/17.0. Engineering redundancy will b~
built into the TWA pump stations, which will also have
provisions for emergency power generators. DEIR page
3.5-10.
Finding. Such actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other public agencies and-not the City of
Dublin. Such actions can and should betaken by other
agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or sub-
stantially lessen the significant effebt identified in the
Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Engineering redundancy will minimize
the risk of pump station system failure; providing emergency
power generators will ensure that any system failure which
does occur will be short lived, thereby avoiding the effects
of such failure. RC ~32-28.
IMPACT 3.5/J. Pump Station Noise and Odors. The proposed TWA
wastewater pump stations could generate noise during their
operation and could potentially produce odors. DEIR page 3.5-10.
Mitiaation Measure 3.5/18.0. TWA's pumps and motors will be
designed to comply with local noise standards and will be
provided with odor control equipment. DEIR page. 3.5-10.
Finding. Such actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of
Dublin~ Such actions can and should be taken by other
agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or sub-
stantially lessen the significant effect identified in the
Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Requiring compliance with local noise
standards will ensure that any noise produced not exceed
acceptable levels. Odor control equipment will ensure that
odor production effects are avoided. RC ~32-28.
IMPACT 3.5/K. Storage Basin Odors and Potential Failure. The
proposed TWA Emergency Wastewater Storage Basins could poten-
tially emit odors and/or the basins could have structural failure
114 \ eastdub \find ( 4 )
29
due to landslides, earthquakes, or und~rmininq of the rese_r~.~oir
f~-~--in~d~-~~inage. DEIR page 3.5-10.
~itiqation Measure 3.5/19.0. TWA's basins will be covered,
buried tanks with odor control equipment and will be
designed to meet current seismic Codes. DEIR page 3.5-11.
~. Such actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of
Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by other
agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or
substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
~ationale for Finding. These mitigations ensure that any
odors related to the TWA basins are contained and controlled
within the basins so as not to be detectable beyond the
basins. Compliance with'seismic codes will ensure that the
basins are properly constructed to withstand landslides and
earthquakes and are provided with adequate drainage to avoid
structural failure. RC #32-28.
IMPACT 3.5/L. Recycled Water S~stem Operation. The proposed
recycled water system must be constructed and operated properly
in order to.:prevent any potential contamination or cross-
connection with potable water supply systems. DEIR page 3.5-11.
~itiqation Measur'e 3.5/20.0. Construction of the recycled
water distribution system will meet all applicable standards
of the Department of Health Serwices (DHS) and San Francisco
Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). DEIR page
3.5-11.
~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid.'or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
~ationale for Findinq~ Applicable regulations of the DHS and
RWQCB are designed to prevent cross-connection contamina-
tion; compliance with these regulations will therefore avoid
the contamination impact.
IMPACT 3.5/M. Recycled Water Storage Failure. Loss of recycled
water storage through structural damage from landslide, earth-
quake, and undermining of the reservoir through inadequate ·
drainage. DEIR page 3.5-11.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/21.9. The City shall require
reservoir construction to meet all applicable DSRSD and
other health standards and shall require preparation of
soils and geotechnical investigations to determine potential
114 \eastdub \ find (&)
30
..... _la~ds~id~-and--earthquak~-imp-~, Reservoirs shall be
designed to meet current seismic ~-~--~-~'-~-~rov~ ............
adequate site drainage. DEIR page 3.5-11.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Soils and geotechnical studies will
ensure that reservoirs will be designed and constructed to
comply with current seismic, DSRSD, and other applicable
health standards, the purpose of which is .to avoid
structural failure.
IMPACT 3.5/N. Loss of Recycled Water System Pressure. Loss of
pressure in the proposed recycled water distribution systems
could result in the system being unable to meet peak irrigation
demand, which could result in loss of vegetation through lack of
irrigation water. DEIR page 3.5-12; RC ~32-30.
Mitiqation Measure 3.5/22.~. The recycled water pump
stations shall meet all applicable DSRSD standards. DEIR
page 3.5-12; RC ~32-31.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Compliance with DSRSD standards will
minimize the risk of pressure being lost.
IMPACT 3.5/0. Secondary Impacts from Recycled Watersystem
Operation. Failure to identify and implement treatment plant
improvements related to recycled water use may increase salinity
in the'groundwater basin. DEIR page 3.5-12.
Mitiqation Measures 3.5/20.0. Recycled water projects shall
incorporate salt mitigation required by Zone 7. DEIR page
3.5-12.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the'Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Compliance with salt mitigation
requirements will reduce the salinity of the recycled water,
thereby avoiding the risk of increased salinity in the
groundwater basin.
IMPACT 3.5/P. Overdraft of Local Groundwater Resources. If the
Project area is not annexed to DSRSD and development projects are
11~ \eastdub \ find ( 4 )
not required to connect tODSRSD,s water di~rib~i~_s~stem, ............
devel-°Pm'~-t-~6J-~P may attempt to.drill their own wells,
causing overdraft of existing limited groundwater supplies DEIR
page 3.5-17..
Miti ation Measures 3.5 24.0 to 25.0. Pursuant to SPecific
Plan Policy 9-2* and other' EIR mitigations, the City shall
coordinate with DSRSD to expand its service boundaries to
include the Project area and to develop annexation
conditions encouraging water conservation and recycling.
The City shall encourage all developments in the RPA to
connect to DSRSD,s system and discourage the use of
groundwater wells. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.5-17; RC #14-4.
~- Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project.that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to expand DSRSD's service boundaries are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the DSRSD and not the
City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by the
DSRSD. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Annexation to DSRSD and connection
~o its water distribution system will eliminate the need for
development projects to drill their own wells and will
therefore avoid the risk of groundwater overdrafting.
IMPAC~ 3.~/Q. Increase in Demand for Water. Estimated average
daily water demand for the RPA is 6.4 MGD, which demand could
exceed available supply. This is also. a potentially significant
cumulative impact in that ongoing urban development in the Tri-
Valley is resulting in a cumulative increase in water demand at a
time when water supplies and delivery are uncertain. DEIR page
3.5-18, 5.0-7 to -8.
Miti ation Measures 3.5 26.0 to 31.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Action Programs 9A* and 9B,* the City shall require
development projects in the RPA to include water conserva-
tion measures within structures as well as in public and
other improvements. Require developments to comply with
DSRSD and Zone 7 recommendations for developing and using
recycled water. Pursuant to other EIR mitigations,
implement Zone 7 and DSRSD water supply and water quality
improvements and interconnect Project area water systems
with existing Surrounding water systems for increased
reliability. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) ~DEIR pages 3.5-18 to -19; 5.0-9; RC ~13-9, 32-43.
114 \eastdub\find(~)
32
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
lessen the significant effect identified'in the Final' EIR.
Some actions to improve water supply and quality are within
the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies
and not the city of Dublin. Such actions'should be taken by
such other agencies. If taken, such actions can and.would
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Through required water conservation
and water recycling mitigations, the Project reduces the
magnitude of the impact by reducing the demand for water
using recycled water for irrigation reduces the estimated
average daily water demand in the RPA to 5.5 MGD. (RC
~32.52.) The remaining water quality and water supply
mitigations will result in an increased water availability
from Zone 7 and DSRSD to meet Project generated demand.
IMPACT 3.5/R. A~4itiOnal Treatment Plant Capacity. The increase
in water demand through development of the Project will require
an expansion of existing water treatment facilities in order to
deliver safe and potable water. DEIR page 3.5-19.
Miti=ation.Measures 3.5/32.0 to 33.Q. Implement Zone 7's
planned water treatment system improvements. DSRSD should
construct two new chlorination/fluoridation stations at the
two proposed Zone 7 turnouts to eastern Dublin, with the
construction phased west to east as anticipated in the
General Plan Amendment. DEIR page 3.5-19.
Findinq. Such actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the city of
Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by other
agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or sub-
stantially lessen the significant effect identified in the
Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Proposed water treatment system
improvements will insure that Project water supply meets all
applicable water quality requirements.
IMPACT 3.5/S. Lack of a Water Distribution System. There
currently is no water distribution system to provide water
service for-the RPA. DEIR page 3 5-20.
Miti~a{ion Measures 3.5/34.0 to 38.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 9-1' and Action Programs 9C,* 9D,* 9E,* and 9G,*
the City shall provide an adequate water supply system with
related improvements and storage facilities for all develop-
ment, in compliance with applicable DSRSD standards. The
114 \eastdub \ find ( 4 )
33
City shall request that DSRSD update its ~ater s s~e~
"will-serve,, letter from DSRSD --: .... ~'-'~ .............
Fixur ~o gra~ing permits for
any Project area development. The City shall encourage the
proposed water system to coordinate and combine with
existing neighboring water systems. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.5-20.
~. Changes or alterations have been re ' ·
incorporated into~ h= · = . quoted ~n, or
· , t~ Pro~ect that avoid or s '
lessen the significant effe-~ ~ ........ ubstant~ally
~ ~u~n~lile~ in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. These mitigations will provide a
water distribution system adequate to meet Project-generated
demand, and will insure the system meets design and
construction standards of DSRSD. '
IMPACT 3.$/T. Inducement of Substantial ~rowth and Concentration
of Population. The proposed water distribution system will
induce growth in the Project area and has been sized to oten
tially accommodate the Dou-her~.. ~ .... ' · P -
~ ~ ~ey ueve±opment to the north.
However, if..DSRSD does not provide water to the Dougherty Valley
Development; the pipes will be sized to only accommodate the RPA.
The impact is also a potentially significant growth-inducing
impact. DEIR page 3.5-20, 5.0-15, RC f32-41, 32-55.
~.. No feasible mitigation measures are identified to
reduce this impact. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
IMPACT 3.5/U. Increase in Energy Usage Through Operation of the
Water Distribution System. Development of the Project will
result in increased water demand and will require increased
energy use to operate a water distribution system, especially for
pumping water to the system and to storage. DEIR page 3"5-21.
~itiqation Measure 3.5/40.' Plan, design, and construct the
water distribution system for energy efficient operation.
Design.pump stations to take advantage of off-peak energy.
DEIR page 3.5-21.
~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
~ationale for Finding. USe of energy efficient water
distribution systems and operations will reduce the amount
of energy used, but these actions cannot fully mitigate the
impact.
114 \eastdub \ find (4) 34
I~AgT_..~.zSJV. Potential water storage Reservoir Failure. Loss
of storage in proposed water
landslides, earthquakes, and/or undermining of the reservoir
through inadequate drainage would adversely affect the ability of
the water supply system to maintain water pressures and to meet
fire flows. DEIR page 3.5-21.
Mitiqation Measure 3.5/41.0. Require water reservoir
construction to meet all applicable DSRSD standards.
Prepare soils and geotechnical investigations to determine
potential landslide and earthquake impacts. Design the
reservoirs to meet current seismic codes, and to provide
adequate site drainage. DEIR page 3.5-21.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in,.or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified'in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Soils and geotechnical studies'will
insure that reservoirs will be designed and constructed to
comply with current seismic, DSRSD, and site drainage
standards,' thereby avoiding the risk of structural damage or
failure.
IMPACT 3.5/W. Potential Loss of System Pressure. Loss of
pressure in the proposed water distribution systems could result
in contamination of.the distribution system and would not allow
adequate flows and pressures essential for fire flow. DEIR page
3.5-22. ~
Mitigation Measure 3.5/42.0. The proposed water pu~p
stations shall meet all applicable standards of DSRSD and
shall include emergency power generation back-up. DEIR page
3.5-22. '
Finding. changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Compliance with DSRSD standards will
minimize the risk of pressure being lost. Providing
emergency power generators will insure the pumps will
continue operating, thereby avoiding the risk of contamina-
tion in the distribution system and insuring that adequate
water flows are available for fire protection.
IMPACT 3.5/X. Potential Pump Station Noise. Proposed water
system pump stations would generate noise during their operation
that could adversely affect the surrounding community. DEIR page
3.5-22.
114 \eas .tdub \ find ( 4 )
35
~itiqation Measure 3.5/43.0. Design pump stations to
sound -l~re-l-s-fro~--~-~-~-~=~-~_=~- .............. _ reduce
en g P P ors and emer enc
'g erators. DEIR page 3.5-22. g
~ Changes or alterations have been required in, Or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Reducing .soUnd levels of the
mechanical equipment will reduce the amount of noise
perceivable by surrounding residents thereby avoiding the
impact. ,
IMPACT 3.$/y. Potential Flooding. Development of the Project
and development of former agricultural, rural, and open space
lands throughout the Tri-Valley will result in an increase in
runoff to creeks and will result in an increased potential for
{looding. This is also a potentially significant cumulative.
impact. DEIR page 3.5-25, 5.0-9.
Mitiqation Measure 3.5/44.0 to 48.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policies 9-7* and 9-8,* Action Programs 9R* and 9S,*
and other EIR mitigations, require a master drainage plan
· for each development project in the RPA to provide drainage
facilities adequate 'to prevent increased erosion or flood-
ing, including channel improvements with natural creek
bottoms, and side slopes with natural vegetation. This
design level plan shall include studies of the development
project area hydrology, potential impacts of the development
project, and proposed design features to minimize runoff
flows and their effects on erosion and riparian vegetation.
Development projects shall also address potential downstream
flooding, and shall include retention/detention facilities
and/or energy dissipators to minimize and control runoff,
discharge, and to minimize adverse biological and visual
effects. Construct storm drainage facilities in accordance
with approved storm drainage master plan. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR 3.5-25 to -26,
5.0-9.
~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
~ationale for Findinq. Through planning and implementation
of storm drainage master plans, development projects will
minimize the amount of runoff to creeks and will provide
drainage facilities to control the rate and location of
runoff that does discharge into creeks. These measures will
minimize the increase in runoff thereby avoiding increased
flooding potential. '
114 \eastdub \ find (4)
36
......... !~.~.._.3~/Z .... Reduced Groundwater Recharge.. Increasingthe
amount of impervious surfaces in the Project area could'-"~duCe
the area's already minimal groundwater recharge-capabilities.
This is al~o a potentially significant cumulative impact, as
impervious surfaces increase throughout the Tri-Valley. DEIR
page 3.5-26, 5.0-9 to -10.
Mitigation Measure '3.5/49.0 to 50.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 9-9* and other EIR mitigations, plan facilities
and operations that protect and enhance water quality;
support Zone 7 's ongoing groundwater recharge program for
the nearby Central Basin, which contains the majority of the
Tri-Valley' s groundwater resources. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA. ) DEIR page 2.5-26,
5.0-9.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, 'the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. These mitigation measures protect
and enhance what minimal groundwater recharge capability
exists in the Project area.
IMPACT 3.5/AA. Non-Point Sources of Pollution. Development of
the Project could result in a deterioration of the quality of
stormwater due to an increase in non-point sources of pollution
including (1) urban runoff;. (2) non-stormwater discharges to
storm drains; (3) subsurface drainage; and (4) construction site
runoff (erosion and sedimentation). This is also a potentially
significant, cumulative impact as other projects in the subregion
are developed. DEIR page 3.5-26.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/52.0 to 55.0. The city shall develop
a community based education program on non-point sources of
pollution, coordinating such programs with current Alameda
County programs. The City shall require all development to
meet the requirements of the City's "Best Management
Practices", the City's NPDES permit, and the County's Urban
Runoff Clean Water Program to mitigate stormwater pollution.
DEIR 3.5-27, 5.0-10, Addendum.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Education programs will acquaint all
Project area residents with the issue of non-point
pollution, and will suggest ways residents can avoid such
pollution. Existing City, County, and State regulatory
programs will insure that potential impacts of non-point
114\eastdub\find (4)
37
sources of pollution or stormwater ~ality__~ill be mitiqated
.... ~'~i ~-~nsignif~a~.
~ection 3.6 -- Soils, Geolo~, and Seismicity
IMPACT 3.6/B. Earthquake Ground Shaking: Primary Effects.
Earthquake ground shaking resulting, from large earthquakes on
active fault zones in the region, could be strong to violent, and
could result in damage to structures and infrastructure and in
extreme cases, loss of life. DEIR page 3.6-7. '
~itiqation Measure 3.6/1.0. Use modern seismic design for
resistance to lateral force in construction of development
projects, and build in accordance with Uniform Building'Code
and applicable county and city code requirements DEIR page
3.6-7. -
~' changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of OVerriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Findinq. Modern seismic design.and compliance
with applicable building codes will reduce the risk of
structural failure, major structural damage, and loss of
life from the effects of ground-shaking. These actions will
not, however, completely avoid the impact.
IMPACT ~.6/C. Earthquake Ground Shaking: Secondar~ Effects. The
secondary effects of ground shaking include seismically_indUced
landsliding, differential compaction and/or settlement. This is
also a significant cumulative impact in that further development
in the area could expose residents to significant safety hazards
~itiqation Measure 3.6/2.0. In relatively.flat areas,
development should be set back from unstable and potentially
unstable land or these landforms should be removed,
stabilized, or reconstructed. Where improvements are
located on unstable land forms, use modern design,
appropriate foundation design, and comply with applicable
codes and-policies. DEIR page 3.6-8, 5.0T10.
M~iti~ation Measure 3.6/3.0. In hillside areas, where
development may require substantial grading, require
appropriate grading and design to completely remove unstable
and potentially unstable materials. DEIR page 3 6-8,
5.0-10. ·
114 \eastdub \ find ( 4 ) 3 8
Mitiqation Measures 3.6/4.0 to 5.0. Use engineering
techniques and improvement~/""~ch'-'~'""'~eh~i6h"'§t~ct~r'e~ .......
surface and subsurface drainage improvements, properl~
designed keyways, and adequate compaction to improve the
stability of fill areas and reduce seismically induced fill
settlement. DEIR page 3.6-8, 5.0-10.
Mitiqation Measure 3.6/6.0. Design roads, structural
foundations, and underground utilities to accommodate
estimated settlement without failure, especially across
transitions between fills and cuts. Remove or reconstruct
potentially unstable stock pond embankments in development
areas. DEIR page 3.6-8, 5.0-10.
Mitiqation Measure 3.6/7.0. Require all development
projects in the Project area to perform design level
geotechnical investigations prior to issuing any permits.
The investigations should include stability analysis of
natural and planned engineered slopes, and a displacement
analysis to confirm the effectiveness of mitigation measures
proposed in the investigation. DEIR page 3.6-9, 5.0-10.
Mitigation Measure 3.6/8.0. Earthquake preparedness plans
should be developed.by the city and all Project site
residents and employees should be informed of appropriate
measures to take in the event of an earthquake. DEIR page
3.6-9, 5.0-10.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that aVoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Mitigations 3.6/2.0 to 6.0 provide
specific engineering techniques for reducing the effects of
ground shaking throughout development in the Project area.
Mitigation 3.6/7.0 requires development projects to apply
these and other available engineering techniques at a design
level, to identify specifically the effects that can occur
on a particular site, to propose mitigations specific to
those effects and the site, and to provide a means for
evaluating the likely success of those measures. Through
these engineering, planning, and design mitigations,
development projects will be able to anticipate and avoid or
reduce.ground shaking effects before the development is
built.
IMPACT 3.6/D. Substantial Alteration to Project Site Landforms.
Development of the Project area could result in permanent change
to the Project site's existing topography, particularly in
hillside areas. This is also a significant cumulative impact as
the hillsides and ridgelands of surrounding Tri-Valley cities are
114 \eastdub\find (4)
39
graded and excavated for development projects ~ . ·
5.0-10, -- DEIR page 3.6-9,
Mitigation Measures 3.6/9.0 to 10.0. Adapt improvements to
natural landforms in order to minimize required cuts and
fills through such techniques as construction of partial
pads and use of retaining structures and steeper cut and
fill slopes where appropriate and properly designed.
Further reduce landform alteration by carefully siting
individual improvements on specific lots after identifying
~eotechnically feasible building areas and alignments. Site
improvements to avoid adverse geotechnical conditions and
the need for remedial grading and use techniques such as
clustering where appropriate to minimize grading and/or
avoid adverse geotechnical conditions. DEIR page 3 6-9
5.0-10. · -
~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen.the significant effect identified in'the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. These mitigation measures provide
design.and engineering techniques which maintain natural
landfoinns to the greatest degree possible, and thereby
minimize alteration of those landforms. The mitigations
also require that geotechnical conditions be identified for
development projects, allowing individual projects to
identify and reduce, or in some cases completely avoid, the
condition which might otherwise require alteration.
IMPACT 3.6/F, G. Groundwater Impacts. Groundwater Impacts
Associated with Irrigation. Shallow groundwater conditions occur
in places throughout the RPA and could be caused by irrigation
associated with development of the RPA. These conditions can
adversely affect the performance of foundation and pavements,
particularly in areas with expansive soils and bedrock. In
addition, shallow groundwater can cause slope instability,
including landsliding and fill settlement, and can lead to
liquefaction of RPA soils. DEIR page 3.6-10.
~iti~ation Measures 3.6/11.0 to 13.0. Prepare detailed
design level geotechnical investigations on development
projects within the RPA, to locate and Characterize
groundwater conditions and formulate design criteria and
measures to mitigate advers~ conditions. Control
groundwater by construction of subdrain systems, remove
stock pond embankments and drain reservoirs in development
areas. (See ~fM 3.6/4, 6, 15, 18, 23, and 27 for additional
techniques to control soil moisture and maintain slope
stability. DEIR page 3.6-8, -11 through -14.) DEIR page
3.6-10 through -11; RC #15-43.
114 \ea stdub \find (4)
40
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Pf6j~~a~6-id or's~s-t-a~tially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Fina~ EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. The geotechnical investigation will
identify areas which have groundwater, and development will
proceed in accordance with measures to protect structures
and improvements from slope and soil instability due to
shallow groundwater.
IMPACT 3.6/H. Shrinking and Swelling of Expansive Soils and
Bedrock. The Project site contains expansive soils and bedrock,
which tend to shrink upon drying and swell upon wetting. This
process can.cause distress to overlying structures and infra-
structure, causing damage to foundationsi slabs, and pavements.
DEIR page 3.6-11.
Mitiqation Measures 3.6/14.0 to 16.0.' Prepare design level
geotechnical investigations for development projects in the
Project area to characterize site-specific soils and bedrock
conditions, and to formulate appropriate design criteria and
mitigation measures for those conditions. Such responsive
measures include, but are not limited to, controlling
moisture in the soils and bedrock, and designing foundations
and pavements to be built either below the zone of seasonal
moisture change, or upon structurally supportive floors and
after removal of the expansive materials. DEIR page 3.6-11
to -12.
Finding. Changes or 'alterations have been required in, or
incorpgrated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen;the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. The design level geotechnical
evaluation will identify expansive soils and bedrock and
insure that special techniques are used in these areas to
reduce the risk of structure and infrastructure damage.
IMPACT 3.6/I. Natural Slope Stability. The Project area
contains active and dormant landslides, as well as steep slopes
and colluvium-filled swales, which are subject to potential slope
instability~ and could cause damage to structures and infra-
structure located in these areas. DEIR page 3.6-12.
Mitiqation Measures 3.6/17.0 to 19.0. Development projects
within the Project area should prepare design level
geotechnical investigations to characterize site-specific
slope stability conditions and to formulate appropriate
design~criteria and mitigation measures in response to those
conditions. Such design measures and mitigations include.
siting'development away from unstable landforms and from
.~... .... ' .! .14 \ea stdub\ find (4)
41
........... ~lDPes_greater than--about--3D~,.-and-pr~i-d_ing_~owe.~__density
development in steep, unstable areas. Where unstable areas
cannot be avoided, design measures and mitigations include
removihg the unstable material, reconstructing or repairing
the unstable area, or engineering structural responses,
including'subsurface drainage improvements. (See also MM
3.6/26.0, recommending maintenance and inspection plans for
drainage systems. DEIR page 3 6-14 ) DEIR page 3 6-12 to
-13. ' ' ·
~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
~ationale for Findinq. The design level geotechnica1
investigation will disclose areas which may be susceptible
to slope instability. Special techniques, such as siting of
structure and improvements, removing the unstable materials,
and providing structural remediation, will improve slope
stability.
IMPACT 3.6/J. Cut and fill Slope Stability. Potentially
unstable cut and fill slopes may fail or.settle, causing damage
to structures and infrastructure. DEIR page 3.6-13.
Mitiqation Measures 3.6/20.0 to 21.0. Require grading plans
for hillside areas, which plans mini-mize grading and
required cuts and fills by adapting roads.to natural
landforms, stepping structures down steeper slopes, and
demonstrating compliance with applicable building code and
other applicable City and County requirements DEIR page
3.6-13. ·
~itiqation Measures 3.6/22.0 to 25.0. Detailed design level
geotechnical investigations such as-that required by
mitigation measure 3.6/17.0 should describe and evaluate cut
and fill slopes proposed for development projects in the
RPA. Retaining structures, reinforcement and drainage
measures should be provided on cut slopes as determined by
code requirements and the specific conditions identified in
the geotechnical investigation. Unretained cut slopes
should generally not exceed 3:1. Filled slopes steeper than
5:1 should be keyed and benched into competent material and
provided with subdrainage prior to placing engineered fill.
DEIR pages 3.16-13 to -14.
~iti~ation Measure 3.6/26.0. Development projects in the
Project area should prepare plans for the periodic in-
spection and maintenance of subsurface drainage features,
and the removal and disposal of materials deposited in
surface drains and catch basins. (See also measures
114 \eastdub \ find (4) 42
.~scribed i~_MM_ ~.6/28.~a.~ ~__~_plans should include
inspection and disposal proced~-~,~"~'~h~i-~-'-~'h'~-r-e-p0~tin~ .......
requirements, and a responsible party, and should emphasize
overall long-term project monitoring and maintenance. DEIR
page 3.6-14.
FindinG. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. The detailed design level geotechni-
cal investigation will identify areas where cut and fill
slopes are proposed. Specific grading plans affecting these
conditions would be required to show how each.development
project will minimize cut and fill slopes, and how the
remaining slopes will be stabilized through' siting or engi-
neering features..~Long-term monitoring and maintenance
plans will ensure that the design .facilities and engineered
features effectively protect the cut and fill slopes .over
the long term.
IMPACT 3.6/K, L. Erosion and Sedimentation: Construotion-Related
and Long-Term. Construction of development projects in the RPA
will modify the ground surface and its protective vegetative
cover and will alter surface runoff and infiltration patterns,
causing short-term erosion and sedimentation during.construction,
and long-term erosion and sedimentation once permanent structures
and improvements are in place. The long-term impact is also a
significant cumulative impact as similar sites are developed
throughout the Tri-Valley. DEIR page. 3.6-14, 5.0-11.
Mitiqation Measure 3.6/27.0. Time grading activities to
avoid the rainy season as much as possible, and implement
interim control measures, including but-'not limited to,
providing water bars, mulch and net blankets on exposed
slopes, straw bale dikes, temporary culverts and swales,
sediment traps, and/or silt fences. DEIR page 3.6-14.
Mitigation Measure 3.6/28.0. Reduce long-term erosion and
sedimentation impacts through appropriate design, construc-
tion, and continued maintenance of 'surface and subsurface
drainage. Appropriate measures include, but are not limited
to, constructing sediment catch basins, adequate storm sewer
systems, stabilizing c-reek banks, revegetating and main-
taining wooded slopes, constructing facilities to control
drainage and runoff, and emphasizing periodic homeowner/
landowner maintenance. (See also M/~ 3.6/26.) DEIR page
3.6-15, 5.0-11.
ll4\eastdub\find (4)
43
~. Changes or alterations have ~en required in, or
less6n the significant effect identified in the Final' EIR.
Rationale for Finding. These mitigations include measures
to prevent concentration of. runoff, control runoff velocity,
and trap silts on both a short-term and long-term basis,
thereby minimizing the identified impact.
Section 3.7 -- Bioloqical Resource~
IMPACT 3.7/A. Direct Habitat Loss. Under Alternative 2, the
Project will result in the loss, degradation, or disturbance of
1900 acres of existing vegetation. No unique or rare plant
species occur in the Project area; however, urbanization will
substantially reduce the habitat and range for botanical and
wildlife species which are resident or migratory users of the
RPA. The Project contributes to the cumulative, ongoing 'loss of
natural habitat in the Tri-Valley region, and is also a
potentially significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3 7-9 5.0-
11, Addendum. - ,
Mitiqation Measures 3.7/1 0 to 3.0. Pursuant to 'Specific
Plan Policies 6-21- and 6-23,* and Action Program 60,*
direct.disturbance of trees or vegetation should be
minimized and restri=ted to those areas actually designated
for construction of improvements. DeVelopment projects
should include vegetation enhancement/management plans for
all open space areas identifying ways to enhance the
biological potential of the area as wildlife habitat and
~ocusing on such measures as reintroducing native species to
Increase vegetative cover and plant diversity. Development
projects shall also be required to prepare a detailed
revegetation/restoration plan, developed by a qualified
revegetation specialist, for all disturbed areas that are to
remain undeveloped.'. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-9, 5.0-11.
~itiqation Measure 3.7/4.0. The City shall deVelop and
implement grazing management plans to protect riparian and
wetland areas, increase plant diversity, and encourage the
recovery of native plants, especially perennial grasses.
DEIR page 3.7-9, 5.0-11.
~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid'or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified .in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Restricting direct disturbance to
actual construction areas will reduce the amount of habitat
lost. The vegetation and grazing plans will protect and
restore disturbed areas to minimize the amount of habitat
114 \ eastdub \ find ( 4 )
44
......... loss_and_tm__anhark~_~t~valueofthe habitat area remaining.
IMPACT 3.7/B. Indirect Impacts of Vegetation Removal.
Construction activities on the Project site may cause dust
deposition, increased soil erosion and sedimentation, increased
potential for slope failures, and alteration of surface and
subsurface drainage patterns. DEIR page 3.7-9 to -10.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Policy 6-22,* all disturbed areas should be revegetated as
quickly as possible with native trees, shrubs,- herbs, and
grasses, to prevent erosion. The city shall determine
specific physical characteristics of proposed revegetation
areas to evaluate the long-term feasibility of the proposed
mitigation and to identify potential conflicts at the site.
Plants used for revegetation will be native to the Tri-
Valley Area. (*Specific Plan provisionsadopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-10; RC # 13-18.
Mitigation Measures 3.6/18.0, 22.0, 23.0, and 3.11/1.0.
Development should avoid siting on steep slopes and should
observe special design and engineering mitigation features
where construction occurs on 3:1 or steeper slopes. The
City of Dublin shall require dust deposition mitigations
during construction, including but not limited to, watering
the construction site, daily clean-up of mud and dust,
replanting and repaying and other measures to reduce wind
erosion. DEIR pages 3.6-12 to -13, 3.7-10, 3.11-3 to -4.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen.the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Requiring construction to avoid
siting on steep slopes will protect hillside vegetation and
reduce erosion impacts. Where disturbance is necessary,
engineering and other techniques to reduce erosion and
sedimentation and promote slope stability will als° ensure
that revegetation efforts to control erosion will be more
efficient and successful.
IMPACT 3.7/C. Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive
Habitat. Direct loss and degradation from grading, road
construction, and culvert'crossings could adversely affect the
Project area's unique and sensitive Northern Riparian Forest,
Arroyo Willow Riparian Woodland, and Freshwater Marsh habitats.
Indirect impacts could result from increased sedimentation or
spoil deposition affecting stream flow patterns and damaging
young seedlings and the roots of woody plants. This impact is
also a potentially significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.7-
10, 5.0-11.
114 \ea ~.aub \ f. ind ( 4 )
45
~itiqation Measures 3.7/6.0, 7.0, a~ 11.0, Rimarian an,
'~t'l~nd ~e'~'§~---'Pu~Suah~-~'""~i-flc'~i-~ Po~i-~ ~9-~-, ..........
6-10,* and Action Program 6E,* natural riparian and%e~land
areas shall be preserved wherever possible. Ail development
projects in the RPA shall consult with the Army Corps of.
Engineers (COE) and the California Department of Fish and
Game (DF.G) to determine these agencies, jurisdiction over
the riparian or wetland area. These areas shall be
incorporated into project open space areas. Any lost
riparian habitat shall be replaced as required by DFG. Any
lost wetlands shall be mitigated per COE's "no net loss,,
policy.. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.)
DEIR page 3.7-10, and -11, 5.0-12.
Miti ation Measures 3.7 8.0 to !0.0 12.0 to 14.0. PurSuant
to Specific Plan Policies 6-11 to 6-13,* and Action Programs
6F to 6H,* the City shall require revegetation of natural
stream corridors with native plant species and preservation
and maintenance of natural stream corridors in the Project
area, through measures including, but not limited to,
avoiding underground drainage systems in favor of natural
open-stream channels and retention basins. The City shall
establish a stream corridor system (see Specific Plan Figure
6.1) to provide multi-purpose open space corridors for
pedestrian and wildlife circulation. The City should also
work with Zone 7 and DFG to develop a stream corridor
restoration program, with standards for grading, stabiliza-
tion, ~nd revegetation, and long-term management of RPA
stream.channels. Development projects in the RPA are to .be
reviewed against, and any approval shall be consistent with,
the program standards. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-10 to -12 5.0-12; RC ~14-
7, 35-25. '
~itiqation Measure 3.7/15.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action Program 6K,* the City of Dublin shall establish and
maintain a liaison with state and federal resource manage-
ment agencies throughout the planning and development
process of individual development projects, in order to
avoid violations of state and federal regulations and insure
that specific issues and concerns are recognized and
addressed. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout'
RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-12, 5.0-12.
~itiqation Measures 3.7/16.0 to 17.0. Existing sensitive
habitats shall be avoided and protected where feasible.
Construction near drainages shall take place during the dry
season. DEIR page 3.7-12, 5.0-12.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or
ncorp°rated into the Project. These changes will avoid or
114 \eastdub\ find ( 4 ) 46
substantially lessen the Project-related significant effects
......... ~-n-~i-f-i~--i~-~h-~=-fy~n~i-EiR~--HS~~--th~-e--changes-~ilt .........
not avoid the cumulative effects of lost or degraded"
biologically sensitive habitat. Therefore, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of
the Project.
Rationale for Findinq. Requiring compliance with "no n'et
loss" policies will ensure that the amount of habitat shall
remain constant. By incorporating wildlife corridors into
Project plans, wildlife habitats will be enhanced and will
not become isolated because wildlife will be able to migrate
through these corridors as necessary. Disturbance of
natural stream corridors can reduce the habitat value of
these areas, but will be minimized by requirements.to
preserve and maintain these corridors in a natural, open
condition, and by requiring construction.to take place in
the dry season. Any disturbed streams shall be rebuilt,
reconstructed and revegetated according to the stream
corridor plan, which will further enhance and protect.
habitat values in the RPA. Even with these protections for
the RPA's biologically sensitive resource, the cumulative
impactlcannot be fully mitigated.
IMPACT 3.7/D. San Joaquin Kit Fox. Construction of new roads
and facilities could adversely impact kit fox by destroying
potential dens or burying foxes occupying dens at the time of
construction. Modification of natural habitat could reduce
available prey and den sites. Increased vehicle traffic, the
presence of humans and domestic dogs, and resident use of poison
for rodent control could kill or disturb foxes or reduce their
prey populations. DEIR page 3.7-12 to -13.
Mitiqation Measure 3.7/18.0. The city shall require all
development in the RPA to comply with the East Dublin San
Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan outlined in Appendix E, DEIR
Part II. Extensive mitigation measures stress siting urban
development to avoid kit fox habitat where possible, and
protecting and enhancing the habitat which remains primarily
in the~Open Space and Rural Residential areas. Mitigations
include measures for pre-c~nstruction and construction
conditions, and address steps to be taken if potential or
known dens are identified. DEIR page 3.7-13, DEIR Appendix
E (as revised following RC #20-7.)
Mitiqation Measure 3.7/18.1. The City of Dublin shall work
with other agencies to develop a management plan that
identifies measures to protect viable habitat for the kit
fox in the Tri-Valley area. RC #20-5.
114 \ea ~d~\ fiz~d (4) 47
~itiqation Measure 3.7/19.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
........ A-cti-o~P~-O~-r~N~-,~--feh~--C-i~-~--s-~a-~-l. ~_--.--~.--. '-.~ ................................. ":"~'
~ ~nd~l restr!ct rodenticide and
herbicide use. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted '
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-13.
~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final~EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Appendix E.provides a comprehensive
protection plan addressing several phases of kit fox
protection, from avoidance of potential dens to maintenance
of habitat. Through this plan, the Project will avoid most
direct and indirect adverse effects on any kit fox that
might be present in the Project area.
IMPACTS 3.7/F to I. Red-legged Frog, California Tiger
Salamander, Western Pond Turtle, Tri-Colored Blackbird. The
destruction and alteration of water impoundments and stream
courses in the RPA threatens to eliminate abatat for these
h '
species. Increased sedimentation into the riparian areas could
reduce water quality and threaten breeding and larval habitat.
Disturbance of the already minimal vegetation in the stream
courses could reduce habitat opportunity for adult-species.
Increased vehicle traffic and new road construction could
increase direct mortality. Harassment and predation by feral
dogs and cats already occurs, and would increase with increased
residential development. DEIR page 3.7-13 to -14.
~itiqation Measures 3.7/20.0 to 22.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Action Program 6L* and other EIR mitigations., develop-
ment projects in the RPA shall prepare open space plans to
enhance and preserve existing habitat and revegetation plans
for any disturbed open space or habitat areas and shall
preserve and protect riparian, wetland, and stream'corridor
areas whenever possible. (See MMs 3.7/2.0 to 3.0.)
Maintain a minimum buffer of at least 100 feet around
breeding sites of the red-legged frog, California tiger
salamander, and Western pond turtle. Development projects
in the RPA shall conduct a Pre-construction survey within
sixty days prior to habitat modification to verify the
presence of sensitive species. (*Specific Plan provisions
adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-14.
~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding'. Open space protection, revegetation,
and restoration plan~ing, as well as planning to protect and
enhance wetland and riparian areas will also protect and
114 \eastdub \ find (¢) 48
minimize imDacts to th~.riparian habitat necessary for the
species identified in this impact.
IMPACTS 3.7/K. Golden Eagle: The conversion of grasslands and
the consequent reduction of potential prey could reduce the
amount and quality of foraging habitat for golden eagles. Noise
and human activity associated with development could also disrupt
foraging activities. Elimination of golden eagle foraging habi-
tat is also a potentially significant cumulative impact which
contributes to the overall regional loss of foraging habitat for
this species. DEIR page 3.7-15, 5.0-12.
· Mitigation Measure 3.7/25.0. Designate substantial areas of
land in the Project.area as Open Space or Rural Residential
(including future study areas), providing'open space
protection and low intensity development that will also
Provide a suitable foraging habitat. DEIR page 3.7r15,
5.0-12.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinql Providing a natural open. space zone
around the existing golden eagle nest avoids destruction of
the ngsting site; providing an additional buffer during the
golden eagle reproductive period further protects the
integrity of the existing nesting site. The natural open
space zone, together with the over · acres of open
space and low intensity development across the Project site
provides ample opportunity to maintain effective foraging
habitat for golden eagles.
IMPACT 3.7/L. Golden Eagle and Other Raptor Electrocutions.
Golden eagles and other raptors which perch or fly in~o high-
voltage transmission lines may be electrocuted. DEIR page
3.7-15.
~itiqa~ion Measures 3.7/26.0 and 3.4/42.0. Require all
utilities to be located below grade where feasible.
Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 6M,* require all
transmission lines to be undergrounded where feasible.
Where not feasible, design specifications to protect raptors
from electrocution shall be implemented. These specifica-
tions include, but are not limited to, spacing dangerous
components; insulating conductors,, using non-conductive
materials, or providing perch guards on cross arms; and
avoiding grounded steel cross arm braces. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-24, 3.7-
.15 to -16.
114 \eastdub\find (4)
49
zncorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Undergrounding utilities, including
all transmission lines, avoids the electrocution hazard.
Where the hazard cannot be avoided through undergrounding,
the design specifications identified in the mitigations
reduce the electrocution hazards by neutralizing and/or
covering the features that provide opportunities for
electrocution.
IMPACT 3.?/M, N. B~rrowing Owl and American Badger. Annual
grasslands in the RPA provide suitable habitat for burrowing
owls. Development and related construction activity could
destroy both burrowing owl and American badger burrows. Harass-
ment by feral dogs and cats, as well as use of poisons for rodent
control, could harm these species and/or reduce their prey
populations. DEIR page 3.7-16 to -17.
Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0 and 27.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Action Program 6L* and other EIR mitigations, develop-
ment projects in the RPA shall conduct a pre-construction
survey within sixty.days prior to habitat modification to
verify the presence of sensitive species. The projects
shall maintafn a minimum buffer of at least 300 feet around
the breeding sites of the American badger during the
breeding season (March to September) to avoid direct loss of
individuals. Also, projects shall maintain a minimum buffer
of at least 300 feet around known or identified nesting
sites of the burrowing owl, or implement other mitigation
actions pursuant to standardized protocol now under
development, including relocation of nesting sites in
coordination with the USFWS'and the CDFG. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR pages 3.7-14, and
'17; RC ~15-60.
~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. The pre-construction survey and
required buffer zone around known nesting and breeding sites
preserves these specieS' burrows by allowing them to be
avoided during the construction and development process.
IMPACT 3.7/0. Prairie Falcon, Northern Harrier, and Black-
Shouldered Kite. Development in the RPA could cause loss of
foraging habitat. DEIR page 3.7-17.
114 \eastdub\ find (4)
50
.Mitigation Measure 3.7/25.0. Substantial areas of land in
the Project area are designated for Open Space and 1~ ..........
intens%ty Rural Residential land uses (including future
study areas). DEIR pages 3.7-15 and -17.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. The designated open space and low
intensity rUral residential uses provide adequate foraging
habitat for these species.
IMPACT 3.7/P. SharP-shinned Hawk and Cooper's Hawk. Development
in the RPA could cause loss of foraging habitat. DEIR page 3.7-
17.
~itigation Measures 3~7/6.0 through 17.0 and 21.0.
Establish protective buffer zones for riparian and fresh-
water marsh habitats to protect and enhance sensitive
habitats. Preserve riparian, wetland, and stream corridor
areas;~where avoidance of these areas is not feasible,
prepare and implement habitat restoration, enhancement and
maintenance plans. .DEIR page~ 3.7-10 to -12,--14, -17.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. The mitigations provide
preservation, enhancement and maintenance features for
riparian and freshwater marsh habitats upon which these
species rely for forage. Protecting and enhancing this
habitat avoids the impact of lost habitat.
IMPACT 3.7/$. Special Status Invertebrates. Impacts to special
status invertebrates cannot be estimated at this time, DEIR page
3.7-18. ,
Mitiqation Measure 3.7/28.0. Species-specific surveys shall
be conducted in appropriate riparian/wetland habitats prior
to approval of specific projects in the RPA. DEIR page 3.7-
18, Addendum.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
RatiOnale for Findinq. Any potential impacts to Special
Status Invertebrates will be addressed during CEQA review of
specific development projects in the RPA.
114\eastdub\find (4) ~ .....
51
~ection 3.8 -- Visual Resource~
IMPACT 3.8/A. Standardized ""Tract" Development. Generic"
"cookie-cutter,, development could obscure the specific natural
features of the RPA, such as its landforms, vegetation, and
watercourses, that make it a unique place with its own identity
DEIR page 3.8-4. '
~itiqation Measure 3.8/1.0. Pursuant to the goal statement
in Specific Plan Section 6.3.4,* establish a visually
distinctive community which preserves the character of the
natural landscape by protecting key visual elements, and
maintaining views, from major travel corridors and public
spaces. Implement the extensive design guidelines for
development as'described in Chapter 7* of the Specific Plan.
These guidelines provide a flexible design framework, but do
not compromise the community character as a whole.
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3.8-5.
~. 'Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
'lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. By protecting key natural and visual
elements, the Project maintains the natural features of the
RPA, which make it unique. The general design guidelines
for the Project,'including a village center, town center,
mixed use orientation, and varying lot sizes, provide a
varied development pattern, which avoids the look of
standard cookie-cutter tract developments.
IMPACT 3.8/B. Alteration of Rural/Open Space Visual Character.
Urban development of the RPA will substantially alter the
existing rural and open space qualities that'characterize eastern
Dublin. This is also a significant cumulative impact as the
natural rural character of the Tri-Valley subregion is replaced
by urban development. DEIR page 3.8-5, 5.10-12.
Mitiqation Measure 3.8/2.0. Implement the land use plan for
the RPA, which plan emphasizes retaining the predominant
natural features, such as ridgelines and watercourses, and
preserves the sense of openness that characterizes Eastern
Dublin. DEIR page 3.8-5, 5.0-12.
~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project~
11~'\eastdub\£ind (4)
52
Rationale for FindinG. Maintaining predominant natural
features minimizes the alteration b-f--~h~--RPA-'~ ~-~f~-e'nt ruraT .....
open space character; however, it does not fully mitigate
this impact.
IMPACT 3.8/C. Obsouring Distinotive Natural Features. The
characteristic unvegetated landscape of the RPA heightens the
visual importance of existing trees, watercourses, and other
salient natural and cultural features. The Project has the
potential to obscure or alter these existing features and thereby
reduce the visual uniqueness of the site. DEIR page 3.8-5.
Mitigation Measure 3.8/3.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Policy 6-28,* preserve the natural open beauty of the hills
and other important visual resources, such as creeks and
major stands of vegetation. (*Specific Plan provisions
adopted throughoUt RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-5.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessenl'the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for FindinG. This mitigation measure calls for
preservation of the RPA's important visual resources,
thereby avoiding the impact of obscured or altered visually
important features.
IMPACT $.8/D. Alteration of visual Quality of Hillsides.
Grading and excavation of building sites in hillside areas will
severely compromise the visual quality of the RPA. DEIR page
3.8--6.
Mitiqation Measures 3.8/4.0 to 4.5. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policies 6-32,.* and 6-34 to -38,* grading and
excavation throughout the RPA should be minimized, by using'
such grading features as gradual transitions from graded
ares to natural slopes, by revegetation of graded areas, by
maintaining natural contours as much as possible and grading
only the actual development areas. Building pads in
hillside areas should be graded individually or stepped,
wherever possible. Structures and roadways should be
designed in response to the topographical and geotechnical
conditions. Structures should be designed to blend in with
surrounding slopes and topography and the height and grade
of cut and fill slopes should be minimized wherever
feasible. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-6.
FindinG. Changes or alterations have been required in,. or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially.
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
114 \eastdub\find (4)
~ationale for Finding. The various grading techniques
............ ~-i-dent~f~-edT--~tq~--~i-tn revege~a~ion.-.~n~ ..sens~tive
building design will avoid the impact by minimizing'physical
alteration throughout the RPA.
IMPACT 3.8/E. Alteration of Visual Quality of. Ridges.
Structures built in proximity to ridges may obscure or fragment
the profile, of visually-sensitive ridgelines. DEIR page 3.8-6.
~itiqation Measures 3.8/5.0 to 5.2. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 6-29,, development is not permitted on the main
ridgeline that borders the Specific Plan area to the north
and east, but may be permitted on the foreground hills and
ridgelands. Minor interruptions of views of the main
ridgeline by individual building masses may be permitted
only where all other remedies have been exhausted. Pursuant
to Specific Plan Policy 6-30* and General Plan Amendment
Guiding Policy E,' structures shall not obstruct scenic views
and shall not appear to extend above an identified scenic
ridgetop when viewed from scenic routes. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-7.
~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Prohibiting development along the
main ridgeline in the RPA preserves the visual quality of
this resource. Limiting development so that structures are
not silhouetted against other scenic ridgetops, as well as
requiring that a backdrop of natural ridgeline remain
visible, minimizes the obstruction or fragmentation of
visually sensitive ridgelines.
IF~ACT 3.8/F. Alteration of Visual Characte~ of Flatlands.
Commercial and residential development of the RPA's flatlands
will completely alter the existing visual character resulting
from valley grasses and agricultural fields. DEIR page 3.8-7.
~itiqation Measures. None identified. DEIR page 3.8-7.
~. No changes or alterations are available to
substantially lessen this impact. Therefore, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of
the Project.
Rationale for Finding. Development of the Project site's
flatter areas is regarded as a·,,trade-off,, measure designed
to preserve slopes, hillsides, and ridgelines.
! 14 \eastdub \ find ( 4 )
54
IMPACT 3.8/G. Alteration of the Visual Character of Water-
watercourse~ may diminish or eliminate their visibility
function asidistinct landscape elements. DEIR page 3.8-7.
Mit±qation Measure 3.8/6.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Policy 6-39,* protect the visual character of Tassajara
Creek and other stream corridors from unnecessary alteration
or disturbance. Adjoining development should be sited to
maintain visual access to the stream corridors. Implement
earlier identified mitigation measures 3.7/8.0, 12.0, and
13.0, to revegetate stream corridors to enhance their
natural appearance, to prepare a comprehensive stream
corridor restoration program, and to establish dedication of
land along both sides of stream corridors. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-7 to -8,
F~ndin~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for .Finding. Preserving the RPA watercourses will
retain both their visibility'and function as distinct
landscape elements.' Special attention to stream corridors
through revegetation, restoration, and dedication of land
along both sides, will further enhance this distinct
landscape element.
IMPACT S.8/I. Scenic Vistas. Development on the.RPA will'alter
the character-of--exi~n/~, v~s~a~and_m~y_~bs~ALr~e_important
sightlines.' DEIR page 3.8-8.
Mitiqation Measure 3.8/7.0 to 7.1. Pursuant to Specific
P.tan policy'6-5* and other EIR mitigations, preserve views
of designated-open space areas. The City will conduct a
visual survey of the RPA to identify and map viewsheds of
scenic vistas. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.)
Findinq. Changes or alterations.have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Identifying and mapping critical
viewsheds allows the City to consider specific ways of
preserving those views when reviewing development projects
within the RPA.
IMAGE 3.8/J. Scenic Routes. Urban development of the RPA will
· significantly alter the visual experience of travelers on scenic
114 \eastdub\find (4)
55
routes in eastern Dublin. As quiet rural roads become 'major
suburba~-t'horough~ares'~-~or'~ground--~nd--d~t~-t-~i~--~.y--D~-.-~ ..........
obstructed. DEIR page 3.8-8 to -9.
Mitiqation Measure 3.8/8.0. Pursuant to Specific plan
Action Program 6Q,* the City should officially adopt
Tassajara Road, 1-580, and Fallon Road as designated scenic
corridors, should adopt scenic corridor policies, and should
establish development review procedures and standards to
preserve scenic vistas. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-9.
Mitiqation Measure 3.8/8.1. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action Program 6R,* the City should require that projects
with potential impacts on scenic corridors submit detailed
visual analysis with development project applications. The
analysis shall include graphic simulations and/or sections
drawn from affected travel corridors and representing
typical views from scenic routes. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-9.
~indin~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Establishing scenic corridor
policies will insure that the visual experience of travelers
along scenic roUtes be maintained as much as possible.
Requiring visual analyses will allow the City to specifi-
cally review development projects for their visual impacts
and to review how locations of structures and associated
landscaping can be used to adjust the project design to
minimize its visual impacts from scenic routes.
Section 3.9 -- Cultural Resources
IMPACT 3.9/A. Disruption or Destruction of Identified .~
Prehistoric'Resources. Due to the level of development proposed
in the RPA, ~it is assumed that all prehistoric sites identified
in the 1988 inventory will be disturbed or altered in some
manner. DEIR page 3.9-6.
Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0 to 4.0. Develop a testing
program to determine the presence or absence of hidden
deposits in all locations of prehistoric resources. All
locations containing these components shall be recorded with
the State of California and their borders will be staked so
that professional survey teams may develop accurate location
maps. If any of these recorded and mapped locations are
affected by future construction or increased access to the
areas, evaluative testing, consisting of collecting and
114 \ea stdub \find ( 4 )
56
~~ing an~ surface concentration of materials, shall be
undertaken in order to prepare responsive mitigatio--~ ......
measures. The City shall hire a qualified archaeologist to
develop a protection program for prehistoric sites con-
taining significant surface or subsurface deposits of
cultural materials in areas where development will alter the
current condition of the resource. DEIR page 3.9-6 to -7.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale'for Finding. Through these mitigations,
prehistoric resources can be identified and mapped, and
specific mitigation plans prepared as part of review of
development projects that will affect the resources.
IMPACT 3.9/B. Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified Pre-
Historic Resources. Previously unidentified pre-historic
resources may exist in the RPA and would be subject to potential
disruption or destruction by construction and development
activities associated with the Project. DEIR page 3.9-7.
Nitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 to 6.0. Pursuant-to Specific
Plan Policy 6-25* and Action Program 6P,* cease any grading
or construction activity if historic or prehistoric remains
are discovered until the significance and extent of those
remains can be ascertained by a certified archaeologist.
Development projects in the RPA shall prepare an archaeolo-
gical site sensitivity determination and detailed research
and field reconnaissance by a certified archaeologist, and
develop a mitigation plan. (*Specific Plan provisions
adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.9-7.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. These mitigations will insure that
any significant prehistoric resources which are discovered
during development activities are not disrupted or
destroyed.
IMPACT 3.9/C. Disruption or Destruction of Identified Historic
Resources. Due to the level of development proposed in the RPA,
it is assumed that all historic sites identified in the 1988
inventory will be disturbed or altered in some manner. Even
cultural resources in the proposed Open Space and Rural Residen-
tial areas will potentially be disturbed or altered due to the
presence of new residential population in the area. DEIR page
3.9-8.
114 \eastdub\ find ( 4 )
57
Mitiqation Measures 3.9/7.0 to 12.
· Plan--Pol-i~ies--6~26~*--end-~6-~-and-.-other.miti~gat±.o~s
identified in the EIR, all properties with historic
resources and all standing structural remains shall be
evaluated by an architectural historian as part of in-depth
archival research to determine the significance of the
resource prior to any alteration. All historic locations in
the 1988 inventory shall be recorded on official State of
California historical site inventory forms. These records
should be used to make sure that historical locations are
recorded onto development maps by professional surveyors.
Where the disruption of historical resources is unavoidable,
encourage the adaptive reuse or restoration of the struc-
tures whenever feasible. A qualified architectural
historian shall be hired to develop a preservation program
for historic sites found to be significant under Appendix K
of the CEQA guidelines. ·(*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.9-8.
. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
ncorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant~effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Archival research and recordation of
historical sites on state inventory forms will insure that
historical resources are identified throughout the Project
area. Encouraging adaptive reuse or restoration of historic
structures and development of a preservation program for
historic sites will insure that identified resources are not
disturbed or destroyed.
IMPACT 3.9/D. Disruption or Destruction of Unidentifie~ ~istoric
Resources. Previously unidentified historic resources may exist
in the RPA and would be subject to potential disruption.Or
destruction by construction and development activities a'ssociated
with the Project. DEIR page 3.9-8.
~itiqation Measures 3.9/5.0 to 7.0, 9.0, 10.0, and 12.0.
These previously identified mitigation measures will be used
to ascertain the presence of unidentified historic resources
on a development project site in the RPA. If a historic
resource is identified, archival research shall be performed
to determine the significance of the resource or structure.
The City shall hire a qualified architectural historian to
develop a preservation program for significant historic
sites. DEIR page 3.9-7 to -9.
. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
ncorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
ll~\eastdub\find (4) 58
Rationale for Finding. Mitigations will ensure that any
significant histori6 resources w-~i~ are ~~-e-c-~uring
development activities are not disrupted or destroyed.
Section 3.10 -- Noise
IMPACT 3.10/A. Exposure of Proposed Housing to Future Roadway
Noise. Proposed residential.housing along Dublin Boulevard,
Tassajara Road, Fallon Road, and Hacienda Drive will be exposed
to future noise levels in excess of 60 dB CNEL. DEIR page 3.10-
2.
Mitiqation Measure 3.1.0/1.0. Require acoustical studies for
all residential development projects within the future CNEL
60 contour to show how interior noise levels will be reduced
to 45 dB.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen.the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. The required acoustical Studies must
show how interior noise exposures are reduced to 45 dB CNEL,
the minimum acceptable noise level.
IMPACT 3.10/B. Exposure of Existing Residenoes to Future Roadway
Noise. Increased traffic noise on local roads would result in
significant cumulative noise level increases along Tassajara (4
dB), Fallon (6dB), .and Hacienda Roads of 6 dB. This is a
potentially significant cumulative impact in that small indivi-
dual Project noise increases considered together and over the
long term, 'will substantially increase overall noise levels.
DEIR page 3.10-3, 5.0-13.
~itiqation Measures 3.10/2.0. All development projects in
the RPA shall provide noise barriers or berms near existing
residences to control noise in outdoor use spaces. DEIR
page 3.10-3.
Mitiqation Measure 3.10/7.0. To mitigate cumulative noise
impacts, the City shall develop a noise mitigation fee to
pay for on- and off-site noise mitigations, including but
not limited to, noise barriers, earthen berms, or
retrofitting structures with sound-rated windows. DEIR page
5.0-13.
FindinG. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
114 \eastdub\find (4)
59
Rationale for Finding. Providing noise barriers or berms
............. w-i-l-t--reduce--noi-se exUo-sUre--foT~--e~ri~ti, ng-resi~enCes; ~6~ver,
mitigation may not be feasible at all locations because of
site constraints such as' driveways and proximity to road-
ways. Furthermore, while developers will provide funding for
noise mitigations to reduce overall noise levels, funds
derived from the experimental program may not adequately
mitigate the cumulative impact. Therefore, this noise
impact cannot be fully mitigated.
IMPACT 3.10/D. Exposure of Proposed Residential Development to
Noise from Future Military Training Activities at Parks Reserve'
Forces Training Area (Camp Parks RFTA) and the County Jail.
Residential development on the Project site within 6000 feet of
Camp Parks RFTA and the County Jail could be exposed to noise
impacts from gunshots and helicopter overflights. DEIR page
3.10-4.
Mitigation Measure 3.10/3.0. The City'shall require an
acoustical study prior to future development in the Foothill
Residential, Tassajara Village Center, County Center, and
Hacienda Gateway subareas (as defined in Figure 4.2 of the
Specific Plan) to determine whether future noise impacts
from Camp Parks and the county jail will be within accept-
able limits. This study should identify and evaluate all
potential noise generating operations. DEIR page 3.10-4.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. .Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
~ationale for Finding. The required acoustical study will
identify noise sensitive areas in the Project site and noise
generating operations at Camp Parks and the jail and will
propose mitigation to reduce noise impacts to acceptable
limits. However, mitigation may not be poSSible at all
critical locations, so the impact may not be fully
mitigated,
IMPACT 3.10/E. Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to
Construction Noise. Construction would occur over years on the
Project site and will be accompanied by noise from truck activity
on local roads, heavy equipment used in grading and paving,
impact noises during structural framing, and pile driving.
Construction impacts will be most severe near existing residen-
tial uses along Tassajara Road and near existing uses in the
southern portion of the Project area. DEIR page 3.10-4.
114 \eastdub \ find ( 4 )
60
........... Mitiqation Measures 3.10/4.0 to 5.0. Development projects
in ~he RPA S--~l-~~t a Cons-~r-~6~ion~i~--~anagemen~
Program that identifies measures proposed to minimize'
construction noise impacts on existing residents. The
Program shall include a schedule for grading and other major
noise-generating activities, limiting these activities to
the shortest possible number of days. Other noise
mitigation measures include, but are not limited'to,
restricting hours of construction activity, developing
construction vehicle access routes which minimize truck
traffic through residential areas, and developing a
mitigation plan for construction traffic that cannot be
avoided in residential areas. In addition, all development-
related operations should comply with local noise standards,
including limiting activity to daytime hours,'muffling
stationary equipment, and locating that equipment as far
away from sensitive receptors as possible. DEIR page 3.10-
4 to -5.
· Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Through these mitigation measures,
developers will limit the intensity and duration of noise
exposure experienced by existing residences in construction
areas. Other mitigations will limit noise exposure by
moving the noise-generating equipment as far away from
residential uses as possible.
IMPACT 3.10/F. Noise Conflicts due to the Adjacenoy of Diverse
Land Uses Permitted by Plan Policies Supporting Mixed-Use
Development.' The presence of different land use types within the
same development creates the possibility, of noise impacts between
adjoining uses, particularly when commercial and residential land
uses abut. DEIR page 3.10-5.
Mitiqation Measure 3.10/6.0. Development projects in the
RPA shall prepare noise management plans to be reviewed as
part of the development application for all mixed use
projects involving residential uses and non-residential
uses. To be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant,
the plan should aim to provide a high quality acoustic
environment for residential and non-residential users and
should propose steps to minimize or avoid'potential noise
problems. The plan should address the concerns of resi-
dents, non-residential users, and maintenance personnel, and
should make maximum use.of site planning to avoid noise
conflicts. DEIR page 3.10-5 to -6.
114\eastdub\find (4)
61
~inding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substa--n~~'-
lessen 'the significant effect identified in the Final"EIR.
Rationale for Finding. The required noise management plans
allow both the developer and the City to anticipate possible
noise conflicts in mixed-use developments and to propose
specific measures to address the specific conflicts identi-
fied. Occurring at an early stage in the process and
reviewed with the development application, projects can make
use of the greatest array of conflict reducing techniques,
including building design and site planning. Compliance
with these mitigations will lessen or avoid potential noise
conflicts from adjacent mixed uses.
IMPACT 3.~/A. Dust Deposition Soiling ~uisance from
Construction Activity. Clearing, grading, excavation, and
unpaved roadway travel related to project construction will
generate particulate matter which may settle out near the
construction sites, creating a soiling nuisance. Any additional
dust pollution will worsen the air basin's non-attainment status
for particulates. Dust emissions is therefore also a potentially
significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.11-3, 5.0-13.
Mitigation Measure 31tl/1.0. Require development projects
in the Project area to implement dust control measures,
including but not limited to, watering construction sites,
Cleaning up mud and dust carried by construction vehicles,
effective covers on haul trucks, planting, repaying, and
other revegetation measures on exposed soil surfaces,
avoiding unnecessary idling of construction equipment,
limiting on-site vehicle speeds, and monitoring particulate
matter levels. These measures will reduce project dust
deposition to acceptable levels, but will not avoid
cumulative impacts of dust generation. DEIR page 3.11-3 to
-4, 5.0-13.
.Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
· incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, cumulative dust generation impacts will not be
substantially avoided. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Findinq. The mitigation measures identify
various feasible and reasonable dust control measures that
.developers can take during construction activity. These
measures eliminate and/or minimize the amount and effect of
dust deposition in construction areas. Even with these
measures, however, some small amount of additional pollution
will occur. Therefore, the cumulative impacts of dust
.emissions cannot be fully mitigated.
114 \eas%dub \£1nd (4) 62
IMPACT 3.11/B. Construction Equipment/Vehicle Emissions.
Const~-6~t-i~-~ equipment operation gener~t~-d-~Iy~eXh-aU~
emissions. Normally considered a temporary impact, build0ut of
the Project area over the long t~rm will be a chronic source of
equipment/vehicle emissions. This is also a potentially signifi-
cant cumulative impact due to the non-attainment status of the
air basin. DEIR page 3.11-4, 5.0-13.
Mitiqation Measures 3.11/2.'0 to 4.0. Minimize construction
interference with regional non-Project traffic movement by
schedUling and routing construction traffic to'non-peak
times and locations. Provide ride-sharing incentives for
construction personnel. Require routine low-emission tune-
ups for on-site equipment. Require development projects in
the Project area to prepare a Construction Impact Reduction
Plan incorporating all proposed air quality mitigation
strategies with clearly defined responsibilities for plan
implementation and supervision. DEIR page 3.11-4, 5.0-13.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes,'the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding. The mitigations include Construction
timing and siting measures that will reduce equipment and
vehicle emissions over the long-term buildout of the
Project. Even-with these mitigations, however, neither
Project nor cumulative air quality impacts can be fully
mitigated.
IMPACT 3.11/C. Mobile Source Emissions: ROG or NOx. Project
implementation at full buildou~ will generate 500,000 daily
automobile trips .within the air~ basin. Mobile source emissions
for ROG and NOx associated with these vehicle trips are
precursors to ozone formation. The emissions associated with
this level of vehicle use will far exceed BAAQMD thresholds for
significant~'effect. This is also a potentially significant
cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.11-5, 5.0-14.
~itiqation Measures 3.11/5.0 to 11.0. Exercise interagency
cooperation on a subregional and regional basis to integrate
local air quality planning efforts with transportation,
transit and other infrastructure plans, implement techni-
ques, such as transportation demand management (TDM),
shifting travel to non-peak periods, and encouraging mixed-
use development which provides housing, jobs, goods and
services in close proximity as a means of reducing vehicle
trips and related emissions and congestion. At the
development Project level, maintain consistency between
114 \ ea stdub \ find ( 4 )
63
specific development plans and regional transportation and
grow~h--mamageme.n-t--p-~a-ns, =oo~d_~n_a.%e.._l_ev~s__o.f__growth__With- ....
roadway transportation facilities and improvements, 'and
require linkage between housing growth and job opportunities
to achieve a positive subregional jobs/housing balance.
DEIR page 3.11-5, 5.0-14.
. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
ncorp0rated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Findinq. The various techniques described in
the mitigation measures provide opportunities to reduce
vehicle trips, and therefore reduce vehicle emissions.
However, because of the size of this Project, neither
Project nor cumulative impacts can be fully mitigated.
IMPACT 3.11/E. Stationary Source Emissions, Specific Plan
buildout will create emissions from a variety of sources,
including but not. limited to,. fuel combustion in power plants,
evaporative emissions from paints, and subsurface decay of
organic materials associated with solid waste disposal. This is
also a potentially significant cumulative impact. DEIR page
3.11-6, 5.0-14.
Mitiqation Measures 3.11/12.0 to 13.0. Minimize stationary
source emissions associated with Project development where
feasible, with the goal of achieving 10 percent above the
minimum conservation target levels established in Title 24
of the California Code of Regulations. Include solid waste
recycling in all development planning. DEIR page 3 11-6,
5.0-14. ·
~.' Changes Or alterations have been required in, Or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding. Focusing on reducing emissions from
various sources will allow an incremental reduction in
stationary source emissions. These reductions will not,
however, be sufficient to avoid eithe~ Project-related or
cumulative impacts.
114 \ ea stdub \ find ( 4 )
64
Section 2
ENVIRONMENTALLY INSIGNIfiCANT IHPACTS
The City Council finds that all other impacts of the proposed
Project are not environmentally significant as documented in the
FEIR and supported by evidence elsewhere in the record. No
mitigation is required for these insignificant impacts.
1.~14 \ea stdub \ find (4)
65
Section 3
FINDINGS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES
The City Council is adopting Alternative 2 (with minor changes)
described in the Final EIR in place of the originally proposed
Project. The City hereby finds the remaining three alternatives
identified and described in the Final EIR were considered and are
found to be infeasible for the specific economic, social, or
other considerations set forth below pursuant to CEQA Section
21081, subdivision (c). The City also declines to adopt the
Project as originally proposed for the reasons set forth below.
T~E ORIGINALLY PROPOSED PROJECT.
Section 21081, subdivision' (c) does not require the City Council
to make findings as to why the originally proposed Project
not adopted. Such findings need only be made as to projectWas
alternatives which would mitigate significant environmental
effects. Alternative 2 has no si '
~h ~ould be avoided by ado~tin~n~c~ ~nv~onmental effects
Pr°3ec~ in its ste-~ ~ ~ ~ ._ ~ ~ orlglnall roo
· =u. ~auner the ' · Y p p ced
Alternative 2 wil~ ..... ' ._ C~ty Council finds
would not be pose~ ~e~ts~n~~cant environmental e~ts that
=ne same ex=ent (and often to a
greater extent) by the'Project as originally proposed.
'~ublic Resources Code section .
agencies from reduci ~ ~ _ 21087 prohibits ublic
pro~ect alter~=~..- ~ ~e proposed number of hou i~ · -
=~ ..... "~ pursuant t ~ ~ ..... s g unlts as
_ ~U~~= specific mitigation mG~ .... i ......... ?~=~ =here is another
wou~u provide a com~ar~b~_ ~_--ro=~= ~.Pr~ect alternative hat
~ ~z~ xevel or ml~lga=ion. The Projecttas
adopted does indeed involve a reduc '
units than were ori~i~-~ _tlon of the number of ho
ado ted _~ ~ay proposed, both b~, .......
P does not provide ~=~=_~ ~ --~= une Project as
Livermore Municipal for ..... =~z ~evelopment in the ·
Airport Protection Zone and because the
Project as adopted only involves residential development
approximately two-thirds of the area originally proposed for
development. Moreover, these reductions do result in mitigation
of some significant environmental impacts--especially impacts on
Doolan Canyon. ,
The prohibition of residential development within the
Livermore Municipal Airport Protection Zone is adopted in order
to comply with Public Utilities Code section 21676 and the
decision of the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission
pursuant to that action to prohibit residential development in
114 \eastdub\find (4)
66
the Zone. This prohibition is, thus, not adopted merely as a
---m ~tiga t~cn- me ~su re .-put s ua-nt--t-o-. · · C-E-Q~.- ~ ..... --
The city also finds that.no feasible alternatives or
mitigation measures will provide the level of mitigation of
significant environmental effects as are provided by the adoption
of Alternative 2 rather than the project as originally proposed.
Alternative 2 will leave Doolan Canyon in its current largely
undeveloped state, thereby mitigating significant impacts
involving loss of open space, and biologically sensitive habitat
in a way that could not be accomplished by any mitigation measure
or alternative were Doolan Canyon in fact developed as originally
proposed.
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO PROJECT. DEIR pages 4-1 to 4-8, 4-20
Findinq: Infeasible. This option assumes the Project as proposed
would not be built on the site; instead any development would be
pursuant to the existing general plan. Under that plan, a
limited amount of business park/industrial development could
occur on the 600 acre County property and on the 200 acre portion
of the Project area south of the proposed Dublin Boulevard
extension.
The No Project Alternative is found to be infeasible because the
City's General Plan has designated the Eastern Dublin area for
planned development, subject to the preparation of a Specific
Plan. In addition, the No Project Alternative fails to provide
needed housing. The need for housing is documented in the
Housing Element of the City's General Plan, and in other plan
documents of the City and other jurisdictions in the area.
ALTERNATIVE 3: REDUCED LA/~D USE INTENSITIES~..
DEIR pages 4-14 to 4-19
Findinq: Infeasible. This option assumes development of both the
Specific Plan and the General Plan Amendment except that 285
acres of higher traffic generating commercial uses will be
replaced with lower traffic generating residential uses. The
Reduced Land Use Intensities alternative is found to be
infeasible for the following reasons:
(1)
Airport Safety. This alternative will increase the number
of housing units within the Livermore Municipal Airport
Protection Zone. (p. 4-15).
(2)
Unavoidable imDacts. 'Even with the reduced intensities of
this alternative, all the unavoidable impacts identified for
the Project would remain except traffic impacts at 1-580, I-
680/Hacienda, at 1-580, Tassajara/Airway, at Airway
11~ \eastdub \find ( 4 )
67
(3)
Boulevard/Dublin Boulevard and cumulative traffic impacts on
Dublin. Boulevard.--(-tmpa~.~s_3~.3~.B~C 'J~--and--~)~----D~I-R--Page--4
15. '
Fiscal imDacts. This alternative may have potentially
significant fiscal impacts on the City budget's cost/revenue
balance by reducing commercial development which generally
APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF PRIME AGRICULTURAL LANDS
PRIME AGRICULTURAL
LAND EVALUATION
EAST DUBLIN PROPERTIES
FALLON ROAD
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FOR
SHEA HOMES
February 7, 2001
Job No. 2275.000
BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
Via Hand Delivery
February 7, 2001
Job No. 2275.000
Ms Kathryn Watt
Shea Homes
2580 Shea Center Drive
Livermore, California 94550
Subject:
Prime Agricultural Land Evaluation
East Dublin Properties
Fallon Road
Alameda County, California
Dear Ms Watt:
BGC '
BERLOGAR
GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANTS
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results o four evaluation of the possible presence of"Prime agricultural land"
in the East Dublin Properties site. "Prime agricultural land" is defined in Government Code 56064
as presented below:
"Prime agricultural land" means an area of land ~vhether a single parcel or contiguous parcels,
that has not been developed for a use other than an agricultural use and that meets any of the
fbllo~2ing qualifications.-
Land that qualifies, if irrigated for rating as class I or class JI in the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification, ,.vhether or not
land is actually irrigated provided that irrigation is feasible.
(b) Land that qualifies for rating 80 through 100 Storie Jndex Rating.
Land that supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and that has
an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as
de. fined by the United Sates Department of Agriculture in the National Handbook on
Range and Related Grazing Lands, duly, 1967, developed pursuant to Public Law
46, December J935.
Land planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops that have a
nonbearing period of less than five years and that will return during the commercial
bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural
plant production not less than four hundred dollars ($400) per acre.
SOIL ENGINEERS · ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS ,, 5587 SUNOL BOULEVARD ,, PLEASANTON, CA 94566 · (925) 484-0220 · FAX: (925~ 846-9645
/ss
February 7, 2001
Job No. 2275.000
Page 2
Land that has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant
products an annual gross value of not less than four hundred dollars ($400) per acre
for three of the previous five calendar years.
ANALYSIS
To evaluate the possible presence of"Prime agricultural land" within the East Dublin Properties, we
have analyzed each of the five criteria contained in Government Code 56064.
Land that qualifies, if irrigated, for rating as class ! or class H in the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification, whether or not land is
actually irrigated, provided that irrigation is feasible.
Approximately 100 acres of the southern margin of the East Dublin Properties are shown to
contain class I or class II soils according to the "Soil Survey, Alameda Area, California"
USDA Soil Conservation Service, issued 1966. The second part of this criteria is that
irrigation be feasible. Our judgement is that irrigation of this land is not feasible. With regard
to existing agricultural water supply in the Livermore Valley, the South Bay Aqueduct is the
only source of surface water for irrigation. The terminus of the South Bay Aqueduct is over
seven miles from the East Dublin Properties. While it is unlikely that water from this source
would be available for irrigation purposes on the East Dublin Properties, the distance from
the terminus of the South Bay Aqueduct would make delivery of any available water volume
economically unfeasible.
With regard to possible subsurface water supplies, the East Dublin Properties are situated
outside the main aquifers underlying the Livermore Valley that are currently used as part of
the domestic water supply for Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore. As such, it is our
judgement that undertaking to drill and develop water wells on the East Dublin Properties that
would produce an adequate, sustainable and economically viable water supply for irrigation
would likely be unsuccessful.
(b) Land that qualifies for rating 80 through I00 Storie Index Rating.
The Storie Index Rating for soils on the East Dublin Properties are presented in the "Soil
Survey, Alameda Area, California," USDA Soil Conservation Service issued 1966. The
USDA Soil Conservation Service Soil Map for this area is presented on Plate 2 of this report.
The soil classifications and Storie Index Rating for all soils on the East Dublin Properties are
tabulated below. The highest Storie Index Rating within the East Dublin Properties is Rincon
clay loam (0 to 3 percent slopes) with a Storie Index Rating of 68.
BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
February 7, 2001
Job No. 2275.000
Pag.e 3
Map : :' storie Index
Symbol Soil Rating
Aac Altamont clay, 3 to 15 percent slopes 41
Cc Clear Lake clay, 0 to 3 percent slopes 43
DbC Diablo Clay, 7 to 15 percent slopes 44
DbD Diablo Clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes 36
DbE2 Diablo Clay, 30 to 45 percent slopes, eroded 19
DvC Diablo clay, very deep, 3 to 15 percent slopes 43
LaC Linne clay loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes 51
LaD Linne clay loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 40
LaE2 Linne clay loam, 30 to 45 percent slopes, eroded 18
Pd Pescadero clay 16
RdA Rincon clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 68
RdB Rincon clay loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes 65
Land that supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and that has an
annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the
United Sates Department of Agriculture in the National Handbook on Range and Related
Grazing Lands, duly, 1967, developed jgursuant to Public Law 46, December 1935.
We have contacted txvo of the largest cattle ranchers in the Alameda County, Gordon
Rassmussen and Robert Nielsen. Both individuals expressed the opinion that the carrying
capacity of the East Dublin Properties study area would be approximately one-tenth animal
unit per acre.
Land planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crojgs that have a nonbearing
period of less than five years and that will return during the commercial bearing period on
an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less
than four hundred dollars ($400) per acre.
The East Dublin Properties are not planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or
crops.
Land that has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an
annual gross value of not less than four hundred dollars ($400) per acre for three of the
previous five calendar years.
BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
February 7, 2001
Job No. 2275.000
Page 4
Unprocessed agricultural plant products have not, to the best of our knowledge, been
produced on this property for three of the previous five calendar years.
CONCLUSION
We have evaluated the East Dublin Properties in regard to Section 56064 of the Government Code
and find that the East Dublin Properties fail each of the five specific tests required for classification
as "Prime agricultural land."
Please call if you have any questions or require further detail.
Respectfully submitted,
BERLOGAR GE OTEC~'?~~LTANTS
/ CE 20383, Ext. 9/30~ \[~O 2038(,~ / ~]
Attac~ent' ~
Plate 1 - Site PI~
Plate 2 - SCS Soil Map
Copies: Addressee (10)
wp9/letter 10129
BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
SCS SOIL MAP
EAST DUBLIN
PROPERTIES
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FOR
SHEA HOMES
BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PLATE 2
12,/06/01 TtCC 14:59 FAX 925 225
Hand Delivery
October *
.~, 2001
Job No. 2275.002
Ms Connie Goldade
MacKay & Somps
5142 Franklin Drive, Suite B
Pleasanton, California 94566
0698
Eng
~ ~d [~]001
BGC:
BERLOGAR-i.
GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANTS
S ubj ecl:
East Dublin Properties
Fallon Road
Alameda County, California
Dear Ms Goldade:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to several issues rMsed in written comments on the draft EIR
for the subject project. The issues we are responding to, in general, relate to qualification (a) as
inCluded h~ our Prime Agricultural Land Evaluation report dated February 7,2001. That qualification
is as follows:
(a)
Land that qualifies if irrigated,.fo;' rating as Class I or Class H in the USDA
Natural Resoz¢rces Conservation Service land use capability classification,
whether or not land is ~wtually irrigated., provided that irrigation is./kasible.
Issue: Zone 7 North \;alley Pipeline for the proposed Altamonr Water Treaxment Plant.
Fact: While the proposed pipeline is likely to be in close proximity to the area of Class I and
Class i~ soil, the ;valet will be treated (potable) water.
Conclusion: The use of potable water at retail prices would be unfeasible for agricultural
uses.
II, Issue: DSRSD Reclaimed Water.
Fact: While final pricing for the reclaimed water has not been set, it is expected that the
pricing will be comparable to the retail pricing of potable water.
Conclusion: The use of reclaimed water from DSRSD is expected to be priced at retail
levels and would therefore be infeasible for agricultural purposes.
III. Issue: Zone 7 untreated water turnout close to the area of Class I and Class II soils.
Fact: Zone 7 reports there are no turnouts for untreated water beyond the terminus of the
South Bay Aqueduct in Southeast Livermore.
SOIL ENGINEERS · ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS · 55g7 SUNOL BOUI.EVARD ', PLEASANTC)N, CA 94566 · (925) ~84-022D · FAX: ~925) 846-9645
12/06/01 THU 15:00 FAX 925 225 0698 : MacKay & Somp Pies Eng ~002
October 3,200 t
Job No. 2275.002
Page 2
IV.
Conclusion: There is no turnout for untreated water in close proximity. Therefore, the site
is over 7 miles from the terminus of the South Bay Aqueduct in soutlteast Livermore. Use
of this water source would not be feasible for agricultural purposes.
Issue: Vertical Water Wells.
Fact: The approximately 80-acres of Class ~ and Class II soils are within the Camp subbasin
as det~ed by Zone 7.
Departmcnt of Water Resources Bulletin No. I 18-2, dated June 1974, on page 66, discusses
potential yield of we[is fi'om the Camp subbasin. They conclude as tbltows:
There are no datr~ available considering ~round water production in
the Camp x~.tbbasin. It is estimated that domestic or stock su~lies o~
ground~4,ater mqv be oblainedfi'om sha/lo~,, u~atLx near(~: evet3.,where
in the subbasin. Possible, areas where supplies wouM be limited are
adjacent m the hill.&ont aiong the north edge pf the subbasin. South
t}f Highw~ 580 it is estimated that there ix a s~fficient thick~ess of
sediment to yieJd irrigation supply to ground water.porn the valley
.fill materia&. Because of the tow permeabiliO, qf the underlying
Tassc~ara sediment& it is doub(~d that the yieJds fi'om
])enetrating a deeper sediment would be increased sign[fictmtly.
Misceitaneous field studies map MF-43 I. prepared by D.A. Webster, Department of Interior,
U.S. GeoLogic Survey includes a map showing ranges in probable maximum well yield for
Water Bearing Rocks in the San Francisco Bay Region, CaLifornia. This map delineates the
subject site as Map Symbol B. The ranges in probable maximum yield of wells t?om this
document is presented below:
68% chance that 95% chance that
Map Adequacy of Yield maximum yields will maximum yields will
Symbol (at.6.8% .... level of chance) range from (gpm) range from (gpm)
A Marginal to adequate for stock or single 0.5 to 5 0.1 to 10
family domestic use
B Adequate for stock or single family 5 to 50 1 to I00
domestic use, but inadequare to
marginal for light industrial use
C Adequate for light industry, but 50 to 500 10 to 1,000
inadequate to marginal for irrigation,
heavy industry, and municipal uses.
D Marginal to adequate for irrigation, 500 to 1,500 100 to 3,000
heavy industry, and municipal uses.
BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
1~/06/01
THU 15:00
FAX
925 225
0698
MacKaY & Somp Pies Eng
October 3, 2001
Job No. 2275.002
Page 3
Conclusion: The expected range of yield from wells drilled in this area is 5 to 50 gallons per
minute or less. The area of Class I and Class H soils are adjacent to the hill front area along
the north ridge of the subdrain where the Department of Water Resources anticipated more
iimited supplies of ground water. Such limited yields will not be adequate for agricultural
irrigation.
V. Issue: Slant drilled ;valet wells.
Fact: Slant drilled xq~ctls have limitations on the maxinaum deviation from vertical ranging
between 20 and 30 degrees depending on the particular drilling equipmem utilized. Slant
well drilling that extends underneath 580 into the property south of Interstate 580 would
cross Caltrans right-of-way and extend southward into private property owned by others.
Conclusion: Inasmuch as the southern boundary of the Camp subbasin is approximately 500
feet south oflnterstate 580. the limitations on the drilling equipment of 20 to 30 degrees from
vertical would result in wells that would stiil be located within the Camp subbasin. We
conclude that such wells are unlikely to have significm~tly greater yields titan the Vertical
Water Wells discussed in paragraph III above. It is highly likely that slant drilled water wells
extending underneath Cattrans righ~-of-way and into private property to the south would face
legal obstacles that would preclude such m~ undertaking for agricultural purposes.
SUMMARY
After evaluating the issues raised in the comments to the draft EIR, we arc still o'fthe opinion that
irrigation of the area of Class I and Class Il: soils is not fcasiblc.
Respectfully, '-T~
BERLOGAR GEO S
Copies: Addressee (3)
wp/9/tetrer/11027
BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
RONALD AMUNDSON, PHD
S CAMINO DEL CIELO
ORINDA, CA 94563
Mr. Jerry Haag
Urban Planner
2029 University Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94704
December 17, 2001
Subject: Prime agricultural land evaluation at East Dublin Properties, Fallon Rd
Dear Mr Haag:
This report summarizes my evaluation of the extent of prime agricultural land
within the East Dublin Properties area, Fallon Road, Alameda County.
Site Visit
On Friday December 15, 2001, I meet with Jerry Haag and Andy Byde (senior
planner, city of Dublin) at the-city of Dulbin planning office. I was provided with a scope
of the project, and: (1) Definition of prime agricultural land (Govt. Code 56064), (2)
report by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants "Prime Agricultural Land Evaluation, East
Dublin Properties, Fallon Road, Alameda Country, California" (2/7/01), (3) report by
Beflogar Consultants to Ms. Connie Goldade (MacKay and Somps) (10/3/01), and (4)
Vol. 1 and 2 of "East Dublin Properties. Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation",
July 2001, City of Dublin.
A site visit was made to the property, and the area was viewed from Croak and
Fallon Roads.
Review of "Prime Agricultural Land" Criteria
Below I list the definition of prime agricultural land that was provided to me and
in the following section, provide a summary report of the agricultural suitability of the
area.
From Government Code 56064:
"Prime agricultural land" means an area of land, whether a single parcel or contiguous
parcels, that has not been developed for a use other than an agricultural use and that
meets any of the following qualifications:
(a) Land that qualifies, if irrigated, for rating as class I or class II in the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification, whether or not land is
actually irrigated, provided that irrigation is feasible.
(b) Land that qualifies for rating 80 through 100 Storie Index Rating.
(c) Land that supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and that has an
annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acres as defined by
the United States Department of Agriculture in the National Handbook on Range and
Related Grazing. Lands, July, 1967, developed pursuant to Public Law 46, December
1935.
(d) Land planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops that have a
nonbearing period of less than five years and that will return during the commercial
bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant
production not less than four hundred dollars ($400)per acre.
(e) Land that has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant
products an annual gross value of not less than four hundred dollars ($400)per acre for
three of the previous five calendar years.
Summary of Agricultural Suitability of Area
Here I review each of the five criteria of "Prime agricultural land" in relation to
land within the East Dublin Properties Area.
(a) Land that qualifies, if irrigated, for rating as class I or class H in the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification, whether or not land is
actually irrigated, provided that irrigation is feasible.
Table 1 list the soil types (soil series and phases of soil series) in the Area as
derived from (a) "Soil Survey. Alameda Area, California", UDSA Soil Conservation
Service (1966) and (b) Plate 2, Beflogar Consultants Report (2/7/01), which delineates
the property area on the soil map.
I note that I located one more soil mapping unit in the area than the Beflogar
report (2/7/01): Clear Lake clay, drained, 0-3% slopes (CdA). However, as I report
below, this addition has no bearing on the results of this report relative to those of the
2/7/01 report.
There is only one map unit (Rincon clay loam) that has an irrigated Land
Capability Unit of I or II (Ils-3), which is located at the southern end of. the property, just
north of Interstate 580. The total area of this map unit is approximately 70 acres.
The feasibility of providing irrigation water for this one map unit was discussed in
a report by Beflogar Geotechnical Consultants (10/3/01 letter to,Ms. Connie Goldade,
MacKay and Somps). That report concluded that the cost of reclaimed or potable water
was prohibitive to agriculture. The report also concluded that the cost of transporting
water from the nearest agricultural aqueduct was also prohibitive. The report also
reviewed a USGS field studies map (Water Bearing Rocks in the San Francisco Bay
Region, California. MF431. D.A. Webster) that reported that the maximum ground water
yeild from wells had a 95% chance of falling between 1 to 100 gallons per minute, which
fell below the reported limit for marginal to adequate agriculture (100 to 3,000 gallons
per minute).
In summary, there is one map unit in the area that would qualify as prime
farmland pending the feasibility of applying irrigation water. However, assessing the
economic feasibility of providing water to this tract is beyond the scope of my expertise.
Table 1. Listing of soils in project area, and properties relevant to designation as
"Prime Farmland".
Soil Series Map Unit IDa Land Storie Rating Range
(phase) ~ Capability Indexn Capabilitys
Classification3 (animal unit
months,
nnirrigate)~
[animial unit
months,
irrigated and
fertilized]~
Altamont (clay, AaC IIIe-5 4I Very Good
3-15% slopes) (>1) [>20]
Clear Lake Cc IlIw-5 43 Very Good
(clay, 0-3 % (>1) [>20]
slopes)
Clear Lake CdA IIIs-5 49 Very Good
(clay, drained, (> 1) [>20]
0-3 % slopes)
Diablo (clay, 7- DbC lIIe-5 44 Very Good
15 % slopes) (>1) [>20]
Diablo (clay, DbD IVe-5 36 Very Good
15-30 % (>1) [>20]
slopes)
Diablo (clay, DbE2 Vie-5 19 Very Good
30-45 % slopes, (> 1) [>20]
eroded)
Diablo (clay, DvC IIIe-5 43 Very Good
very deep, 3 to (>1) [>20]
15 % slopes)
Linne (clay LaC IIIe-5 51 Very Good
loam, 3-15 % (>1) [>20]
slopes)
Linne (clay LaD IVe-5 40 Very Good
loam, 15-30 % (>1) [>20]
slopes)
I.inne (clay LaF~2 Vie-5 18 Very Good
loam, 15-30 % (>1) [>20]
slopes, eroded)
Pescadero Pd VIw-2 16 Very Poor
(clay) (not appropriate
for grazing dry
or irrigated)
Rincon (clay RdA IIs-3 68 Very Good
loam, 0-3 % (>1) [>20]
slopes)
Rincon (clay RdB IIIe-3 65 Very Good
loam, 3-7% (> 1 ) [>20]
slopes)
Series name refers to most detailed designation of soil profile types in USDA system.
Phase of series includes surface texture (e.g. clay), slope (e.g. 15-30 %), soil depth (e.g.
deep), and erosional status (e.g. drained).
: Map units derived from sheets 9 and 15 of "Alameda Area Soil Survey".
3 Land capability classification (unit) taken from Table 18 in "Alameda Area Soil
Survey"
4 Storie Index Ratings taken from Table 8, "Alameda Area Soil Survey"
5 Grazing ratings taken from Table 9, "Alameda Area Soil Survey"
6Animal units months (# of months that one animal unit can graze one acre of land) taken
from Table 10, "Alameda Area Soil Survey".
7 From Table 10, "Alameda Area Soil Survey".
(b) Land that qualifies for rating 80 through 100 Storie Index Rating.
All soils in the area had Storie Indexes of less than 80 (Table 1).
(c) Land that supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and that has an
annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the
United States Department of Agriculture in the National Handbook on Range and
APPENDIX D: AIR QUALITY DATA
Giroux & Associates
Environmental Consultants
July 14, 2001
Shea Homes
Attn: Kerri Watt
2155 Los Positas Court, Suite T
Livermore, CA 94550
Re: East Dublin SEIR Background Technical Materials
Dear Ms. Watt:
The following materials are attached that were used in preparing
the air quality impact analysis for the above project:
1. California Air Quality Data - Voyager CD cover photocopy
2. BAAQMD CEQA Handbook - cover, update letter, TofC
3. Ozone Attainment Plan Revision Hearing Notice
4. Ozone Attainment Plan CEQA Initial Study - partial
5. Microscale CO Exposure Calculation Detail
6. URBEMiSTG Emissions Model Input/Output File Diskette
Please call me if you have any questions regarding the enclosed
materials.
Sincerely,
Senior Analyst
Giroux & Associates
HDG:ai
17744 Sky Park Circle, Suite 210, lrvine, California 92614 - Phone (949) 851-8609 - Fax (949) 851-8612
/o0~ ooo
]00~ o00
,/0o~ 00o
/0~ ooo
(g 14 a-- ._.__£..~) a- Z. I
/oo; 0o0
/00~ O0 0
5;
.q.'-/
lDO! ooo
/0~ ~ oo0
~'
/ oo ~ 0o0
C~,TK.'
L
/0o] 0o0
Ioo, oO 0
( '4~6Z.:o.~' > :7.A~.'n ),', ~.~r
J HO-'-. ~. H.q
fool ooo
( -5~30,5¢ + '-)q-7~. z_ ~ ~
]00 ~ o00
I Ho..~ .,-
-r' ?'~.,s D,N c.
/oo~ O0 0
I ~le= ..._.'.
(,,.'Is'"
I o0 ~ 0o0
Ioo ~ O0 0
$ i-J
lO
000
.'r cl']Az, x~ '~ (,,.Is"
]00 ~ O0 0
-(
Ho_---
Co.q5"
._(
x 'i.s' .-
f'00.~ O0 0
------- ~ r,rr er~ g cr, o,v rt
( ~ )
x~'~) ~' (,,.'Is"
I oo,, o~
. ) ×
I0O ~ 00~0 00
I ~i¢: _._.. "' q"/
/Ooy ooo
/ o0 ~ 0o0
]00, O0 0
(.4)* %.~
__..-. Lo?) ~' Z. ~
I0o~ 0oo
( '2.0%%0.5 ~ I'"/f~s, ~
'~oTe,uecr,~ ~ ~
x~'~) '¥ (,,.?s"
loO~
0o0
[00 ~ O0 0
$1-1¢;
._.__(.'7)* Z ~
/00 ~ oo 0
IO~;
_ ( 3q$'Z.z~,..<' ~ 1¢~5':'?.fi ) ~- (,,.-~.,---
1o0; 0o0
Ioo ~ 06) 0
&/~$~r ~',--, ~
~n/~ ,xse/-~,,w-Jl' If.
I¥
!?
]oo, O0 0
_._. (,0' \."/
Io0~ ooo
Ioo ~ O0 0
~ x 3 .o?
__--- Co?') * I.~
3.0'7
}ooI
000
toss. o? )
/Ot~ ~ oO 0
X
~3.3~)
/00~
v 3 .o-1
) x 3 .O'7
/ o0~ 0o0
/oO ~ O0 0
$
I HO_---
) ~ 3 .o?
~^ ~'.o7
Z OZ~'
+ ~_~o,~ )
/OO ~ o00
/0% 0o0
/oo, oo 0
2 oz~
000
I °0 ;~
Io o, oo 0 ~~
I Ho-; ----- '
/oo/
]00 ~ oo0
· ~' 3.0'7
X Z,.oq
/0~ O0 0
/ o0 ~ 0o0
/oo ~ O0 0
J HCZ~-
I Hrt..-- ~
$ t4e~ __---. (.?)+ ~."/
, (5o'-./Lv.¥ ff./'.,
3.0--7
'55'5
~oo~ O0 0
,Jo
/00~ O0 0
( (.,,((¥-o -,- .~l~ ) ,,- -~.~-"7
J
/o% 0oo
(.4),,
_.15
-- /00, oo 0
I qr.=
____ (,?)+
/o0~ O0 0
/c~I
/oo, 000
3.07
.07
/00, oo 0
/o0~ OOO
/oo; O0 0
( ,q~'-z.- .4-. t./,.t,.f¢./ ) ,,, ~.o7
I Ho..---
z o z,~-"~/,~ff.
L ?..~'q~ .f" .,- IHt2,. "/
~3.~') v 3.0'-)
( 2-'3¥7,/.£ ~ z.~cg.~' >
"~ .OD
/o0,~ 0o0
(. '2-'t totc,..g' . ~z~. q
/oo,, O0 0
I H°";
[0
( ~i -/05 + ~-'~.~- ) ~ ~'°~
]00 ~ o00
3.0'-7
00o
~'0~ .¢. 'Z. ) x
/o0~ 0o0
Ioo ~ O0 0
( ~o,z. oo.d' , 2.-c,,IO. :~ ) ~ ~'°?
?oo! ooo
]00 ~ aoo
/o0~ O0 0
(.. .4- ')
/oo; O0 0
~ ~.~ ) ~ 3.o7,
1.7
/6101 0o0
]00 ~ oo 0
L tlc,'.~/ ,, ~.( + Ic,¢,s
/00 ~
/ o0,~ 0o0
$¢9o, q ) ~
000
I ~4¢s
~l-t,'z.~- ._.--. (.?) · I.'?
]00~ 0o0
/00, oo0
I H~-= ,- ~'. ~"
( ~.{_?~ "~.~' ~ 75~
I0O~
3.o-?
) x 3.07
q.¥
x3.~) * 3.on
(.
/ o0~ 0o0
/0o~ 000
I
} oo ~ ooo
3 . 0'-I
/00, oo0
/om~ OD 0
~3.~ ~' 3.0?
/Ooj
/ o0~ 0o0
/0o ~ O0 0
( 'Z..'7.5-9'o. 5", zo(c,,.~ ) ,,,
,g'Ho..=- _.-- (..?). I.-7 2-. ~
/o01
,<
] oo ~ o0o
/oo ~ O0 0
), ~ . :3 ') x 3.o?,
Z oz~
(
+ Gol.l..z. ) x s.o'~
]00, oo0
( q ~-7~
z'om~ 00 0
] oo ~ ooo
'3 .o'7
~ /07o1.'~ ) ~ 3.0-7
/c:~I Oe~D
/05"/.
x3. "' 'Z .on
/o0~
/oO ~ O0 0
'T' ,--:6/l_(,~'¢TIOA) I~(
Ioo~ o'oo
-4-
/oo~ ooo
( q/4Bo'z.- +
{900
( '2..Co'iro ,,
v 3 .o-9
~ '3 .on
/0o~ O0 0
-....-- (.o?~ ~ 1.7
]00 ~ o00
.0'7
I fl ~; v '3.5"
q
( ¢ot,z. ,, '5.; ,,- I(,,Ol ,, 3.3 ')
/0~ 0oo
( q"TGIq .- S"2.~'g-3 )
3 .o'-?
.0'7
lo%
Ioo, oO 0
OOO
$14¢;
~)~ ~.o7
] OO l ol3o
/00, oo0
3.0-)
L
/oo~ O0 0
~ Il'I; (.4) · \C1
Ioo~
Z. oz~
4-
/00, oo 0
/o0~ OD 0
5-.I
Z.~
I o0 ~ 0o0
IoO, O0 0
~ .o7
/00I
( q~,./,/I +
]00 ~
0o0
/o0~ O0 0
3.0'7
3.0-)
(. 2.-q~o I
/ o0~ 0o0
I0O, O0 0
( 10o7, ,~
_--- (: o 0-,-
/ oo~
/0o/ DO0
/o0~ 0o0
-~' Iq7..95-.(~) x
/oo, O0 0
I
$ I-/
__--- (.,,?) + I.'t
/00 ~ 0oo
( 9"'~~ + o,('?.l ) ~
L
3.0-')
)
APPENDIX E: SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM TO KIT FOX PROTECTION PLAN
APPENDIX E
SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM TO THE
EASTERN DUBLIN SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX PROTECTION PLAN
(ADDENDUM TO APPENDIX E OF THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR)
This document is an addendum to the East Dublin' San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan,
Appendix E from the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and the Specific Plan DEIR
(1992). This document updates the information contained in that document and updates
recommendations for the survey and protection measures based on the latest protocols
released by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 1997 and 1999).
Appendix E's mitigation measures are based on the assumption that the East Dublin
General Plan and Specific Plan Areas support potential kit fox habitat and the impacts
resulting from build out are potentially significant. The mitigation measures are divided
into seven sections as follows: 1.0 Monitoring Surveys, 2.0 Land Use and Management
Practices, 3.0 Pre-Construction Conditions, 4.0 Protection Measures, 5.0 Potential Dens,
6.0 Known/Natal Dens, 7.0 Interagency Coordination and 8.0 Construction Conditions.
Since that document was written and adopted, a number of surveys for kit fox have been
conducted in the East Dublin area (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997a) and the adjacent
North Livermore Valley (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997b). None of these surveys
detected kit fox with the exception of one kit fox detected while spotlighting
approximately 2 miles north of the North Livermore site in Contra Costa County on
Morgan Territory Road (1996). In addition, no kit fox have been incidentally detected in
this area in the past nine years. The survey protocols have recently been updated
(USFWS 1999) and the preconstruction survey protocol and construction measures have
been updated as well (USFWS 1997) since Appendix E was written.
The 1,212-acre Dublin Ranch, located just west of the subject area, was surveyed for kit
fox in 1991 (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997a). The negative results were included in the
earlier GPA/SP EIR (1992). Since that time, Dublin Ranch was subject to intensive kit fox
surveys in 1996 and 1997 (H.T. Harvey and Associates 1997a). The Dublin Ranch and
areas within 2.5 miles of the site were subject to 32 nights of spotlighting and, the
property itself, to 560 track station nights and 280 camera station nights. These survey
efforts yielded negative results (that is, no kit fox or kit fox sign was detected).
Furthermore, the North Livermore project areas totaling 4,310-acres located just east of
the GPA/SP area were also intensively surveyed for kit fox. The total level of survey
effort resulted in 56 nights of spotlighting, 946 track station nights, and 991 camera
station nights between 1992 and 1996 (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997b). One kit fox was
detected during spotlighting on Morgan Territory Road in Contra Costa County a
couple miles north of the project area. No other kit fox or sign of kit fox were detected
within any project area boundary or the surrounding areas.
The San Joaquin kit fox, at least during the late 80's and early 90's, were detected in
areas near Frick Lake (approximately 7.5 miles to the east of the study area), in Round
Valley (approximately 11 miles to the northeast), and in areas near Los Vaqueros
Reservoir and the intersection of Camino Diablo and the new Vasco Road realignment
(approximately 12 miles to the northeast) during surveys conducted to detect kit fox.
Despite more intense efforts to detect kit fox in the East Dublin and North Livermore
Appendix E: Supplemental Addendum to the East Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan Page 1
Valley areas than these previous surveys, none' have been detected. Based on negative
results within the GPA/SP Area and the surrounding areas, kit fox appear to be largely
absent from both the North Livermore Valley and East Dublin area (see analysis
presented in H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997c).
The section "1.0 Monitoring Surveys" recommends annual monitoring surveys for
approved projects following the 1989 protocol developed by the CDFG. The latest Survey
Protocol for the San Joaquin Kit Fox for the Northern Range (USFWS 1999) should replace
this recommendation and should only be conducted if no other kit fox survey has
preceded project approval. Yearly monitoring should only be completed if
recommended on a project by project basis by a regulating agency. Sections 3.0 through
6.0 and 8.0 should be replaced by the Standard Recommendation for the Protection of the San
Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (USFWS 1997) that contains updated
measures to protect the kit fox. Section 7.0 Interagency Coordination is adequate.
The following sections are provided to help ensure that no inadvertent harm to the San
Joaquin kit fox will occur during project implementation. The following section contains
updated versions of sections 1.0, 3.0 through 6.0 and 8.0:
APPE / 1.0 Monitoring Surveys
APPE/1.1 (updated) Survey protocol will follow most recent guidelines, San Joaquin
kit fox Survey Protocol for the Northern Range, developed by the USFWS (June 1999). This
survey protocol recommends that an Early Evaluation be completed by a qualified
biologist prior to focused surveys. The need for further focused surveys and/or yearly
monitoring should be determined during informal consultation with the Service after an
early evaluation has been completed on project by project basis. An early evaluation
includes the following:
· Brief description of the proposed project and map
· Compilation of sighting records within a ten-mile radius of the boundaries of the
project site
· Description of vegetative communities on site
· Description of vegetative communities within a ten-mile radius of the project site
· Description of habitat suitability on the project site assessed by completing one
set of walking transects
· Analysis of adverse effects of the project on kit foxes (if any)
· Preliminary recommendations for mitigation of adverse effects and an analysis of
cumulative effects.
APPE/2.0 Land Use and Management Practices
(see original Appendix E)
APPE/3.0 Preconstruction Conditions
APPE/3.1 A pre-construction survey shall be conducted not more than 30 days and
not less than 14 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction
activities or any project activity likely to impact the San Joaquin kit fox. Surveys should
identify kit fox habitat features in the project area and areas within a 200-foot buffer of
the project site by conducting walking surveys. The status of all dens should be
with the one exception of the kit fox detected on Morgan Territory Road in 1996
Appendix E: Supplemental Addendum to the East Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan Page 2
determined and mapped (USFWS 1997). The status of dens should be determined by
monitoring them for a minimum of three nights with tracking medium and/or camera
stations. The survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist. Survey results will be
submitted to the City Planning Department. If the survey results are negative~ project-
related ground disturbance can proceed.
APPE/4.0 Protection Measures
APPE/4.1 If occupied kit fox dens are detected during the preconstruction surveys,
implementation of protection measures or den destruction should be conducted in
consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the Service.
Guidelines for protection measures and den destruction are provided in U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior
to or During Ground Disturbance (April 1997).
APPE/5.0 Potential Dens
APPE/5.1 Potential dens should be monitored a minimum of three nights in order
to determine if a potential den is occupied (see APPE/1.0). Destruction of potential dens
should be avoided to the greatest extent possible as these dens are used for refugia
among other things by kit fox. If these potential dens are to be destroyed, they should
only be destroyed if they are verified vacant by a qualified biologist. Recommendations
for length of time after verification of non-use of a potential den that the den can safely
be destroyed should be made by the biologist who conducted the preconstruction
survey. This time period shall not exceed 30 days.
APPE/6.0 Known/Natal Dens
APPE/6.1 Known dens should have an exclusion zone of at least 100 feet. If a natal
or pupping den is detected, the USFWS should be contacted to determine the size of the
exclusion zone. To ensure protection, the exclusion zone should be demarcated by
fencing that encircles each den occupied by kit foxes. Exclusion zone fencing that allows
kit fox to move through should be maintained until all construction-related or
operational disturbances have been terminated. At that time, all fencing shall be
removed to avoid attracting subsequent attention to the dens (USFWS 1997).
Construction-related and other project related activities should be prohibited or greatly
restricted within these exclusion zones. Only essential vehicle operation on existing
roads and foot traffic should be permitted. Otherwise all construction vehicle operation,
material storage, or any other type of surface-disturbing activity should be prohibited
within the exclusion zone.
Destruction of any known or natal/pupping dens requires take authorization/permit
from the Service (USFWS 1997).
APPE/7.0 Interagency Coordination
(see original Appendix E: Generally, if kit fox are detected within the project boundaries,
formal consultation with the USFWS for a Section 7 or Section 10 is recommended.)
APPE / 8.0 Construction and Operational Requirements
Appendix E: Supplemental Addendum to the East Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan Page 3
These recommendations should be implemented during project-related construction in
order to prevent kit fox or other animals from being injured or trapped during the
construction phase of the project unless expressly exempted from doing so by the
Service. The following recommendations with some minor modifications are taken from
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San
Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (April 1997).
APPE/8.1 To minimize temporary disturbance, all project-related vehicle traffic
should be restricted to established roads, construction areas, and other designated areas.
These areas should also be included in prec0nstruction surveys and, to the extent
possible, should be established in locations disturbed by previous activities to prevent
further impacts.
APPE/8.2 Project-related vehicles should observe a 20-mph speed limit in all project
areas, except on county roads and State and Federal highways; this is particularly
important at night when kit foxes are most active. To the extent possible, nighttime
construction should be prohibited during the rainy season, then minimized once the
rainy season has ended (see below). Off-road traffic outside of designated project areas
shall be prohibited.
APPE/8.3 To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit foxes or other animals during
the construction phase of the project, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more
than 2,feet deep should be covered at the cloSe of each working day by plywood or
similar materials, or provided with one or more escape ramps constructed of earth fill or
wooden planks. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they should be thoroughly
inspected for trapped animals. If at any time a trapped or injured kit fox discovered,
construction in that area will be halted, and a qualified biologist will be notified
immediately. The qualified biologist in conjunction with a local CDFG biologist and the
Service will determine how to proceed. The Sacramento Field Office and California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) will be notified in writing within three working
days of the accidental death or injured animal and any other pertinent information.
APPE/8.4 All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of 4-
inches or greater that are stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periOds
should be thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried,
capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe,
that section of pipe should not be moved until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) (916-414-9600) has been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct
supervision of the biologist, the pipe may be moved once to remove it from the path of
construction activity, until the fox has escaped.
APPE/8.5 All food related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles; food scraps
should be disposed of in a closed container and removed at least once a week from a
construction or project site.
APPE/8.6 No firearms shall be allowed on the project site.
APPE/8.7 To prevent harassment, mortality of kit foxes or destruction of dens by
dogs or cats, no pets shall be permitted on project sites.
APPE/8.8 Use of rodenticides and herbicides in project areas should be restricted.
This is necessary to prevent primary and secondary poisoning of kit foxes and the
depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such compounds
Appendix E: Supplemental Addendum to the East Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan Page 4
should observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other State and
Federal legislation, as well as additional project-related restrictions deemed necessary by
the Service.
APPE/8.9 A representative shall be appointed by the project proponent, who will be
the contact source for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure
a kit fox or who finds a dead, injured or entrapped individual. The representative will be
identified during the employee education program. The representative's name and
telephone number shall be provided to the Service.
APPE/8.10 An employee education program should be conducted for any project
that has expected impacts to kit fox or other endangered species. The program should
consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable in kit fox biology and
legislative protection to explain endangered species concerns to contractors, their
employees, and military and agency personnel involved in the project. The program
should include the following: description of the San Joaquin kit fox and its habitat needs;
address the occurrence of the kit fox in the project area; status of the species and its
protection under the Endangered Species Act; and measures being taken to reduce
impacts to the during project construction and implementation. A fact sheet conveying
this information should be prepared for distribution to above-mentioned people and
anyone else who may enter the project site.
APPE/8.11 Upon completion of the project, all areas subject to temporary ground
disturbances, including storage and staging areas, temporary roads, and pipeline
corridors should be recontoured if necessary, and revegetated to promote restoration of
the area to pre-project conditions. An area subject to "temporary" disturbance means
any area that is disturbed during the project, but that after project completion will not be
subject to further disturbance and has the potential to be revegetated. Appropriate
methods and plant species used to revegetate such areas should be determined on a site-
specific basis in consultation with the Service, CDFG, and revegetation experts.
APPE/8.12 In the case of trapped animals, escape ramps or structures should be
installed immediately to allow the animal(s) to escape, or the Service should be
contacted for advice.
APPE/8.13 Any contractor, employee(s) or military or agency personnel who
inadvertently kills or injures a San Joaquin kit fox shall immediately report the incident
to their representative. This representative shall contact the CDFG immediately in the
case of a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox. The CDFG contact for immediate assistance
is State Dispatch at (916) 445-0045. They will contact the local warden or biologist.
APPE/8.14 The Sacramento Field Office and CDFG will be notified in writing within
three working days of the accidental death or activities. Notification must include the
date, time, location of the incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal and any
other pertinent information.
LITERATURE CITED
H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1997a. Dublin Ranch San Joaquin kit fox Survey. Project No.
555-13. October 9, 1997.
Appendix E: Supplemental Addendum to the East Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan Page 5
H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1997b. North Livermore Valley San Joaquin Kit Fox Surveys.
Project No. 1037.01 (77 p.).
H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1997c. Distribution of the San Joaquin Kit Fox in the North
Part of Its Range. Project No. 673.11. March 13, 1997.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Standard Recom'mendation for the Protection
of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance. April 7, 1997.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Survey Protocol for the San Joaquin Kit Fox
for the Northern Range. June 1999.
Appendix E: Supplemental Addendum to the East Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan Page 6
APPENDIX F: NOISE CALCULATIONS
PAGE 02
I:;'. 1
2.000
7- ] B-2~01 8: OBPM FROM CHEUNG ENV T RONMENT 5 ] 855983 ] 2
07/09/2081 16:86 17077~67790 ILLINGWO~TN RODKIN
EDUBLIN
ADT
FALLON RD
FROM: 1-580
EXISTING 1,000
FUTURE 97,500
TO: Dublin Blvd
FROM: Dublin Blvd
EXISTING 1,000
FUTURE 537,700
TO: Central Parkway
FROM: Central Parkway
EXXSTING 1,000
FUTURE 29,90O
TO: Loop Rd
2 DUBLIN BLVD
FROM: Fallon Rd
EXISTING 1,000
FUTUR~ 53,600
TO: Croak
FROM: Croak
EXISTING 1,000
FUTURE 16,600
TO: east
3 CENTRAL PA~J(WAY
FROM: Fallon Rd
EXISTING 1,000
FUTURE 9,800
TO: Croak
FROM: croak
EXISTING 1,000
FUTURE 3,800
TO: east
SPEED TRUCK%
AU FJT HT MT HT
40 40 40 2.g 1.0
40 40 40 2.0 1.0
40 40 40
40 2
40 40 40
35 35 35
35 35 35
2.0 1.0
o.o o.o ,4¢i
~, Z%'~
2.0 1.0
2.0 1.0
2.O 1.0
7~
4 LOOP RD
FROM: Fallon Rd
EXISTING 1,o00 35 35 35 2.0 1.0
FUTURE Zl,700
TO: Road 1
FROM: Road 1
EXISTING 1,000 35 35 35 2.0 1.0
FUTURE 14,700
TO: Road 2
FROM: Road 2
EXISTING 1,000 35 35 35 2.0 1.0
FUTL~R~ 5,900
TO: Road 1
Ldn
Ldn CONTOUR DI
50' 80 75
57 0 0
77 27 85 I
57 0 0
85 130 280 6
57 0 0
70 0 0
56 0 0
66 0 0
56 0 0
62 0 0
56 0 0
69 0 0
56 0 0
68 0 0
56 0 0
64 0 0
56 0 0
73 0 34 1
57 0 0
72 0 26
APPENDIX G:
LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
East Dublin Properties
Level of Service Calculations
In the City of Dublin
July 13, 2001
RECEIVED
PUBLIC WORKS
PLEASANTON · SANTA ROSA
East Dublin Properties
Level of Service Calculations
in the City of Dublin
July 13,2001
Prepared by:
TJKM Transportation Consultants
4234 Hacienda Drive, Suite 101
Pleasanton, CA 94588-2721
Tel: 925.463.06~ 1
Fax: 925.463.3690
LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Table 3.6-1
Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Existing Conditions
Unmitigated
Intersection Control
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
* LOS * LOS
1 Dougherty Road/Dublin Blvd Signal 0.68 B 0.8 t D
2 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.44 A 0.27 A
3 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.28 A 0.13 A
4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.18 A 0.26 A
5 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.65 A 0.68 B
6 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.38 A 0.48 A
7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Blvd Signal 0.23 A 0.24 A
9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive** Signal 0.49 A 0.36 A
13 El Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps One-Way STOP 5.2 B 4.6 A
-14 Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps One-Way STOP 3.1 A 3.1 A
Note:
* = Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections;
Average Delay in Seconds for stopping and yielding movements at 1-way STOP-controlled intersections.
** = The signal at Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive is currently under construction, and is not operational at this time.
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00
INTERSECTION 1DOUGHERTY ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 67 1125 270
<--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 37---- 1.0 1.1 3.1 2.0 1.0--- 113 RIGHT
THRU 239 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 134 THRU
RIGHT 488 --- 1.5 2.0 2.1 1.1 2.0 --- 179 LEFT
v lll v
N
Ii+ E 92 9 1 31
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: DOUGHERTY ROAD
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
DUBLIN BOULEVARD
SIG ~ARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 231 231 1650 0.1400
THRU (T) 951 951 3300 0.2882
LEFT (l) 922 922' 3000 O.30D 0.30D
T + R 1182 3300 0.3582
SB RIGHT (R) 67 67 1650 0.0406
THRU (T) 1125 1125 4950 0.22D
1EFT (L) 270 270 3000 0.0900
T + R 1192 4950 0.2408 0.2408
EB RIGHT (R) 488 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 239 239 3300 0.0724 0.0724
LEFT (L) 37 37 1650 0.0224
WB RIGHT (R) 113 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 134 134 3300 0.0406
LEFT (L) 179 179 3000 0.0597 0.0597
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO= 0.68
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B
........................................
INT=MASTER.INToVOL=2EXIST.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00
INTERSECTION 1DOUGHERTY ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD
A
LEFT 75---I 1.0
THRU 518 ---> 2.0
RIGHT 88~ --- 1.5
¥
~+E
S
RIGHT THRU LEFT 8'PHASE SIGNAL
66 877 378
STREET NAME:
(NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 290 THRU DUBLIN BOULEVARD
2.0 2.1 1.1 2.0 --- 245 LEFT
76 8 6 53 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: DOUGHERTY ROAD
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 153 153 1650 0.0927
THRU (T) 876 876 3300 0.2655
LEFT (L) 767 767 3000 0.2557 0.2557
T + R 1029 3300 0.3118
SB RIGHT (R) 66 66 1650 0.0400
THRU (T) 877 877 4950 0.1772
LEFT (L) 378 378 3000 0.1260
T + R 943 4950 0.1905 0.1905
THRU (T) 518 518 3300 0.1570
LEFT (L) 75 75 1650 0.0455
..... ......... ..... ..... ..................
THRU (T) 290 290 3300 0.0879
LEFT (l) 245 245 3000 0.0817 0.0817
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.81
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: O
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=2EXIST.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Soft,are by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00
INTERSECTION 2 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 EB RAMPS C]TY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 3-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 43 794 0
<--" v ---> I sprit! N
LEFT 144---I 2.0 1.9 :5.0 0.0 0,0 --- u RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 0 '--> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<'*' 0 THRU I 580 EB RAMPS
RIGHT 1169 -~- 2.8 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
N SIG IaARRAHIS:
ia + E 3 9 34 Urb=¥, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLLME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (RI 134 134 1720 0.0779
THRU (TI 349 349, 5160 0.0676
SB RIGHT (RI 43 43 1720 0.0250
THRU (TI 794 794 5160 0.1539 0.1539
EB RIGHT (RI 1169 895 * 3127 0.2862 0.2862
LEFT (L) 144 144 3127 0.0461
................................................ L .......................
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.44
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
·AOJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON REO
IHT=MASTER.INToVOL=2EXIST.AMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Soft,are by TJKM Transportation Consuttants
.Condition: pm peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00
INTERSECTION 2 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD
^
LEFT 68---I 2.0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0
RIGHT 289 --- 2.8
I
¥
S
RIGHT THRU LEFT
182 336 0
<--- v ---> I Sptit?N
1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 ---'0 RIGHT
(NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
~'-- ^ ''-> I
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE
3-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
I 580 EB RAMPS
SIG iaARRANTS:
Urb=Y~ Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (RI 973 973 1720 0.5657
THRU (TI 1290 1290 5160 0.2500 0.2500
SB RIGHT (RI 182 182 1720 0.1058
THRU (TI 336 336 5160 0.0651
..... .......... F; ..... ..... ;:';;;; ..................
LEFT (L) 68 68 3127 0.0217 0.0217
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.27
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=2EXIST.PMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00
INTERSECTION 3 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 NB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD
^
LEFT 0---I 0.0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0
I
V
N
RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL
76 133 0
<--- v ---> [ Split? N
1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0:-- 165 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
(NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU I 580 WB RAMPS
0.0 3.0 1.9 2.0 --- 704 LEFT
I & v SIG WARRANTS:
2 4 79 Urb=N, Rur=Y
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: HACIENDA ORIVE
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 279 279 1650 0.1691
THRU (T) 214 214 4950 0.0432 0.0432
SB RIGHT (R) 76 76 1650 0.0461
THRU (T) 133 133 4950 0.0269
WB RIGHT (R) 165 165 3000 0.0550
LEFT (L) 704 704 3000 0.2347 0.2347
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.28
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=2EXIST.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00
INTERSECTION 3 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 WB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 108 306 0
<--- v ---> ! Sprit? N
LEFT 0---J 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0--- 70 RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 2.0 --- 212 LEFT
v v
N
W+E 32156
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE
STREET NAME:
I 580 WB RAMPS
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb:N, Rur=N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 1056 1056 1650 0.6400
THRU (T) 302 302 4950 0.0610
SB RIGHT (R) 108 108 1650 0.0655
THRU (T) 306 306 4950 0.0618 0.0618
WB RIGHT (R) 70 70 3000 0.0233
LEFT (L) 212 212 3000 0.0707 0.0707
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.13
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT~VOL=2EXIST.PMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
t J I I t 1 t i i J J i I
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
condition: am peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00
INTERSECTION 4 HACIENDA DRIVE/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 6-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 48 144 0
<--- v ---> I split~N
LEFT 0 ---J 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1,1 --- u RIGHT
THRU 48 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.1<--- 85 THRU
RIGBT 114 --- 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 131 LEFT
N SIC WARRANTS:
W + E 40 4 52 Urb=N, Rur=N
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUHE VOLUHE* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 52 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 44 44 3300 0.0133
LEFT (L) 406 406 4304 0.0945 0.0945
SB RIGHT (R) 48 48 1650 0.0291 0.0291
THRU (T) 144 144 4950 0.0291
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000
EB RIGHT (R) 114 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 48 48 4950 0.0097 0.0097
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000
~B RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 85 85 4950 0.0172
LEFT (L) 131 131 3000 0.0437 0.0437
T + R 85 4950 0.0172
TOTAL VOLUME-TO~CAPACITY RATIO: 0.18
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADdUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=2EXIST.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
STREET NAME:
DUBLIN BOULEVARD
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00
INTERSECTION 4 HACIENDA DRIVE/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CiTY OF DUBLIN
Count Oate Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD
^
LEFT 0~--J 2.0
THRU 631 ---> 3.0
RIGHT 254 --- 2.0
I
V
N
~+E
S
RIGHT THRU LEFT
39 167 0
<--- V "-> J Split? N
1.0 3.0 2.0 1.1 --- 0 RIGHT
(NO. OF LANES) 3.1<--- 72 THRU
3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 83 LEFT
,,(... ,*- _..~. J
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME-' HACIENDA DRIVE
6-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
DUBLIN BOULEVARD
SIC WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 135 89 * 1650 0.0539
THRU (T) 103 103 3300 0.0312
LEFT (L) 291 291 4304 0.0676 0.0676
SB RIGHT (R) 39 39 1650 0.0236
THRU (T) 167 167 4950 0.0337 0.0337
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000
EB RIGHT (R) 254 142 * 3000 0.0473
THRU (T) 631 631 4950 0.1275 0.1275
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000
wa RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 72 72 4950 0.0145
LEFT (L) 83 83 3000 0.0277
T + R 72 4950 0.0145
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.26
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
iNT=MASTER.INT,VOL=2EXIST.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00
INTERSECTION 5 SANTA RITA ROAD/[ 580 EB RAMPS CiTY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 6-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 209 1176 151
STREET NAME:
THRU 152 ---;,' 2.1 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1 580 EB RAMPS
RIGHT 582 --~ 1.9 0.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 --- 199 LEFT
v v
N SIG NARRANTS:
t4 + E 7 4 43 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: SANTA RITA ROAD
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 543 344 * 3000 0.1147
THRU (T) 744 744 3300 0.2255
SB RIGHT (R) 209 209 1650 0.1267
THRU (T) 1176 1176 3300 0.3564 0.3564
LEFT (L) 151 151 1650 0.0915
EB RIGHT (R) 582 582 1650 0.3527
THRU (T) 152 152 3300 0.0461
LEFT (L) 140 140 1650 0.0848
T + L 292 3300 0.0885 0.0885
WB RIGHT (R) 488 337 * 1650 0.2042 0.2042
LEFT (L) 199 199 1650 0.1206
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.65
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INTtVOL=2EXIST.AMV~CAP=C:..LO~CAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJI(H Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00
INTERSECTION 5 SANTA RITA ROAD/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 834 999 220
LEFT 99 .... I 1.1 1.9 2.0 1.0 1.5= - 37-5 RIGHT
THRU 283 ---> 2.1 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 90 --- 1.9 0.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 --- 104 LEFT
N
~4+E 9 1 10
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: SANTA RITA ROAD
6-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
] 580 EB RAMPS
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 1110 1006 * 3000 0.3353 0.3353
THRU (T) 978 978 3300 0.2964
SB RIGHT (R) 834 834 1650 0.5055
THRU (T) 999 999 3300 0.3027
LEFT (L) 220 220 1650 0.1333 0.1333
EB RIGHT (R) 90 90 1650 0.0545
THRU (T) 283 283 3300 0.0858
LEFT (L) 99 99 1650 0.0600
T + L 382 3300 0.1158 0.1158
WI) RIGHT (R) 37'5 153 * 1650 0.0927 0.0927
LEFT (L) 104 104 1650 0.0630
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.68
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=2EXIST.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Softuare by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants
Condition: am peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00
iNTERSECTION 6 TASSAJARA RGAD/I 580 WB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 185 516 0
<~-- v ---> J SpLit? N
LEFT 0---I 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 1.0--- 259 RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 0--- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0--- 818 LEFT
v v
N
W+E 3 73
S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAO
4-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
I 580 WB RAMPS
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO VIC
NB RIGHT (R) 97"5 973 1650 0.5897
THRU (T) 318 318 3300 0.0964
SB RIGHT (R) 185 185 1650 0.1121
THRU (T) 516 516 4950 0.104Z 0.1042
WB RIGHT (R) 259 259 1650 0.1570
LEFT (L) 818 818 3000 0.2727
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.38
iNTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=2EXIST.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB
LOS Softuare by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00
INTERSECTION 6 TASSAJARA ROAD/I 580 WB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Oate Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD
^
LEFT 0 --- 0.0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0
RIGHT 0 --' 0.0
I
¥
W+E
S
RIGHT THRU LEFT
109 1~1 0
<--- v ---> I SpLit? N
1.9 3.0 0.0 1.0 ~-- 220 RIGHT
(NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 ~-- 523 LEFT
('-' ^ ---> I
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAD
4-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
I 580 WB RAMPS
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 527 527 1650 0.3194
THRU (T) 559 559 3300 0.1694
SB RIGHT (R) 109 109 1650 0.0661
THRU (T) 1491 1491 4950 0.3012 0.3012
WB RIGHT (R) 220 220 1650 0.1333
LEFT (L) 523 523 3000 0.1743 0.1743
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.48
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INToVOL=2EXIST.PMV,CAP=C:.-LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software byTJKM Transportation ConsuLtants
Condition: am peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00
INTERSECTION 7 TASSAJARA ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CiTY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 3T 603 0
LEFT 15 .... I 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 75 --- 2.8 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.0 --- 0 LEFT
v v
N
W + E 12 3 9 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAO
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
DUBLIN BOULEVARD
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=N, gur=N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 359 359 3300 0.1088
LEFT (L) 122 122 3000 0.0407 0.0407
T + R 359 4650 0.0772
............................................. r ..........................
SB RIGHT (R) 37 29 * 1650 0.0176
THRU (T) 603 603 3300 0.1827 0.1827
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
EB RIGHT eR) 75 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 3300 0.0000
LEFT (L) 15 15 3000 0.0050 0.0050
WB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 3300 0.0000
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACiTY RATIO: 0.23
iNTERSECTiON LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=2EXIST.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Softuare by TJKfl Transportation Consuttants
Condition: pm peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00
INTERSECTION 7 TASSAJARA ROAD/DUBLiN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 26 479 0
<--- v ---> I Sptit~ N
LEFT 9/* ...... I 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 U RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 675 --- 2.8 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.0 --- 0 LEFT
N
W+E 1 54 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: TASSAdARA ROAD
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
DUBLIN BOULEVARD
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 594 594 3300 0.1800
LEFT (L) 166 166 3000 0.0553 0.0553
T + R 594 4650 0.127-/'
...... .......... ..... ..... ..................
THRU (T) 479 479 3300 0.1452 0.1452
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 3300 0.0000
LEFT (L) 94 94 3000 0.0313
WB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) O. 0 3300 0.0000
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACiTY RATIO: 0.24
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=2EXIST.PMV, CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
I
LOS Software byTJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00
INTERSECTION 9 TASSAJARA ROAD/GLEASON DR[VE' CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 54 591 0
I <--- v ---> I Sptit~ N
LEFT 11 '-- 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 -'- RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 0 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) ' 1.0<"- 0 THRU GLEASON DRIVE
RIGHT 36 --- 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 --~ 0 LEFT
N ' SIG UARRANTS:
~ + E 15 2 8 0 Urb=N, Rur=N
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAO
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 O.QO00
THRU (T) 218 218 1650 0.1321
LEFT (L) 153 153 1650 0.0927 0.0927
SB RIGHT (R) 54 54 1650 0.0327
THRU (T) 591 591 1650 0.3582
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
T + R 645 1650 0.3909 0.3909
EB RIGHT (R) 36 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 3300 0.0000
LEFT (l) 11 11 3000 0.0037 0.0037
~B RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.49
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: ' A
· ADdUSTEO FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=2EXIST.AMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB
^
LEFT 1.0 RIGHT
THRU 1.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 155 --- 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 --- 0 LEFT
v
N SIG ~JARRANTS:
~ + E 13 5 6 0 Urb:N, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
LOS Software by TJKM *Transportation Consultants
========================================================================
Condition: pm peak hour-Existing Conditions 11~00
INTERSECTION 9 TASSAJARA ROAD/GLEASON DRIVE CiTY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 36 381 0
I
<--- v --->
79---' 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.0
0 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES)
STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAD
STREET NAME:
GLEASON DRIVE
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 556 556 1650 0.3370 0.3370
LEFT (l) 139 139 1650 0.0842
SB RIGHT (R) 36 36 1650 0.0218
THRU (T) 3§1 3§1 1650 0.2309
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
T + R 417 1650 0.2527
EB RIGHT (R) 155 16 * 1650 0.0097
THRU (T) 0 0 3300 0.0000
LEFT (L) 79 79 3000 0.0263 0.0263
WB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) O' 0 1650 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.36
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INTwVOL=2EXIST.PMV,CAP=C:-.LOSCAP-TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00
INTERSECTION 13 EL CHARRO ROAD/I 580 EB RAMPS CiTY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
94 HCM Unsigna[
0 15 10 ·
<--- ~ "'> I
18 ...... ' 1.1 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0' 0
13 ---> 1.1 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0
236 --- 1.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 --- 0
I < ....... > I
v ILl v
N
Id+ E I 2 46
$
ACCEL % ~ PEAK HOUR
LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR .....
FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT
0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
N 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
ORIG ADJ ADd CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT APP APP
MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP OELAY LOS DELAY LOS
NB L 0 0 5.0 17 1683 1683 0.0 A 0.0 A
T 279 341
R 46 56
TR 325 397 0.0 A
SB L 10 12 5.0 361 1153 1153 3.2 A
T 15 18
LT 25 30 3,2 A
EB L 18 22 6.5 363 652 647 0.7 A
T 13 16 6.0 389 682 6~
R 236 288 0,0 A
LT 31 38 5.8 B
=========================================================================
INT TOTAL: 0.4 A
MINOR MOVEMENTS: ( 5.2) (B)
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=2EX[ST.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
N/$ CONTROL: NONE
E/~/ CONTROL: STOP
MAJ ST SAT FLOId:
Th= 1900, Rt= 1650
CRITICAL GAP ADJUST
LEFT THRU RIGHT
NB 0.0
SB 0.0 ......
EB 0.0 0.0 O.O
SIGNAL 14ARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00
INTERSECTION 1] EL CHARRO ROAD/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Oate Time Peak Hour
94 HCM UnsignaL
0 42 7
<--- V -**> [
10 ---~ 1.1 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0
129 --- 1.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 --- 0
I
Id+E 14 58
S
ACCEL ~ ~ PEAK HOUR
LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR .....
FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT
0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
N 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
ORIG ADJ ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT APP APP
MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOS DELAY LOS
NB L 0 0 5.0 42 1637 1637 0.0 A 0.0 A
T 114 125
R 158 174
TR 272 299 0.0 A
SB L 7 8 5.0 272 1272 1272 3.0 A
T 42 46
LT 49 54 3.0 A
EB L 20 22 6.5 242 767 763 0.9 A
T 10 11 6.0 321 740 735
R 129 142 0.0 A
LT 30 33 5.0 A
INT TOTAL: 0.6 A
MINOR MOVEMENTS: ( 4.6) (A)
INT=MASTER.INToVOL=2EXIST.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
N/S CONTROL: NONE
E/Id CONTROL: STOP
MAJ ST SAT FLOId:
Th= 1900, Et= 1650
CRITICAL GAP ADJUST
LEFT THRU RIGHT
NB 0.0 ......
SB 0.0 ......
EB 0.0 0.0 0.0
SIGNAL I4ARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
i t 1 I I / 1 i i I I I i I i t 1
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00
INTERSECTION 14 FALLON ROAD/I 580 WB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
94 HCM Unsignat
7 10 0
0 ] 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 1.1 --- 6
0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 7
0 --- 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 1.1 --- 43
! < ....... > I
W+E
S
ACCEL % ~ PEAK HOUR
LANE ~ COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR .....
FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT
0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
N 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
ORIG ADd ADd CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT APP APP
MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOS OELAY LOS
NB L 134 166 5.0 19 1679 1679 2.4 A
T 12 15
LT 146 179 2.4 A
SBT 10 12 0.0 A
R 7 9
TR 17 21 0.0 A
WB L 43 53 6.5 177 836 7T~ 4.9 A
T 7 9 6.0 181 876 ~0
R 6 7 5.5 13 1363 1363
LTR 56 69 4.9 A
INT TOTAL: 2.8 A
MINOR MOVEMENTS: (3.1) (A)
INT=MASTER.INTtVOL=2ERIST.AMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB
N/S CONTROL: NONE
E/W CONTROL: STOP
MAJ ST SAT FLOW:
Th= 1900, Rt= 1650
CRITICAL GAP ADdUST
LEFT THRU RIGHT
NB 0.0
SB
~IB 0.0 0.0 0.0
SIGNAL WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour-Existing Conditions 11/27/00
INTERSECTION 14 FALLON ROAD/I 580 WB RAHPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
94 HCM Unsignat
7 10 0
0--- 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 1.1--- 6
0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 7
0 --- 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 1.1 --- 43
.v v
W + E 13 2 0
S
ACCEL ~ % PEAK HOUR
LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR .....
FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT
0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
N 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
ORIG ADJ ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT I APP APP
MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOS DELAY LOS
NB L 134 16/, 5.0 19 1679 1679 I 2.4 A
T 12 15
LT 146 179 2.4 A
SBT 10 12 0.0 A
R 7 9 0.0 A
TR 17 21
~B I 43 53 6.5 177 836 7~ 4.9 A
T 7 9 6.0 181 876 790
R 6 7 5.5 13 1363 1363
LTR 56 69 4.9 A
INT TOTAL: 2.8 A
MINOR MOVEMENTS: ( 3.1) (A)
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=2EXIST.PMV,CAP=C:--LOSCAP-TAB
N/S CONTROL: NONE
E/W CONTROL: STOP
MAJ ST SAT FLCR4:
Th: 1900, Rt= 1650
CRITICAL GAP ADJUST
LEFT THRU RIGHT
NB 0.0 ......
SS .........
WB 0.0 0.0 0.0
SIGNAL WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur:N
LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
EXISTING + APPROVED + PENDING CONDITIONS
Table 3.6-2
dus Pendin Dublin Model)-No Project
Peak Hour Intersection l~evels ol oervlce - LXl3tlll~ plU;~ ~-xpp,~,v~.u !' ........... t~ ~ ........... ~ ; *
Unmitigated Mitigated
Intersection Control
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Flour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
· LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS
I Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.74 C 0.86 D
(w/Soarlett Drive Bypass)
2 Hacienda Drive/l-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.93 E 0.86 D 0.74 C 0.73 C
3 Hacienda Drive/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 1.20 F 0.74 C 0.86 D 0.56 A
4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.63 B 0.82 D
5 Santa Rita Roadfl-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.98 E 0.97 E 0.83 D 0.90 D
6 Tassajara Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.79 C 0.81 D
7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.61 B 0.84 D
8 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway** Signal 0.42 A 0.50 A
9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive** Signal 0.52 A 0.58 A
10 Grafton Street/Dublin Boulevard** Signal 0.55 A 0.65 B
11 Grafton Street/Central Parkway** Signal 0.22 A 0.23 A
12 Grafton Street/Gleason Drive** Signal 0.06 A 0.05 A
13 E1 Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps** Signal 0.17 A 0.31 A
14 Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps** Signal 0.23 A 0.38 A
i 5 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard** Signal 0.42 A 0.48 A
16 Failon Road/Central Parkway** Signal 0.29 A 0.39 A
17 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive** Signal 0.09 A 0.09 A
Note:
* = Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections;
Average Delay in Seconds for stopping and yielding movements at l-way STOP-controlled intersections.
** = Traffic signals at these intersections are either under construction or are anticipated to be installed in thc future.
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base (E+App+Pend) No Proj 06/26/01
INTERSECTION 1DOUGHERTY ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time '. Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 49 1568 227
LEFT 49 .... I 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 RIGHT
THRU 858 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) ;~.0<--- 445 THRU
RIGHT 569 --- 2.5 3.0 3.1 2.1 3.0 -~- 381 LEFT
N
W + E 69 8 7 1 04
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Spt~t? N
STREET NAME: DOUGHERTY ROAD
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
DUBLIN BOULEVARD
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 1104 958 * 3000 0.3193
THRU (T) 807 807 4950 0.1630
LEFT (L) 693 693 4304 0.1610 0.1610
T + R 1~65 6300 0.2802
SB RIGHT (R) 49 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1568 1568 4950 0.3168 0.3168
LEFT (L) 227 227 3000 0.0~57
EB RIGHT (R) 569 86 * 3000 0.0287
THRU (T) 858 858 4950 0.1733 0.1733
LEFT (L) 49 49 1650 0.0297
WB RIGHT (R) 80 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 445 445 3300 0.1348
LEFT (L) 381 381 4304 0.0885 0.0885
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.74
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consuttants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base (E+App+Pend) No Proj 06/26/01
INTERSECTION 1DOUGHERTY ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 66 1050 163
<--- v ---> I Sprit? N
LEFT 103---I 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 --- 227 RIGHT
THRU 834 ---> 3.0 (NO: OF LANES) 2.0<--- 952 THRU
RIGHT 939 --- 2.5 3.0 3.1 2.1 3.0 --- 1075 LEFT
W+ E 13 1 59
S
STREET NAME:
DUBLIN BOULEVARD
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: DOUGHERTY ROAD
========================================================================
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRiTiCAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 359 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 1351 1351 4950 0.2729
LEFT (L) 999 999 4304 0.2321 0.2321
T + R 1351 6300 0.2144
SB RIGHT (R) 66 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1050 1050 4950 0.2121 0.2121
LEFT (L) 163 163 3000 0.0543
EB RIGHT (R) 939 243 * 3000 0.0810
THRU (T) 834 834 4950 0.1685 0.1685
LEFT (L) 103 103 1650 0.0624
~B RIGHT (R) 227 137 * 1650 0.0830
THRU (T) 952 952 3300 0.2885
LEFT (L) 1075 1075 4304 0.2498 0.2498
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.86
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: O
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED - -
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
! !! ! il ;
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 2 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Oate Time Peak Hour
...................................... ~L ................................
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 300 1974 0
I <--- v ---> I Sprit? N
LEFT 1777-" 2.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 '-- 0 RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 1834 --- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
v v
N
W+ E 1 4 65
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
I 580 EB RAMPS
S!G WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 365 365 1800 0.2028
THRU (T) 1524 1524 5400 0.2822
SB RIGHT (R) 300 300 1800 0.1667
THRU (T) 1974 1974 5400 0.3656 0.3656
EB RIGHT (R) 1834 1834 3273 0.5603 0.5603
LEFT (L) 1777 1777 3273 0.5429
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.93
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 2 HACIENDA DRIVE/! 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
1286 1618 0
<--- v ---> I Split~ N
LEFT 1382 ...... I 2.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 U RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) O.O<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 218 --- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
N
~J + E 23 6 1 58
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME:
I 580 EB RAMPS
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 1458 1458 1800 0.8100
THRU (T) 2346 2346 5400 0.4344 0.4344
SB RIGHT (R) 1286 1286 1800 0.7144
THRU(T) 1618 1618 5400 0.2996
EB RIGHT (R) 218 218 3273 0.0666
LEFT (L) 1382 1382 3273 0.4222 0.4222
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.86
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: O
........................................
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 3 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580.~B RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 867 728 0
<--- v ---> ! Split? N
LEFT 0---I 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0--- 1151 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU I 580 NB RAMPS
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 1536 LEFT
N SIG t4ARRANTS:
W + E 27 9 69 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
5
LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (RI 569 569 1800 0.3161
THRU (TI 2729 2729 ~q~09 0.7581
SB RIGHT (RI 867 867 1800 0.4817
THRU (TI 728 728 5400 0.1348
~B RIGHT (RI 1151 1151 327'3 0.3517
LEFT (L) 1536 1536 3273 0.4693 0.4693
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: F
* ADJUSTED FOR RLGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 3 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 WB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 1994 2225 0
<--- V ---> ! Split? N
LEFT 0---I 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0--- 500 RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 538 LEFT
v v
N
W+E 21 01 79
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: HACIENDA ORIVE
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
I 580 WB RAMPS
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (RI 1579 1579 1800 0.8772
THRU (TI 2150 2150 3)2c~-3&QB' 0.5972
sa RIGHT (R) 1994 1994 1800 1.1078 **
THRU (T) 2225 2225 5400 0.4120
WB RIGHT (RI 500 500 3273 0.1528
LEFT (L) 538 538 3273 0.1644 O~ 1644
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
I N T=MAST ER. I NT, VOL=BACKGRN D. PMV+TRANSCTR. PMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base (E+App+Pend) No Proj 07/03/01
INTERSECT[ON 4 HACIENDA DRIVE/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 388 608 110
<--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 152---I 2.0 1-0 3.0 2.0 1.0 --- 114 RIGHT
THRU 594 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 844 THRU
RIGHT 260 --- 2.5 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 511 LEFT
N
U+E 6 40 04
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAHE: HACIENDA DRIVE
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
DUBLIN BOULEVARD
SIG ~ARRANTS:
Urb=Y~ Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT IR) 504 223 * 1650 0.1352
THRU IT) 430 430 3300 0.1303
LEFT IL) 673 673 4304 0.1564 0:1564
SB RIGHT IR) 388 304 * 1650 0.1842 0.1842
THRU IT) 608 608 4950 0.1228
LEFT IL) 110 110 3000 0.0367
EB RIGHT IR) 260 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU IT) 594 594 4950 0.1200 0.1200
LEFT IL) 152 152 3000 0.0507
~B RIGHT IR) 114 54 * 1650 0.0327
THRU IT) 844 844 4950 0.1705
LEFT IL) 511 511 3000 0,1703 0.1703
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.63
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: , B
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON REO
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base (E+App+Pend) No Proj 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 4 HACIENDA DRIVE/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 268 750 179
<--- v ---> ! Split? N
LEFT 361---I 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0--- 105 RIGHT
THRU 1601 ---> ~.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 801 THRU
RIGHT 678 --- 2.5 3.0 2.0 ' 1.0 2.0 --- 780 LEFT
N
tJ + E 38 5 1 ~ 04
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
OUBLIN BOULEVARD
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT IR) 604 175 * 1650 0.1061
THRU IT) 561 561 3300 0.1700
LEFT IL) 381 381 4304 0.0885 0.0885
SB RIGHT (R) 268 69 * 1650 0.0418
THRU IT) 750 750 4950 0.1515 0.1515
LEFT IL) 179 179 3000 0.0597
EB RIGHT (R) 678 412 * 3000 0.13D
THRU IT) 1601 1601 4950 0.3234 0.3234
LEFT IL) 361 361 3000 0.1203
WB RIGHT IR) 105 7 * 1650 0.0042
THRU IT) 801 801 4950 0.1618
LEFT IL) 780 780 3000 0.2600 0.2600
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RAT[O: 0.82
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour;Future Base 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 5 SANTA R[TA ROAD/[ 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 495 1200 172
I <--- v ---> I Split? Y
LEFT 1367 --- 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 524 RIGHT
THRU 161 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 605 --- 1.9 0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 --- 209 LEFT
N
W+ E 14 5 76
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: SANTA RITA ROAD
4*PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
I 580 EB RAMPS
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 576 461 * 3000 0.1537
THRU (T) 1455 1455 4950 0.2939
T + R 1916 6300 0.3041 0.3041
SB RIGHT (R) 495 495 1650 0.3000
THRU (T) 1200 1200 3300 0.3636
LEFT (L) 172 172 1650 0.1042 0.1042
EB RIGHT (R) 605 605 1650 0.3667
THRU (T) 161 161 1650 0.0976
LEFT (L) 1367 1367 3000 0.4557 0.4557
WB RIGHT (R) 524 352 * 3000 0.1173 0.1173
LEFT (L) 209 209 3000 0.0697
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.98
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
[NT=NASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.ANV+TRANSCTR.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour;Future Base 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 5 SANTA RITA ROAD/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
.................................................. 7 .....................
CCTA METHOD
^
LEFT 1232 ---I 2.0
THRU 303 ---> 1.0
RIGHT 183 --- 1.9
I
¥
S
RIGHT THRU LEFT
1524 881 221
<--- ¥ ---> I Sprit? Y
1.9 2.0 1.0 2.0:-- 391 RIGHT
(NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 --- 114 LEFT
<---^ ---> I
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: SANTA RITA ROAD
4-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
I 580 EB RAMPS
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 594 531 * 3000 0.1770
THRU (T) 1779 1779 4950 0.3594
T + R 2310 6300 0.3667 0.3667
SB RIGHT (R) 1524 1524 1650 0.9236 **
THRU (T) 881 881 3300 0.2670
LEFT (L) 221 221 1650 0.1339 0.1339
EB RIGHT (R) 183 183 1650 0.1109
THRU (T) 303 303 1650 0.1836
LEFT (L) 1232 1232 3000 0.4107 0.4107
W8 RIGHT (R) 391 170 * 3000 0.0567 0.0567
LEFT (l) 114 114 3000 0.0380
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.97
INTERSECT[ON LEVEL OF SERVICE: E
· ADJUSTEO FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED ** APPROACHING OR EXCEEDING CAPACITY
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 6 TASSAJARA ROAD/] 580 WB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 1027 1247 0
LEFT 0 --- 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 - RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 894 LEFT
v v
N
14+E 1861 94
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAD
STREET NAME:
i 580 WB RAMPS
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRiTiCAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT IR) 1094 1094 1800 0.6078
THRU IT) 1876 1876 3600 0.5211 0.5211
SB RIGHT IR) 1027 1027 1800 0.5706
THRU IT) 1247 1247 5400 0.2309
WB RIGHT IR) 738 738 3273 0.2255
LEFT IL) 894 894 3273 0.2731 0.2731
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.79
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON NED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 6 TASSAJARA ROAD/I 580 WB RAMPS CiTY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 1362 2823 0
<--- v ---> / SpLit? N
LEFT 0---I 0.0 1,9 3.0 0.0 2.0--- 454 RIGHT
THRU 0 -*-> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 500 LEFT
v v
N
W + E 23 1 75
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAD
STREET NAME:
I 580 WB RAMPS
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT IR) 575 575 1800 0.3194
THRU IT) 2351 2351 3600 0.6531 0.6531
SB RIGHT (R) 1362 1362 1800 0.7567
THRU IT) 2823 2823 5400 0.5228
WB RIGHT IR) 454 454 3273 0.1387
LEFT IL) 500 500 3273 0.1528 0.1528
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.81
iNTERSECTiON LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRNO.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 7 TASSAJARA ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD
^
LEFT 103~--] 2.0
THRU 609 ---> 3.0
RIGHT 338--- 2.5
I
¥
S
RIGHT THRU LEFT 243 1410 111
2.0 4.0 2.0 1.0:-25- RIGHT
(NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 3~ THRU
3.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 --- 3~ LEFT
LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: TASSAJARA R~D
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
DUBLIN BOULEVARD
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT IR) 641 496 * 1650 0.3006
THRU IT) 635 635 6600 0.0962
LEFT IL) 817 817 4304 0.1898 0.1898
SB RIGHT IR) 243 186 * 3000 0,0620
THRU IT) 1410 1410 6600 0.2136 0.2136
LEFT IL) 111 111 3000 0.0370
EB RIGHT IR) 338 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU IT) 609 609 4950 0.1230 0.1230
LEFT IL) 103 103 3000 0.0343
WB RIGHT IR) 25 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 379 379 4950 0.0766
LEFT IL) 378 378 4304 0.0878 0.0878
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.61
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B
........................................
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 7 TASSAJARA ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT B-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 123 1085 77
<--- v ---> I Sprit? N
LEFT 399---{ 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 --- 143 RIGHT
THRU 570 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 783 THRU
RIGHT 1297 --- 2.5 3.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 --- 1034 LEFT
N SIG WARRANTS:
k{ + E 4 15 2 13 Upb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Sprit? N
STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAD
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT IR) 613 217 * 1650 0.1315
THRU IT) 1542 1542 6600 0.2336
LEFT IL) 474 474 4304 0.1101 0,1101
SB RIGHT IR) 123 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 1085 1085 6600 0.1644 0.1644
LEFT IL) 77 77 3000 0.0257
EB RIGHT (R) 1297 967 * 3000 0.3223 0.3223
THRU IT) 570 570 4950 0.1152
LEFT (L) 399 399 3000 0.1330
WB RIGHT (R) 143 101 * 1650 0.0612
THRU IT) 783 783 4950 0.1582
LEFT IL) 1034 1034 4304 0.2402 0.2402
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.8~
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
........................................
I NT=MASTER · I NT, VOL=BACKGRND. PMV+TRANSCTR. PMV, CAP=C: ·. LOSCAP. TAB
STREET NAME:
DUBLIN BOULEVARD
i I i i i i J i i 1 I i f I J i t I
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 8 TASSAJARA ROAD/CENTRAL PARKWAY CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 6 1405 24
LEFT 31---I 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 t.0 - RLGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 47 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 142 THRU CENTRAL PARKWAY
RIGHT 65 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 ~-- 212 LEFT
I ': ....... " I
v
H SIG WARRAHIS:
W + E 4 5 9 59 Ur~Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT TRRU RIGRT Spl~t? N
STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAD
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 59 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU IT) 589 589 4950 0.1190
LEFT el) 46 46 1650 0.0279 0.0279
SB RIGHT IR) 6 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1405 1405 4950 0.2838 0,2838
LEFT IL) 24 24 1650 0.0145
EB RIGHT (R) 65 19 * 1650 0.0115
THRU (T) 47 47 1650 0.0285
LEFT (L) 31 31 1650 0.0188 0.0188
WB RIGHT (R) 39 15 * 1650 0.0091
THRU (T) 142 142 1650 0.0861 0.0861
LEFT (L) 212 212 3000 0.0707
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.42
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.ANV+TRANSCTR.AMV,CAP=C:--LOSCAP-TAB
LOS Software by TJKH Transportation Consultants
========================================================================
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 8 TASSAJARA ROAD/CENTRAL PARKWAY CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD
^
LEFT 10---J 1.0
THRU 178 ---> 1.0
RIGHT 117 --- 1.0
¥
S
RIGHT THRU LEFT
8 999 54
NO. OF LANES 87 THRU
<___ ^ ___> J
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAD
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
CENTRAL PARKWAY
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 219 148 * 1650 0.0897
THRU (T) 1560 1560 4950 0.3152 0.3152
LEFT (L) 81 81 1650 0.0491
SB RIGHT (R) 8 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 999 999 4950 0.2018
LEFT (L) 54 54 1650 0.0327 0.0327
EB RIGHT (R) 117 36 * 1650 0.0218
THRU (T) 178 178 1650 0.1079 0.1079
LEFT (L) 10 10 1650 0.0061
~B RIGHT (R) 43 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 87 87 1650 0.0527
LEFT (L) 129 129 3000 0.0430 0.0430
========================================================================
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.50
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 9 TASSAJARA ROAD/GLEASON DRIVE CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 364 1361 22
<--- v ---> I Sprit? N
LEFT 111 ......] 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 47 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 9 ~~-> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<*-- 27 THRU GLEASON DRIVE
RIGHT 36 --- 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 --- 38 LEFT
N SIG WARRANTS:
W + E 15 4 5 12 Urb=B, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAD
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEHENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 12 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 495 495 3300 0.1500
LEFT (L) 153 153 3000 0.0510 0.0510
SB RIGHT (R) 364 303 * 1650 0.1836
THRU (T) 1361 1361 3300 0.4124 0.4124
LEFT (l) 22 22 1650 0.0133
EB RIGHT (R) 36 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 9 9 3300 0.0027
LEFT (L) 111 111 3000 0.0370 0.0370
WB RIGHT (R) 47 25 * 1650 0.0152 0.0152
THRU (T) 27 27 3300 0.0082
LEFT (L) 38 38 3000 0.0127
TOTAL VOLUME-TO*CAPACITY RATIO: 0.52
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 9 TASSAJARA ROAD/GLEASON DRIVE CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 162 888 61
THRU 30 --~> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 17 THRU
RIGHT 155 --- 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 --- 24 LEFT
I
v
N
W + E 13 14 8 43
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAD
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
GLEASON DRIVE
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 43 30 * 3000 0.0100
THRU (T) 1408 1408 3300 0.4267 0.4267
LEFT (L) 139 139 3000 0.0463
SB RIGHT (R) 162 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 888 888 3300 0.2691
LEFT (L) 61 61 1650 0.0370 0.0370
EB RIGHT (R) 155 79 * 1650 0.0479
THRU (T) 30 30 3300 0.0091
LEFT (l) 339 339 3000 0.1130 0.1130
WB RIGHT (R) 40 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 17 17 3300 0.0052 0.0052
LEFT (l) 24 24 3000 0.0080
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.58
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· AOdUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
) I
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 10 MAIN STREET/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 178 123 40
THRU 784 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 298 THRU
RIGHT 523 --- 1.0 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.0--- 84 LEFT
I < ....... > I
v )l) v
N
W + E 15 9 19
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: HAiN STREET
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
DUBLIN BOULEVARD
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 19 19 1650 0.0115
THRU (T) 29 29 1650 0.0176
LEFT (L) 157 157 3000 0.0523 0.0523
T + R 48 1650 0.0291
SB RIGHT (R) 178 178 1650 0.1079
THRU (T) 123 123 1650 0.0745
LEFT (L) 40 40 1650 0.0242
T + R 301 1650 0.1824 0.1824
EB RIGHT (R) 523 437 * 1650 0.2648 0.2648
THRU (T) 784 784 4950 0.1584
LEFT (L) 37 37 1650 0.0224
WB RIGHT (R) 8 0 * 1650 0,0000
THRU (T) 298 298 4950 0.0602
LEFT (L) 84 84 1650 0.0509 0.0509
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.55
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
.........................................
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 10 MAIN STREET/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 87 39 19
LEFT 182 .... 'l 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 RIGHT
THRU 743 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 1138 THRU
RIGHT 212 --- 1.0 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 52 LEFT
v
N SIG WARRANTS:
W + E 69 1 7 85 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 85 85 1650 0.0515
THRU (T) 127 127 1650 0.0770
LEFT (l) 692 692 3000 0.2307 0.2307
T + R 212 1650 0.1285
SB RIGHT (R) 87 87 1650 0.0527
THRU (T) 39 39 1650 0.0236
LEFT (L) 19 19 1650 0.0115
T + R 126 1650 0.0764 0.0764
EB RIGHT (R) 212 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 743 743 4950 0.1501
LEFT (L) 182 182 1650 0.1103 0.1103
WB RIGHT (R) 39 20 * 1650 0.0121
THRU (T) 1138 1138 4950 0.2299 O. 2299
LEFT (L) 52 52 1650 0,0315
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.65
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT =MAST ER. I N T, VOL=BACKGRND. PMV+T RANSCT R. PMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. TAB
STREET NAME:
DUBLIN BOULEVARD
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01
INTERSECT[ON 11 MAIN STREET/CENTRAL PARKWAY CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT ..
........... 148 20 32
<--- v --->
LEFT 50---I 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0
THRU 50 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES)
RIGHT 24 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1
S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
5-PHASE SIGNAL
^
I SpLit? N
1.0
--- 11 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
2.0<--- 126 THRU CENTRAL PARKWAY
1LO --- 106 LEFT
¥
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUHE VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 25 25 1650 0.0152
THRU (T) 13 13 1650 0.0079
LEFT (L) 69 69 1650 0.0418 0.0418
T + R 38 1650 0.0230
SB RIGHT (R) 148 148 1650 0.0897
THRU (T) 20 20 1650 0.0121
LEFT (L) 32 32 1650 0.0194
T + R 168 1650 0.1018 0.1018
EB RIGHT (R) 24 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 50 50 3300 0.0152 0.0152
LEFT (L) 50 50 1650 0.0303
WB RIGHT (R) 11 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 126 126 3300 0.0382
LEFT (L) 106 106 1650 0.0642 0.0642
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.22
iNTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: · A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT~VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants
condition: pm peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01
========================================================================
INTERSECTION 11 MAIN STREET/CENTRAL PARKWAY CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD
^
I
LEFT 172 --- 1.0
THRU 163 ---> 2.0
RIGHT 69 ~-- 1.0
¥
S
RIGHT THRU LEFT 96 18 21
<--- v ---> I SpLit? N
1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0'-- 37 RIGHT
(NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 102 THRU
1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 32 LEFT
LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
5-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
CENTRAL PARKWAY
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=N~ Rur=N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 108 108 1650 0.0655
THRU (T) 26 26 1650 0.0158
LEFT (L) 44 44 1650 0.0267 0.0267
T + R 134 1650 0.0812
SB RIGHT (R) 96 96 1650 0.0582
THRU (T) 18 18 1650 0.0109
LEFT (L) 21 21 1650 0.0127
T + R 114 1650 0.0691 0.0691
EB RIGHT (R) 69 25 * 1650 0.0152
THRU (T) 163 163 3300 0.0494
LEFT (L) 172 172 1650 0.1042 0.1042
WB RIGHT (R) 37 16 * 1650 0.0097
THRU (T) 102 102 3300 0.0309 0.0309
LEFT (L) 32 32 1650 0.0194
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACiTY RATIO: 0.23
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMVoCAP=C;..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 12 MAIN STREET/GLEASON DRIVE CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 0 0 0
<'-- V
LEFT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
THRU 16 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES)
RIGHT 27 --- 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0
I <___ ^
W+E 7 0 9
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
4-PHASE SIGNAL
^
{Split~ N
0.0 -'~ EIGHT
STREET NAME:
2:0<--- 42 THRU GLEASON DRIVE
1.0 --- 1 LEFT
I
v
SIG NARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 9 8 * 1650 0.0048
LEFT (L) 70 70 1650 0.0424 0.0424
EB RIGHT (R) 27 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 16 16 3300 0.0048
WB THRU (T) 42 42 3300 0.0127 0.0127
LEFT (L) I 1 1650 0.0006
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.06
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRNO.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
^
LEFT 0---I 0.0
THRU 54 ---> 2.0
RIGHT 79 --- 1.0
¥
S
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 12 MAIN STREET/GLEASON DRIVE CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 0 0 0
<--- v ---> J Split? N
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
(NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 32 THRU GLEASON DRIVE
1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 --- 2 LEFT
<---^ ---> I
5 0 6 Urb=N, Rur=N
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? M
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 6 4 * 1650 0.0024
LEFT (L) 50 50 1650 0.0303 0.0303
EB RIGHT (R) 79 29 * 1650 0.0176 0.0176
THRU (T) 54 54 3300 0.0164
NB THRU (T) 32 32 3300 0.0097
LEFT (L) 2 2 1650 0.0012 0.0012
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.05
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INToVOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 13 EL CHARRO ROAD/I 580-EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 343 67 0
LEFT 179---I 2.0 1.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 - RIGHT
THRU 0 --~> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES)' 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 236 --- 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
N
N+E 37 46
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: EL CHARRO ROAD
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
I 580 EB RAMPS
SIG NARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 46 46 1800 0.0256
THRU (T) 397 397 3600 0.1103 0.1103
SB RIGHT (R) 343 343 1800 0.1906
THRU (T) 67 67 1800 0.0372
E8 RIGHT (R) 236 236 1800 0.1311
LEFT (L) 179 179 3273 0.0547 0.0547
TOTAL VOLUME-TO*CAPACITY RATIO: 0.17
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
*AOJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM'Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 13 EL CHARRO ROAD/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD
^
LEFT 57~---I 2.0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0
RIGHT 129 ~-- 1.9
¥
S
RIGHT THRU LEFT
608 247 0
1.9 1.0 0.0 0.0: - O- RIGHI
(NO. OF L^HES) 0.0<--- 0 IH~U
0.0 2.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: EL CHARRO R~D
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
I 580 EB RAMPS
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 158 158 1800 0.0878
THRU (T) 296 296 3600 0.0822
SB RIGHT (R) 608 608 1800 0.3378
THRU (T) 247 247 1800 0.1372 0.1372
EB RIGHT (R) 129 129 1800 0.0717
LEFT (L) 5~ 5~ 3273 0.1751 0.1751
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.31
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=HASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base 07/02/01
iNTERSECTION 14 FALLON ROAD/] 580 WB .RAMPS CiTY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
267 396 0
<--- v ---> / Split? N
LEFT 0---I 0.0 1.9 2.0 0.0 2.0--- 384 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU I 580 WB RAMPS
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 43 LEFT
N SIG ~/ARRANTS:
U + E 3 1 3/* Urb=N, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 134 134 1800 0.0744
THRU (T) 351 351 3600 0.0975
SB RIGHT (R) 267 267 1800 0.1483
THRU (T) 396 396 3600 0.1100 0.1100
~B RIGHT (R) 384 384 3273 0.1173 0.117'5
LEFT (L) 43 43 3273 0.0131
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.23
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRHD.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base 07/p2/01
INTERSECTION 14 FALLON ROAD/I 580 ~B RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 417 816 0
I <-'- v '--> ! Split? N
LEFT 0 -" 0.0 1.9 2.0 0.0 2.0 -- 497 RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 63 LEFT
N
~/+E 76 34
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
] 580 WB RAMPS
SIG ~ARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 134 134 1800 0.0744
THRU (T) 756 ~56 3600 0.2100
SB RIGHT (R) 417 617 1800 0.2317
THRU (T) 816 816 3600 0.2267 0.2267
WB RIGHT (R) 497 497 3273 0.1518 0.1518
LEFT (l) 43 43 3273 0.0131
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.38
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base (E+App+Pend) No Proj 06/26/01
INTERSECTION 15 FALLON ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 14 709 0
I
<~-- V
10---'' 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0
LEFT
THRU
RIGHT
N
W+E
S
0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES)
315 - --
¥
2.5 2.O 2.0 0.0
<_._ ^ ___>
J Io
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD
^
0.0 RIGHT
0.0<--- 0 THRU
0.0 --- 0 LEFT
I
V
STREET NAME:
DUBLIN BOULEVARD
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB THRU (T) 357 357 3300 0.1082
LEFT (L) 587 587 3000 0.1957 0.1957
SB RIGHT (R) 14 4 * 1650 0.0024
THRU (T) 709 709 3300 0.2148 0.2148
EB RIGHT (R) 315 0 * 3000 0.0000
LEFT (L) 10 10 1650 0.0061 0.0061
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.42
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT:MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRNO.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base (E+App+Pend) No Proj 06/26/01
INTERSECTION 15 FALLON ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF OUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 46 683 0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0
RIGHT 823 --- 2.5 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
N
W+ E 45 109 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD
4-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
THRU DUBLIN BOULEVARD
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB THRU (T) 1089 1089 3300 0.3300
LEFT (L) 458 458 3000 0.1527 0.1527
SB RIGHT eR) 46 2 * 1650 0.0012
THRU (T) 683 683 3300 0.2070 0.2070
EB RIGHT (R) 823 365 * 3000 0.1217 0.1217
LEFT (l) 44 44 1650 0.0267
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.48
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software byTJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 16 FALLON/CEflTRAL PARKNAY CiTY OF DUBLIN
Count Oate Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT /,-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 10 223 0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 523 --- 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
I < ....... > I
v v
N
W+ E 31 2 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: FALLON
STREET NAME:
CENTRAL PARKNAY
SIG UARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB THRU (T) 52 52 3300 0.0158
LEFT (L) 313 313 3000 0.1043 0.1043
sa RIGHT (R) 10 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 223 223 3300 0.0676 0.0676
EB RIGHT (R) 523 351 * 3000 0.1170 0.1170
LEFT (L) 10 lQ 1650 0.0061
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.29
iNTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON REO
INT=MASTER.iNT0VOL=BACKGRNO.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01
' INTERSECTION 16 FALLON/CENTRAL PARKWAY CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 10 175 0
LEFT 20 .... I 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0
RIGHT 566 --- 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 ~-- 0 LEFT
v v
N
W+E 95 16 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: FALLON
4-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
THRU CENTRAL PARKWAY
WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB THRU CT) 196 196 3300 0.0594
LEFT (L) 957 957 3000 0.3190 0.3190
SB RIGHT (R) 10 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 175 175 3300 0.0530 0.0530
ES RIGHT (R) 566 40 * 3000 0.0133 0.0133
LEFT (L) 20 20 1650 0.0121
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.39
iNTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 17 FALLON ROAD/GLEASON DRIVE CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA HETHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL
LEFT 4 --- 1.0 1.0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO.
RIGBT 88 --- 1.0 1.0
~+E
S LEFT
122 0
2.0 0.0 0.0 - RIGHI
OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
2.0 0.0 0.0 -~-
THRU RIGHT Split? N
0 LEFT
STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD
STREET NAME:
GLEASON DRIVE
S]G WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB THRU (T) 49 49 3300 0.0148
LEFT (L) 5 5 1650 0.0030 0.0030
SB RIGHT (R) 7 3 * 1650 0.0018
THRU (T) 122 122 3300 0.0370 0.0370
EB RIGHT (R) 88 83 * 1650 0.0503 0.0503
LEFT (L) 4 4 1650 0.0024
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.09
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition= pm peak hour; Future Base 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 17 FALLON ROAD/GLEASON DRIVE CiTY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 6 80 0
I <--- V --->
9 --- 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0
^
I Split? N
LEFT 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU GLEASON ORIVE
RIGHT 90 --- 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
v
N SIG WARRANTS:
W + E 10 5 0 Urb=N, Rur=N
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB THRU (T) 85 85 3300 0.0258
LEFT (L) 105 105 1650 0.0636 0.0636
SB RIGHT (R) 6 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 80 80 3300 0.0242 0.0242
EB RIGHT (R) 90 0 * 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 9 9 1650 0.0055 0.0055
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.09
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consuttants
========================================================================
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base - mitigation 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 2 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 300 1974 0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 1834 --- E.O 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
v
N
la+ E 15 4 65
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE
E-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
I 580 EB RAMPS
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 365 365 1800 0.2028
THRU (T) 1524 1524 5400 0.2822
SB RIGHT (R) 300 300 1800 0.1667
THRU (T) 1974 1974 5400 0.3656 0.3656
EB RIGHT (R) 1834 1834 3273 0.5603
LEFT (L) 1777 1777 4695 0.3785 ,
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MITIGa. INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak houri Future Base - mitigation 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 2 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 1286 1618 0
<--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 1382 ...... I 3.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0- 0 RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 218 --- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
I
N
t4 + E 23 6 1 58
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
I 580 EB RAMPS
SIG WARRANTS=
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 1458 1458 1800 0.8100
THRU (T) 2346 2346 5400 0.4344 0.4344
SB RIGHT (R) 1286 1286 1800 0.7144
THRU (T) 1618 1618 5400 0.2996
EB RIGHT (R) 218 218 3273 0.0666
LEFT (l) 1382 1382 4695 0.2944 0.2944
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: O.T'5
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MITIGa. INToVOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base - mitigation 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 3 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 WB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 867 728 0
<-"~ v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 0--~1 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0--- 1151 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU I 580 WB RAMPS
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 3.0 --- 1536 LEFT
N SIG t~ARRANTS:
t4 + E 27 9 69 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (RI 569 569 1800 0.3161
THRU (TI 2729 2729 5400 0.5054 0.5054
SB RIGHT (RI 867 867 1800 0.4817
THRU (T) 728 728 5400 0.1348
~B RIGHT (R) 1151 1151 327'3 0.3517 0.3517
LEFT (L) 1536 1536 4695 0.3272
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.86
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MITIGS.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base - mitigation 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 3 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 WB RAMPS. CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
1994
1.9
2225 0
LEFT 0-~-' 0.0 3;0 0.0
THRU 0 --~> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES)
RIGHT 0 ~-- 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.9
S
^
2.0 J Split? N
--- 500 RIGHT
O.O<--~ 0 THRU
3.0 --- 538 LEFT
I
V
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE
STREET NAME:
I 580 ~B RAMPS
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (RI 1579 1579 1800 0.8772
THRU (T) 2150 2150 5400 0.3981
SB RIGHT (RI 1~4 1~4 1800 1.1078 **
THRU (T) 2225 2225 5400 0.4120 0.4120
~B RIGHT (RI 500 500 327~ 0.1528 0.1528
LEFT (L) 538 538 4695 0.1146
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.56
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED ** APPROACHING OR EXCEEDING CAPACITY
INT=MITIGS-INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants
INTERSECTION 5 SANTA RITA ROAD/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 495 1200 172
<--- v ---> ISpLit? Y
LEFT 1367---I 3.1 1.9 2.0 1.0 2.5 --- 524 RIGHT
THRU 161 ---> 1.1 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--~ 0 THRU
RIGHT 605 --- 1.9 0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 --- 209 LEFT
N
1~+ E 14 5 76
S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: SANTA RITA ROAD
4-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
I 580 EB RAMPS
SIG ~ARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 576 461 * 3000 0.1537
THRU (T) 1455 1455 4950 0.2939
T + R 1916 6300 0.3041 0.3041
SB RIGHT (R) 495 495 1650 0.3000
THRU (T) 1200 1200 3300 0.3636
LEFT (L) 172 172 1650 0.1042 0.1042
EB RIGHT (R) 605 605 1650 0.3667
THRU (T) 161 161 1650 0.0976
LEFT (L) 1367 1367 4304 0.3176
T + L 1528 4304 0.3550 0.3550
~B RIGHT (R) 524 211 * 3000 0.0703 0.0703
LEFT (L) 209 209 3000 0.0697
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.83
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
........................................
INT=MITIGS. INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKH Transportation ConsuLtants
Condition: ~ peak hour;Future Base .~ ~[~:~O'~X 06/29/01
============================================== =========================
INTERSECTIO~ 5 SANTA RITA ROAD/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD
^
LEFT 1232 ---I 3.1
THRU 303 ---> 1.1
RIGHT 183 --~ 1.9
¥
S
RIGHT THRU LEFT
1524 881 221
<--- ¥ ---> I Sprit? Y
1.9 2.0 1.0 2.5 --- 391 RIGHT
(NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 --- 114 LEFT
<''' ^ --->
LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: SANTA RITA ROAD
4-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
I 580 EB RAMPS
SIG ~ARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 594 531 * 3000 0.1770
THRU (T) 1779 1779 4950 0.3594
T + R 2310 6300 0.3667 0.3667
..................................................................... ?-.
SB RIGHT (R) 1524 1524 1650 0.9236 **
THRU (T) 881 881 3300 0.2670
LEFT (L) 221 221 1650 0.1339 0.1339
........................................................................
EB RIGHT (R) 183 183 1650 0.1109
THRU (T) 303 303 1650 0.1836
LEFT (L) 1232 1232 4304 0.2862
T + L 1535 4304 0.3566 0.3566
........................................................................
~8 RIGHT (R) 391 0 * 3000 0.0000
LEFT (L) 114 114 3000 0.0380 0.0380
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.90
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
INT=MITIGa. INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
EXISTING + APPROVED + PENDING + PROJECT CONDITIONS
Table 3.6-4
Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Existing plus Approved plus Pending plus Project (Dublin Model)
Unmitigated Mitigated
Intersection Control
A.M. Peak Hour P.M: Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
* LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS
I Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.75 C 0.88 D
(w/Scarlett Drive Bypass)
2 Hacienda Drive/l-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.93 E 0.87 D 0.75 C 0.74 C
3 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 1.21 F 0.76 C 0.86 D 0.57 A
4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.67 B 0.90 D
5 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.99 E 0.98 E 0.84 D 0.90 D
6 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.80 C 0.82 D
7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.66 B 0.85 D
8 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway** Signal 0.44 A 0.54 A
9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive** Signal 0.52 A 0.60 A
10 Gmfion Street/Dublin Boulevard** Signal 0.55 A 0.72 C
11 Grafion Street/Central Parkway** Signal 0.23 A 0.25 A
12 Graflon Street/Gleason Drive** Signal 0.06 A 0,06 A
13 El Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps** Signal 0.38 A 0.81 D
14 Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps** Signal 0.42 B 0.75 C
15 Falion Road/Dublin Boulevard** Signal 0.54 A 0.83 D
16 Fallon Road/Central Parkway** Signal 0.60 A 0.67 B
17 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive** Signal 0.13 A 0.13 A
18 Street D/Dublin Boulevard One-Way STOP 13.4 C 140.1 F
Street D/Dublin Boulevard- Mitigated Signal ........ 0.22 A 0.31 A
19 Fallon Road/"Project Road" One-Way STOP 60.7 F 50.0 F
Fallon Road/"Project Road"** Signal ........ 0.42 A 0.41 A
20 Street D/Central Parkway One-Way STOP 3.3 A 3.9 A
21 Street B/Central Parkway One-Way STOP 3.2 A 3.2 A
Note: * = Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections; ~
Average Delay in Seconds for stopping and yielding movements at l-way STOP-controlled intersections.
· * ~ Traffic signals at these intersections are either under construction or are anticipated to be installed in the futt,re.
LOS Soft.are by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants ~ ~j 0~
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/26/01
INTERSECTION t DOUGHERTY ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 49 1568 288
<--- v ---> [ sprit? N
LEFT ~9---I 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0--- 149 RIGHT
THRU 898 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2,0<.-~ 495 THRU
RIGHT 569 --- 2.5 3.0 3.1 2.1 3.0 --- 381 LEFT
v v
N
g + E 69 8 7 1 04
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Sprit? N
STREET NAME: DOUGHERTY ROAD
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
DUBLIN BOULEVARD
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y~ Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 1104 958 * 3000 0.3193
THRU (T) 807 807 4950 0.1630
LEFT (L) 693 693 4304 0.1610 0.1610
T + R 1765 6300 0.2802
SB RIGHT (R) 49 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1568 1568 4950 0.3168 0.3168
LEFT (L) 288 288 3000 0.0960
EB RIGHT (R) 569 86 * 3000 0.0287
THRU (T) 898 898 4950 0.1814 0.1814
LEFT (L) 49 49 1650 0.0297
WB RIGHT (R) 149 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 495 495 3300 0.1500
LEFT (L) 381 381 4304 0.0885 0.0885
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.75
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+MIDPT.AMV,CAP=C:--LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/26/01
INTERSECTION 1 DOUGHERTY ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 66 1050 280
<--- v ---> / Sprit? N
LEFT 103---I 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0'-- 344 RIGHT
THRU 915 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 1029 THRU
RIGHT 939 --- 2.5 3.0 3.1 2.1 3.0 --- 1075 LEFT
v
N SIG ~ARRANTS:
W + E 99 13 1 59 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: DOUGHERTY ROAD
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 359 0 * 3000
THRU (T) 1351 1351 4950.
LEFT (L) 999 999 4304
T + R 1351 6300
SB RIGHT(R) 66 0 * 1650
THRU (T) 1050 1050 4950
LEFT (L) 280 280 3000
EB RIGHT (R) 939 243 * 3000
THRU (T) 915 915 4950
LEFT (L) 103 103 1650
STREET NAME:
DUBLIN BOULEVARD
0.0000
0.2729
0.2321 0.2321
0.2144
0.0000
0.2121 0.2121
0.0933
0.0810
0.1848 0.1848
0.0624
WB RIGHT (R) 344 190 * 1650 0.1152
THRU (T) 1029 1029 3300 0.3118
LEFT (L) 1075 1075 4304 0.2498 0.2498
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.88
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+MIDPT.PMV,CAP=C:-.LOSCAP-TAB
'tware by TJKM Transportation Consultants ~Jl/ OOt~) ~[
,0n: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/26/01
I"-TION
~te
A
!~98 ---> 3.0
~69 --- 2.5
I
¥
1 DOUGHERTY ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN
Time
:rHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
49 1568 288
'<=-- V --->
1.0 3.0 2.0
(NO. OF LANES)
3.0 3.1 2,1
LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: DOUGHERTY ROAD
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED
~ 4ENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPAC 1TY
Peak Hour
8-PHASE SIGNAL
^
SpLit? N
1.0 =-- 149 RIGHT
2.0<--- 495
3.0 --- 381 LEFT
¥
STREET NAME:
THRU DUBLIN BOULEVARD
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
V/C CRITICAL
RATIO V/C
liT (R) 1104 958 * 3000 0.3193
lJ (T) 807 807 4950 0.1630
3r (L) 693 693 4304 0.1610
R 1765 6300 0.2802
I~T (R) 49 0 * 1650 0.0000
IJ (T) 1568 1568 4950 0.3168
'[ (L) 288 288 3000 0.0960
I~T (R) 569 86* 3000 0.0287
IJ (T) 898 898 4950 0.1814
'f (L) 49 49 1650 0.0297
I~T (R) 149 0 * 1650 0.0000
Id (T) 495 495 3300 0.1500
'r (L) 381 381 4304 0.0885
'fAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
'TERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
0.1610
0.3168
0.1814
0.0885
0.75
C
TED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
'TER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+MIDPT.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
10S Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants
Condition: pm peak houri Future Base + Project 06/26/01
INTERSECTION 1DOUGHERTY ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 66 1050 280
<--- v ---> J Split? N
LEFT 103---I 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 --- 344 RIGHT
THRU 915 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 1029
RIGHT 939 --- 2.5 3.0 3.1 2.1 3.0 --- 1075 LEFT
W+ E 9 13 1 59
S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: DOUGHERTY ROAD
STREET NAME:
THRU DUBLIN BOULEVARD
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 359 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 1351 1351 4950. 0.2729
LEFT (L) 999 999 4304 0.2321 0.2321
T + R 1351 6300 0.2144
SB RIGHT (R) 66 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1050 1050 4950 0.2121 0.2121
LEFT (L) 280 280 3000 0.0933
EB RIGHT (R) 939 243 * 3000 0.0810 - -'
THRU (T) 915 915 4950 0.1848 0.1848
LEFT (L) 103 103 1650 0.0624
WB RIGHT (R) 344 190 * 1650 0.1152
THRU (T) 1029 1029 3300 0.3118
LEFT (L) 1075 1075 4304 0.2498 0.2498
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.88
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+MIDPT.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01
iNTERSECT[ON 2 HACIENDA DRIVE/! 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD 2-PHASE SIGNAL
LEFT 1777---I 2.0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0
RIGHT 1834 --- 2.0
¥
S
RIGHT THRU LEFT
300 2007 0
<--- V --->
1.9 3.0 0.0
(NO. OF LANES) 0.0<---
0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE
I Split? N .
0.0
--- 0 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
0 THRU
0 LEFT
580 EB RAMPS
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 365 365 1800 0.2028
THRU (T) 1551 1551 5400 0.2872
SB RIGHT (R) 300 300 1800 0.1667
THRU (T) 2007 2007 5400 0.3717 0.3717
EB RIGHT (R) 1834 1834 3273 0.5603 0.5603
LEFT (L) 1777 1777 3273 0.5429
========================================================================
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.93
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E
w ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV+MIDPT.AMV~CAP=C:--LOSCAP-
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 2 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Oate Time Peak Hour
........................... L ............................................
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 1286 1669 0
<--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 1382---[ 2.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- O THRU ! 580 EB RAMPS
RIGHT 218 --- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
N SIG WARRANTS:
W + E 24 0 1 58 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: HACIENDA ORIVE
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 1458 1458 1800 0.8100
THRU (T) 2400 2400 5400 0.4444 0.4444
SB RIGHT (R) 1286 1286 1800 0.7144
THRU (T) 1669 1669 5400 0.3091
EB RIGHT (R) 218 218 3273 0.0666
LEFT (L) 1382 1382 3273 0.4222 0.4222
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.87
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
1NT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+MIDPT.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.
LEFT 0---I 0.0
THRU 0 ~~-> 0.0
RIGHT ~0 --- 0.0
I
¥
N+E
S
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01
INTERSECTION ] HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 WB RAHPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 867 761 0
<--- v ---> I SpLit? N
1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 --- 1151 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
(NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU I 580 NB RAMPS
0.0 2.0 1.9 2,0 --- 1536 LEFT
27 6 69 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 569 ....... ~ ....... ;~ ..... ~:~;~; ...... :~-~ .....
THRU (T) 2756 2756 ~O~JGa~ 0.7656 ~
SB RIGHT (R) 867 867 1800 0.4817
THRU (T) 761 761 5400 0.1409
NB RIGHT (R) 1151 1151 3273 0.3517
LEFT (L) 1536 1536 3273 0.4693 0.4693
..... ;;;~=;;~;:;;:;;;;;?;;=;;;?;? ......................... ~=~--~=
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: F
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NASTER.iNT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV+MiDPT.AMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP-
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 3 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 NB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 1~94 2276 0
J <--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 0 --- 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 --- 500 RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 538 LEFT
v
N
N + E 22 4 1 79
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
1 580 NB RAMPS
SIG NARRANTS:
Urb=Y~ Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
THRU (T) 2204 2204 ~0"~368~* 0.6122
SB RIGHT (R) 1994 1994 1800 1.1078 **
THRU (T) 2276 2276 5400 0.4215
NB RIGHT (R) 500 500 3273 0.1528
LEFT (L) 538 538 327"3 0.1644 0.1644
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+MIDPT.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 4 HACIENDA DRIVE/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA HETHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 388 622 110
<--- v .... > I Split? N
LEFT 152---J 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0--- 114 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 757 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 1032 THRU DUBLIN BOULEVARD
RIGHT 260 --- 2.5 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 530 LEFT
I < ....... > I
v
N SIG t4ARRANTS:
14 + E 6 4 6 25 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPAC I TY RAT I 0 V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 525 234 * 1650 0.1418
THRU (T) 436 436 3300 0.1321
LEFT (L) 673 673 4304 0.1564 0.1564
..... ........ ..... ..... ..... --'
THRU (T) 622 622 4950 0.1257
LEFT (L) 110 110 3000 0.0367
EB RIGHT (R) 260 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 757 757 4950 0.1529 0.1529
LEFT (L) 152 152 3000 0.0507
WB RIGHT (R) 114 54 * 1650 0.0327
THRU (T) 1032 1032 4950 0.2085
LEFT (L) 530 530 3000 0.1767' 0.1767
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.67
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
1N T=MAST ER. l NT, VOL =BACKGRND. AMV+TRANSCTR. AMV+N I OPT. AMY, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP.
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 4 HACIENDA DRIVE/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 268 764 179
<--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 361 ......I 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 105 RIGHT
THRU 1915 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 1111 THRU
RIGHT 678 --- 2.5 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 817 LEFT
N
14 + E 38 5 I ~ 38
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
DUBLIN BOULEVARD
SIG NARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 638 189 * 1650 0.1145
THRU (T) 581 581 3300 0.1761
LEFT (L) 381 381 4304 0.0885 0.0885
SB RIGHT (R) 268 69 * 1650 0.0418
THRU (T) 764 764 4950 0.1543 0.1543
LEFT (L) 179 179 3000 0.0597
EB RIGHT (R) 678 412 * ]000 0.1373
THRU (T) 1915 1915 4950 0.3869 0.3869
LEFT (L) 361 361 3000 0.1203
WB RIGHT (R) 105 7 * 1650 0.0042
THRU (T) 1111 1111 4950 0.2244
LEFT (L) 817 817 3000 0.2723 0.2723
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.90
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=HASTER.INT~VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+M1DPT.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour;Future Base + Project 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 5 SANTA RITA ROAD/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 495 1233 172
<~-~ v ---> J Split? Y
LEFT 1367---I 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.0 2.0--- 524 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 161 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU I 580 EB RAMPS
RIGHT 605 --- 1.9 0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 --- 209 LEFT
v
N SIG WARRANTS:
W + E 14 2 76 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: SANTA RITA ROAD
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUHE VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 576 461 * 3000 0.1537
THRU (T) 1482 1482 4950 0.2994
T + R t943 6300 0.3084 0.3084
SB RIGHT (R) 495 495 1650 0.3000
THRU (T) 1233 1233 3300 0.3~6
LEFT (LB 172 172 1650 0.1042 0.1042
EB RIGHT (R) 605 605 1650 0.3667
THRU (T) 161 161 1650 0.0976
LEFT (LB 1367 1367 3000 0.4557 0.4557
WB RIGHT (R) 524 352 * 3000 0.1175 0.1173
LEFT (LB 209 209 3000 0.0697
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.99
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
iNT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANRC~g-AMV+M[DPT-AMV,CAP=C:-'LO~A~:.~
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: ~ peak hour;Future Base + Project 06/29/01
========================================================================
INTERSECTION 5 SANTA RITA ROAD/[ 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 1524 932 221
<--- v ---> { Split? Y
LEFT 1232---{ 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 391 RIGHT
THRU 303 ---> 1.0 CNO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 183 --- 1.9 0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 --- 114 LEFT
v Ill v
N
W+ E 18 3 94
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: SANTA RITA ROAD
4-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
I 580 EB RAMPS
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 594 531 * 3000 0.1770
THRU (T) 1833 1833 4950 0.3703
T + R 2364 6300 0.3752 0.3752
SB RIGHT (R) 1524 1524 1650 0.9236 **
THRU (T) 932 932 3300 0.2824
LEFT (L) 221 221 1650 0.1339 0.1339
EB RIGHT (R) 183 183 1650 0.1109
THRU (T) 303 303 1650 0.1836
LEFT (lB 1232 1232 3000 0.4107 0.4107
WB RIGHT (R) 391 170 * 3000 0.0567 0.0567
LEFT (lB 114 114 3000 0.0380
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.98
INTERSECT[ON LEVEL OF SERVICE: E
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED ** APPROACHING OR EXCEEDING CAPACITY
INT=MASTER.INT~VOL=BACKGRND,PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+MIDPT-PMV,CAP=C:.-LOSCAP-
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 6 TASSAJARA ROAD/I 580 NB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 1027 1280 0
LEFT 0 .... J 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 894 LEFT
v v
N
W+E 19319/+
S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAD
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
I 580 WB RAMPS
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 1094 1094 1800 0.60?8
THRU (T) 1903 1903 3600 0.5286 0.5286
SB RIGHT (R) 1027 1027 1800 0.5706
THRU (T) 1280 1280 5400 0.2370
WB RIGHT (R) 738 738 3273 0.2255
LEFT (L) 894 894 3273 0.2731 0.2T31
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.80
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT~VOL=BACKGRND~AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV+MIDPT.AMV,CAP=C~..LOSCAP.
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 6 TASSAJARA ROAD/I 580 WB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Oate Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD
^
I
LEFT 0 --- 0.0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0
I
¥
W+E
S
RIGHT THRU LEFT
1~62 28~ 0
<--- ¥ ---> / SpLit? N
1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0:-- 454 R1GHT
(NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 500 LEFT
~-'- ^ ---> I
LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: TASSAdARA ROAD
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
I 580 WB RAMPS
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 575 575 1800 0.3194
THRU (T) 2405 2405 3600 0.6681 0.6681
SB RIGHT (R) 1362 1362 1800 0.7567
THRU (T) 2874 2874 5400 0.5322
WB RIGHT (R) 454 454 3273 0.1387
LEFT (L) 500 500 327"5 0.1528 0.1528
TOTAL VOLUME~TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.82
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+MIDPT.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP,
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants'
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01
INTERSECTION. 7 TASSAJARA ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 243 1424 111
<--- V
LEFT 103 --*1 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0
THRU 793 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES)
RIGHT 338 --- 2.5 3.0 4.0 1.0 3.0
v
N
14+E 81 61 2
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAO
8-PHASE SIGNAL
I Split? N
1.0 --- 25 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
3.0<--- 587 THRU DUBLIN BOULEVARD
397 LEFT
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 662 510 * 1650 0.3091
THRU (T) 641 641 6600. 0.0971
LEFT (L) 817 817 4304 0.1898 0.1898
SB RIGHT (R) 243 186 * 3000 0.0620 .
THRU (T) 1424 1424 6600 0.2158 0.2158
LEFT (L) 111 111 3000 0.0370
EB RIGHT (R) 338 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 793 793 4950 0.1602 0.1602
LEFT (L) 103 103 3000 0.0343
WB RIGHT (R) 25 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 587 587 4950 0.1186
LEFT (L) 397 397 4304 0.0922 0.0922
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.66
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
iNT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR-AMV+MIDPT-AMV,CAP=C:--LOSCAP-
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 7 TASSAJARA ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CiTY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 123 1099 77
<-'' V --->
LEFT 399 ---I 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0
THRU 918 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES)
RIGHT 1297 --~ 2.5 3.0 4.0 1.0
<_.. ^ __.>
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAD
B-PHASE SIGNAL
I Split? N
1.0 --- 143 RIGHT
3.0<--- 1130
3.0 --- 1071 LEFT
I
v
STREET NAME:
THRU DUBLIN BOULEVARD
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 647 236 * 1650 0.1430
THRU (T) 1562 1562 6600 0.2367
LEFT (L) 474 474 4304 0.1101 0.1101
SB RIGHT (R) 123 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 1099 1099 6600 0.1665 0.1665
LEFT (L) 77 77 3000 0.0257
EB RIGHT (R) 1297 967 * 3000 0.3223 0.3223
THRU (T) 918 918 4950 0.1855
LEFT (L) 399 3~) 3000 0.1330
WB RIGHT (R) 143 101 * 1650 0.0612
THRU (T) 1130 1130 4950 0.2283
LEFT (L) 1071 1071 4304 0.2488 0.2488
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.85
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR-PMV+MIDPT-PMV,CAP=C:--LOSCAP-
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base +* Project 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 8 TASSAJARA ROAD/CENTRAL PARKWAY CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 6 1405 24
LEFT 31 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 - RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 63 -~-> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<""- 183 THRU CENTRAL PARKWAY
RIGHT 65 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 .... 226 LEFT
v
N SIG WARRANTS:
la + E 4 5 9 65 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: TASSAdARA ROAD
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPAC I TY RAT I 0 V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 65 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 589 589 4950' 0.1190
LEFT (L) 46 46 1650 0.0279 0.0279
SB RIGHT (R) 6 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1405 1405 4950 0.2838 0.2838
LEFT (L) 24 24 1650 0.0145
EB RIGHT (R) 65 19 * 1650 0.0115
THRU (T) 63 63 1650 0.0382
LEFT (L) 31 31 1650 0.0188 0.0188
laB RIGHT (R) 39 15 * 1650 0.0091
THRU (T) 183 183 1650 0.1109 0.1109
LEFT (L) 226 226 3000 0.0753
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.44
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
I NT=MAST ER. ] NT ~ VOL=BACKGRND. AMV+TRAN SCTR. AMV+M I DPT. AMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP.
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants '
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base+ Project 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 8 TASSAJARA ROAD/CENTRAL PARKWAY CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 8 999 54
<--- v---> I
LEFT 10---I 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0---,,, RIG,T
THRU 234 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 124 THRU
RIGHT 117 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 143 LEFT
N
W+ E 8 15 0 39
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAD
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
CENTRAL PARKWAY
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 239 160 * 1650 0.0970
THRU (T) 1560 1560 4950 0.3152 0.3152
LEFT (L) 81 81 1650 0.0491
SB RIGHT (R) 8 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 999 999 4950 0.2018
LEFT (L) 54 54 1650 0.0327 0.0327
E8 RIGHT (R) , 117 36 * 1650 0.0218
THRU (T) 234 234 1650 0.1418 0.1418
LEFT (L) 10 10 1650 0.0061
lab RIGHT (R) 43 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 124 124 1650 0.0752
LEFT (L) 143 143 3000 0.0477 0.0477
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.54
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRNO.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+MIDPT'PMV,CAP=C:''LOSCAP'
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 9 TASSAJARA ROAD/GLEASON DRIVE CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... )64 1)61 )5
<--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 111 ......I 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 64 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 9 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 27 THRU GLEASON DRIVE
RIGHT 36 --- 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 --- 38 LEFT
I < ....... > I
v v
N SIG IdARRANTS:
~d + E 15 4 5 12 UPb=B, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAD
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 12 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 495 495 3300 0.1500
LEFT (l) 15) 153 3000 0.0510 0.0510
SB RIGHT (R) 364 303 * 1650 0.18)6
THRU (T) 1361 1361 3300 0.4124 0.4124
LEFT (L) 35 35 1650 0.0212
EB RIGHT (R) 36 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 9 9 3)00 0.0027
LEFT (L) 111 111 3000 0.0)?0 0.0370
WB RIGHT (r) 64 29 * 1650 0.0176 0.0176
THRU (T) 27 27 3300 0.0082
LEFT (L) 38 38 3000 0.0127
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.52
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV+MIDPT.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 9 TASSAJARA ROAD/GLEASON DRIVE CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 162 888 88
<--- v ---> !
LEFT ))9 .... I 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU )0 -~-~ 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0~~-- 17 THRU GLEASON DRIVE
RIGHT 155 --- 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 --- 24 LEFT
v
N SIG ~]ARRANTS:
W + E 13 14 8 4) Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: TASSAJARA ROAD
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRLTICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 45 30 * )000 0.0100
THRU (T) 1408 1408 3300 0.4267 0.4267
LEFT (L) 139 139 3000 0.0,463
SB RIGHT (R) 162 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 888 888 3300 0.2691
LEFT (L) 88 88 1650 0.0533 0.0533
T,RU CT) )0 30 )000.0091
LEFT eL) )39 ))9 3000o.11)o o.113o
~B RIGHT (R) 66 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 17 17 3300 0.0052 0.0052
LEFT (L) 24 24 3000 0.0080
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.60
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+MIDPT.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01
INTERSECTION IO MAIN STREET/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 178 123 40
[ <--- v ---' [ Spt it~ N
LEFI 37 --- 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 --- RIGHT
THRU 989 ---> 3.0 (NO, OF LANES) 3.0<--- 526 THRU
RIGHT 523 --- 1.0 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 84 LEFT
S LEFT THRU RIGHI Split? N
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
DUBLIN BOULEVARD
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB .RIGHT (R) 19 19 1650 0.0115
THRU (T) 29 29 1650 0.0176
LEFT (L) 157 157 3000 0.0523 0.0523
T + R 48 1650 0.0291
SB RIGHT (R) 17§ 178 1650 0.1079
THRU (T) 123 123 1650 0.0745
LEFT (L) 40 40 1650 0.0242
T + R 301 1650 0.1824 0.1824
EB RIGHT (R) 523 437 * 1650 0.2648 0.2648
THRU (l) 989 989 4950 0.1~8
LEFT (L) 37 37 1650 0.0224
WB RIGHT (R) 8 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 526 526 4950 0.1063
LEFT (L) 84 84 1650 0.0509 0.0509
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.55
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
1NT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR'AMV+MIDPT'AMV'CAP=C:"LOSCAP'
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01
......................................................................
Count Date Time Peak Hour
.......................................................................
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8~PHASE SIGNAL
........... 87 39 19
<--= V
LEFT 182 ---I 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0
THRU 1125 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES)
RIGHT 212 --- 1.0 2.0 1.1 1.1
V
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
OR I G ! NAL ADJUSTED V/C CR 1T I CAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPAC I TY RAT I 0 V/C
........................................................................
NB RIGHT (R) 85 85 1650 0.0515
THRU (T) 127 127 1650 0.0770
LEFT (L) 692 692 3000 0.2307 0.2307
T + R 212 1650 0.1285
........................................................................
SB RIGHT (R) 87 87 1650 0.0527
THRU (T) 39 39 1650 0.0236
LEFT (L) 19 19 1650 0.0115
T + R 126 1650 0.0764 0.0764
........................................................................
EB RIGHT (R) 212 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1125 1125 4950 0.2273
LEFT (L) 182 182 1650 0.1103 0.1103
........................................................................
WB RIGHT (R) 39 20 * 1650 0.0121
THRU (T) 1522 1522 4950 0.3075 0.3075
LEFT (L) 52 52 1650 0.0315
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.72
INTERSECIION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
I NT =MAST ER. I NT, VOL=BACKGRND. PMV+T RAN SCTR. PMV+M I DPT. PMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP -
Split? N
1.0 =-- 39 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
3.0<--- 1522 THRU DUBLIN BOULEVARD
1.0 --" 52 LEFT
I
V
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 11 MAIN STREET/CENTRAL PARKbiAY CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 5'PHASE SIGNAL
........... 148 20 32
<--- v ---> I Sprit? NRiGHT
LEFT 50 ...... I 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 11
STREET NAME.'
THRU 71 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 181 THRU CENTRAL PARKL4AY
RIGHT 24 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 106 LEFT
v v
N SIG biARRANTS:
bi + E 6 3 25 UPb=No Rur=N
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (Ri 25 25 1650 0.0152
THRU (Ti 13 13 1650 0.0079
LEFT (L) 69 69 1650 0.0418 0.0418
T + R 38 1650 0.0230
SB RIGHT (Ri 148 148 1650 0.0897
THRU (Ti 20 20 1650 0.0121
LEFT (L) 32 32 1650 0.0194
T + R 168 1650 .0.1018 0.1018
EB RIGHT (Ri 24 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (Ti 71 71 3300 0.0215 0.0215
LEFT (L) 50 50 1650 0.0303
WB RIGHT (Ri 11 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (Ti 181 181 3300 0.0548
LEFT (L) 106 106 1650 0.0642 0.0642
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.23
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR~AMV+MIDPT.AMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 11 MAIN STREET/CENTRAL PARKbiAY CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 5-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 96 18 21
STREET NAME:
THRU 259 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<~~- 15/, THRU CENTRAL PARKbiAY
RIGHT 69 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- ]2 LEFT
N SIG WARRANTS:
W + E 4 6 08 Urb=N, Rur=N
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (Ri 108 108 1650 0.0655
THRU (T) 26 26 1650 0.0158
LEFT (L) 44 44 1650 0.0267 0.0267
T + R 1~4 1650 0.0812
SB RIGHT (Ri 96 96 1650 0.0582
THRU (Ti 18 18 1650 0.0109
LEFT (L) 21 21 1650 0.0127
T + R 114 1650 0.0691 0.0691
EB RIGHT (Ri 69 25 * 1650 0.0152
THRU (Ti 239 239 3300 0.0724
LEFT (L) 172 172 1650 0.1042 0.1042
bib RIGHT (Ri ]7 i~-; ..... i~ ..... ~:~ ..................
THRU (Ti 154 15/, ~00 0.0467 0.0467
LEFT (L) ~2 ~2 1650
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.25
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+MIDPT.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.
^
LEFT 0 --- 0.0
THRU 29 ---> 2.0
RIGHT 27 ---
¥
W+E
S
LOS Software by TJKN Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01
IHTERSECTION 12 MAIN STREET/GLEASON DRIVE CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 0 0 0
<--- v ---> I Sprit? N
0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT
STREET NAME=
(kO. OF LAHES) 2.0<°-° 59 THRU GLEASON DRIVE
1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 --- 1 LEFT
7 0 9 Urb=N, Rur=N
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 9 8 * 1650 0.0048
LEFT (L) 70 70 1650 0.042/+ 0.042/+
EB RIGHT (R) 27 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 29 29 3300 0.0088
WB THRU (T) 59 59 3300 0.0179 0.0179
LEFT (L) 1 I 1650 0.0006
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.06
INTERSECTIOk LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
iNT=MRSTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR-AMV+MIOPT-AMV,CAP=C:"LO$CAP'
^
LEFT 0---I' 0.0
THRU 81 ---> 2.0
RIGHT 79 ---
I
¥
S
LOS Software bi/ TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 12 MAIN STREET/GLEASON DRIVE CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Oate Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT /+-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 0 0 0
<--- v ---> I sprit? N
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ---'0 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
(NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 58 THRU GLEASON DRIVE
1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 --- 2 LEFT
5 0 6 Urb=N, Rur=N
LEFT THRU RIGHT Sprit? N
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
ORIGINAL ADdUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 6 /+ * 1650 0.00;)6
LEFT (L) 50 50 1650 0.0303 0.0303
EB RIGHT (R) 79 29 * 1650 0,.0176
THRU (T) 81 81 3300 0.0245 0.0245
WB THRU (T) 58 58 3300 0.0176
LEFT (L) 2 2 1650 0.0012 0.0012
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.06
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
I MT=MAST ER. INT, VOL=BACKGRND. PMV+TRAHSCTR. PMV+M 1 DPT. PMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP-
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 13 EL CHARRO ROAD/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 446 391 0
<--- v ---> I Split! N
LEFT531---I 2.o 1.9 1.oo.o o.o --- u RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<~-- 0 THRU I 580 EB RAMPS
RIGHT 236 --- 1.9 0.0 2.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
v
N SIG laARRANIS:
~ + E 6 4 46 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: EL CHARRO ROAD
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 46 46 1800 0.0256
THRU (T) 674 674 3600 0.1872
SB RIGHT (R) 446 446 1800 0.2478
THRU (T) 391 391 1800 0.2172 0.2172
EB RIGHT (R) 236 236 1800 0.1311
LEFT (L) 531 531 327'5 0.1622 0.1622
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.38
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV+MIDPT.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 13 EL CHARRO ROAD/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD
^
LEFT 1255 ---I 2.0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0
RIGHT 129 --' 1.9
I
¥
~+E
S
RIGHT THRU LEFT
776 776 0
<--- v ---> I Split? N
1.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT
(NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
0.0 2.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
<--- ^ ''';> I
L v
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: EL CHARRO ROAD
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
I 580 EB RAMPS
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 158 158 1800 0.0878
THRU (T) 835 835 3600 0.2319
S8 RIGHT (R) 776 776 1800 0.4311
THRU (T) 776 776 1800 0.4311 0.4311
EB RIGHT (R) 129 129 1800 0.0717
LEFT (L) 1255 1255 3273 0.3834 0.3834
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.81
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+MIDPT.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.
677 823 0
I <--- v '--> I Split? N
LEFT 0 '~- 0.0 1.9 2.0 0.0 2.0 --- 472 R]GHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU I 580 WB RAHPS
RIGHT ~ --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 43 LEFT
N SIG WARRANTS:
W + E 9 0 34 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 14 FALLON ROAD/] 580 WB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD
OR]G]NAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUHE VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 134 134 1800 0.0744
THRU (T) 980 980 3600 0.2722 0.2722
SB RIGHT (R) 6~ 677 1800 0.3761
THRU (T) 823 823 3600 0.2280
WB RIGHT (R) 472 472 3273 0.1442 0.1442
LEFT (L) 43 43 3273 0.0131
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.42
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
iNT=MASTER.INT~VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR-AMV+MIOPT-AMV,CAP=C:"LOSCAP'
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 14 FALLON ROAD/I 580 WB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 1088 1513 0
<--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 0---J 0.0 1.9 2.0 0.0 2.0"-- 668 RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 43 LEFT
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split?'N
STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
1 580 WB RAMPS
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 134 134 1800 0.0744
THRU (T) 1977 1977 3600 0.5492 0.5492
SB RIGHT (R) 1088 1088 1800 0.6044
THRU (T) 1513 1513 3600 0.4203
WB RIGHT (RI 668 668 3273 0.2041 0.2041
LEFT (L) 43 43 3273 0.0131
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.75
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON REO
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR-PMV+MIDPT-PMV,CAP=C:''LOSCAP'
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 15 FALLON ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 193 1392 152
v--->
THRU 141 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 48 THRU
RIGHT 31~ ---1.5 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 --- 154 LEFT
N SIG WARRANTS:
W + E 58 6 4 70 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD
OR]GINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 470 411 * 3000 0.1370
THRU (T) 604 604 4950 0.1220
LEFT (L) 587 587 3000 0.1957 0.1957
SB RIGHT (R) 193 119 * 1650 0.0721
THRU (T) 1392 1392 4950 0.2812 0.2812
LEFT (L) 152 152 3000 0.0507
EB RIGHT (R) 315 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 141 t41 4950 0.0285 0.0285
LEFT (L) 74 74 1650 0.0448
WB RIGHT (R) 64 0 * 1650 O.OOOO
THRU (T) 48 48 4950 0.0097
LEFT (L) 154 154 4304 0.0358 0.0358
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.54
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANS~TR.AMV+MIDPT.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.
STREET NAME:
DUBLIN BOULEVARD
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
========================================================================
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 15 FALLON ROAD/DUBLIN BOULEVARD CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 191 1253 181
<--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 272---I 1,0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 --- 246 RIGHT
THRU 929 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 239 THRU
RIGHT 548 --- 1.5 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 --- 797 LEFT
v v
N
W + E 45 19 2 08
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
DUBLIN BOULEVARD
S[G WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 508 202 * 3000 0.0673
THRU (T) 1972 1972 4950 0.3984 0.3984
LEFT (l) 458 458 3000 0.1527
SB RIGHT (R) 191 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1253 1253 4950 0.2531
LEFT (L) 181 181 3000 0.0603 0.0603
~--~;~-i~; ..... ~ ........ ~¢;-; ..... ;;;; ..... ~:;~¢~ ..................
THRU (T) 929 929 4950 0.1877 0.1877
LEFT (l) 272 272 1650 0.1648
~'-~;~;*i~; ..... ~; ........ ;~;-; ..... ;;¢; ..... ;:;~ ..................
THRU (T) 239 239 4950 0.0483
LEFT (L) 797 797 4304 0.1852 0.1852
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.83
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+MIDPT.PMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 16 FALLOW/CENTRAL PARKWAY CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
3O 9O7 5
THRU 10 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 35 THRU
RIGHT 523 --- 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 315 LEFT
. v j jo L v
W+E
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: FALLON
STREET NAME:
CENTRAL PARKWAY
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (ET 85 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 340 340 3300 0.1030
LEFT (L) 313 313 3000 0.1043 0.1043
SB RIGHT (R) 30 9 * 1650 0.0055
THRU CT) 907 907 3300 0.2748 0.2148
LEFT (L) 5 5 1650 0.0030
EB RIGHT (R) 523 351 * 3000 0.1170 0.1170
THRU (T) . 10 10 1650 0.0061
LEFT (L) 21 21 1650
WB RIGHT (R) 19 19 1650 0.0115
THRU (T) 35 35 1650 0.0212
LEFT (L) 315 315 3000 0.1050 0.1050
T + R 54 1650 0.0327
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.60
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADdUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
iNT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANScTR-AMV+MIDPT-AMV,CAP=C:''LOSCAP'
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 16 FALLON/CENTRAL PARKWAY CITY OF DUBLIN
COunt Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 41 885 21
i <--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 58 --' 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.1 --- 11 RIGHT
THRU 38 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--" 21 THRU
RIGHT 566 --- 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 180 LEFT
N SIG WARP. ANTS:
W + E 95 12 1 37 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: FALLON
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPAC I TY RAT I 0 V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 337 238 * 1650 0.1442
THRU (T) 1201 1201 3300 0.3639
LEFT (l) 957 957 3000 0.3190 0.3190
SB RIGHT (R) 41 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 8(35 885 3300 0.2682 0.2682
LEFT (L) 21 21 1650 0.0127
EB RIGHT (R) 566 40 * 3000 0.0133
THRU (T) 38 38 1650 0.0230 0.0230
LEFT (L) 58 58 1650 0.0352
WB RIGHT (R) 11 11 1650 0.0067
THRU (T) 21 21 1650 0.0127
LEFT (L) 180 180 3000 0.0600 0.0600
32 1650 0.0194
T+R ....... ~___
............................................................. .......
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
I NT =MAST ER. I N T, VOL=BACKGRN D. PMV+T RAN SCT R. PMV+M I DP T. PMV, CAP=£: -. LOSCAP.
STREET NAME:
CENTRAL PARKWAY
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base +' Project 06/29/01
iNTERSECTION 17 FALLON ROAD/GLEASON DRIVE CiTY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 7 203 0
THRU 0 -""> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 115 --- 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 .... 0 LEFT
I
N
W+E 3 16 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD
4-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
GLEASON DRIVE
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB THRU (T) 126 126 3300 0.0382
LEFT (L) 31 31 1650' 0.0188 0.0188
SB RIGHT (R) 7 3 * 1650 0.0018
THRU (T) 203 203 3300 0.0615 0.0615
EB RIGHT (R) 115 84 * 1650 0.0509 0.0509
LEFT (L) 4 4 1650 0.0024
========================================================================
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.13
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
........................................
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV+MIDPT.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consuttants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 17 FALLON ROAD/GLEASON DRIVE CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 6 161 0
<--- v ---> J Split? N
LEFT 9 ...... I 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0 RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 117 --- 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
v v
N
W+E 13 12 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD
4-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
GLEASON DRIVE
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB THRU (T) 162 162 3300 0.0491
LEFT (L) 131 131 1650 0.0794 0.0794
THRU (T) 161 161 3300 0.0488 0.0488
EB RIGHT (R) 117 0 * 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 9 9 1650 0.0055 0.0055
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACiTY RATIO: 0.13
iNTERSECTiON LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+MiDPT.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base +-Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 18 Street D/Dublin Blvd. Dublin
Count Date Time Peak Hour
94 HCM Unsignal
49 0 169
<~-- V --->
16"--I 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 --- 52
400 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 156
0 --- 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0---- 0
v 1{I v
W+E { 0 0
S
ACCEL % % PEAK HOUR
LANE % COHBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR .....
FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT
N 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
ORIG ADJ ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT { APP APP
MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOS I DELAY LOS
SB L 169 207 7.0 636 415 410 17.4 C I 14.1 C
R 49 60 5.5 87 1251 1251 3.0 A
I
EB L 16 20 5.5 231 1288 1288 2.8 A J 0.1 A
T 400 489 O. 0 A I
R 0 0 0.0 A ~
WB L 0 0 5.5 444 990 990 0.0 A { 0.0 A
T 156 191 0.0 A
I
R 52 64 0.0 A,
INT TOTAL: 3.7 A
MINOR MOVEMENTS: (13.4) (C)
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=MIDPT.AMV,CAP=C:.-LOSCAP-TAB
N/S CONTROL: STOP
E/W CONTROL: NONE
MAJ ST SAT FLOW:
Th= 1900, Rt= 1650
CRITICAL GAP ADJUST
LEFT THRU RIGHT
SB 0.0 --- 0.0
EB 0.0 ......
WB 0.0 ......
SIGNAL WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants '
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 18 Street D/Dublin Blvd. Dublin
COunt Date Time Peak Hour
94 HCM Unsignat N/S CONTROL: STOP 32 0 104
<:--- V -'->
56 ---J 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 --- 189
804 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 532
0 --- 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 --- 0
W+E 0 0
S
ACCEL % % PEAK HOUR
LANE % COHBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR .....
FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT
N 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
- 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
- 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
ORIG ADJ ADd CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT J APP APP
MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOS ~ DELAY LOS
SB L 104 127 7.0 1547 109 100 254.0 F }195.2 F
R 32 :59 5.5 296 981 981 3.8 A
I
......................................................... +
EB L 56 68 5.5 801 637 637 6.3 B I 0.4 A
T 804 983 0.0 A
I
R 0 0 0.0 A
WB L 0 0 5.5 893 568 568 0.0 A I 0.0 A
T 532 650 O. 0 A
I
R 189 231 0.0 A
~NT TOTAL: 15.7 C
MINOR MOVEMENTS: (140.1) (F)
I NT=MASTER. I NT, VOL=M I DPT. PMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. TAB
E/W CONTROL: NONE
MAJ ST SAT FLOW:
Th= 1900, Rt= 1650
CRITICAL GAP ADJUST
LEFT THRU RIGHT
SB 0.0 -°- 0.0
EB 0.0 ......
WB 0.0 ......
SIGNAL WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=Y
%
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/26/01
INTERSECTION ~ Fa[lon Rd./Project Driveway CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date t~ Time Peak Hour
94 HCM Unsignal
0 276 10
<~-- v --->
0 ...... { 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 31
0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0
0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 --- 557
W + E 8 83
S
ACCEL % % PEAK HOUR
LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR .....
FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT
0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
N 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
ORIG ADJ ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT { APP APP
MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOSI DELAY LOS
......................................................... +
NB T 98 108 0.0 A I 0.0 A
R 183 201 0.0 A
I
SB L 10 11 5.5 281 1211 1211 3.0 A I 0.1 A
T 276 304 0.0 A
I
WB L 557 613 7.0 384 602 597 65.0 F { 61.7 F
R 31 34 5.5 49 1308 1308 2.8 A
I
INT TOTAL: 31.4 E
MINOR MOVEMENTS: (60.7) (F)
INT:MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+MIDPT.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
N/S CONTROL: NONE
E/W CONTROL: STOP
MAJ ST SAT FLOW:
Th= 1900, Rt= 1650
CRITICAL GAP ADJUST
LEFT THRU RIGHT
NB .........
SB 0.0 ......
WB 0.0 --- 0.0
SIGNAL WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=Y
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consuttants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 06/26/01
[NTE~;ECTION ~' Fa[lon Rd./Project Driveway CI;~-OF-36/t[;N
Count Date IC~ Time Peak Hour
94 HCM Unsigna[
0 258 35
0 ...... I 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0' 20
0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0
0 --' 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 --- 357
I < .......> I
W+E 2 38
S
ACCEL % %. PEAK HOUR
LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR .....
FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT
0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
N 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
ORIG ADJ ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT I APP APP
MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOS I DELAY LOS
NB T 299 329 0.0 A { 0.0 A
R 638 702 0.0 A
I
SB L 35 39 5.5 937 538 538 7.2 B I 0.9 A
T 258 284 0.0 A
t4B L 357 393 ?.0 592 443 418 56.8 F I 54.0 F
R 20 22 5.5 150 1163 1163 3.2 A
INT TOTAL: 12.8 C
MINOR MOVEMENTS: (50.0) (F)
I NT :MAST ER. I NT, VOL=BACKGRND. PMV+M I DPT. PMV~ CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. TAB
N/S CONTROL: NONE
E/W CONTROL: STOP
MAJ ST SAT FLOW:
Th= 1900, Rt= 1650
CRITICAL GAP ADJUST
LEFT THRU RIGHT
NB .........
SB 0.0 ......
WB 0.0 --- 0.0
SIGNAL WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 20 Street D/CentraL DubLin
Count Date Time Peak Hour
94 HCfl Unsigna[ N/S CONTROL: STOP
0 0 0 E/W CONTROL: NONE
Ill ,AJSTSATFLO,:
^ ^ Th= 1900, Rt= 1650
I <--- v ---> I
0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 CRITICAL GAP ADJUST
29 ---> 1.1 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 88 LEFT THRU RIGHT
NB 0.0 --- 0.0
62 ~-- 1.1 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0-'- 152 EB .........
I < ....... > J WB 0.0 ......
N SIGNAL WARRANTS:
W + E 4 0 51 Urb=N, Rur=N
S
ACCEL % % PEAK HOUR
LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR .....
FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT
N 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
ORIG ADJ ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT J APP APP
MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOS DELAY LOS
NB L 48 53 6.5 300 110 651 6.0 B J 4.4 A
R 51 56 5.5 60 1291 1291 2.9 A
EB T 29 32 I 0.0 A
R 62 68
TR 91 100 0.0 A
WB L 152 167 5.0 91 1551 1551 2.6 A I 1.6 A
T 88 97 0.0 A
INT TOTAL: 1.9 A
MINOR MOVEMENTS: ( 3.3) (A)
iNT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR-AMV+MIDPT'AMV,CAP=C:"LO$CAP'
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 20 Street D/Central Dublin
Count Date Time Peak Hour
94 XCM Unsignat N/S CONTROL: STOP
0 0 0 E/W CONTROL: NONE
^ , ^ Th= 1900, Et= 1650
I <--- v ---> I
0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 CRITICAL GAP ADJUST
101 ---> 1.1 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 57' LEFT THRU RIGHT
NB 0.0 - -- 0.0
69--~1.11.0 0.01.0 1.0 --- 98 EB .........
j < .......> I WB o.o ......
v v
N SIGNAL WARRANTS:
W + E 0 75 Urb=N, Rur=N
S
ACCEL % % PEAK HOUR
LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR .....
FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT
N 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
- 0 0 0 1.00 1,00 1.00
.........
MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL . CAP CAP DELAY LOS ) DELAY LOS
NB L 7'6 84 6.5 290 7'19 677' 6.1 B I 6.4 A
R 175 193 5.5 155 1182 1182 5.6 A
E8 T 101 111 I 0.0 A
R 69 76
TR 17'0 187 0.0 A
WB L 98 108 5.0 170 1423 1423 2.7 A J 1.7' A
T 57' 63 0.0 A
INT TOTAL: 2.4 A
MINOR MOVEMENTS: ( 3.9) iA)
I MT=MASTER. I NT,VOL=BACKGRND-PMV+TRANSCTR-PMV+MI DPT. PMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP.
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 21 Street B/Central Dub[in
Count Date Time Peak Hour
94 HCH Unsigna[
133 0 5
I
<--- V ---}
44 ......' 1.0 1.1 0.0 1.1 1.1 5
36 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 107
0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0
N
W+E { 0 0
$
ACCEL % % PEAK HOUR
LANE ~ COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR .....
FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT
N 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
ORIG ADd ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT { APP APP
MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOS I DELAY LOS
SB L 5 6 6.5 190 822 803 { 3.5 A
T 0 0 6.0 190 868 840
I
R 133 146 5.5 109 1219 1219
LTR 138 152 3.5 A
EB L 44 48 5.0 112 1516 1516 2.5 A I 1.3 A
T 36 40 0.0 A
I
gB T 107 118 I 0.0 A
R 5 6
I
TR 112 124 0.0 A
INT TOTAL: 1.8 A
MINOR MOVEMENTS: ( 3.2) (A)
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV+MIDPT-AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.
N/S CONTROL: STOP
E/W CONTROL: NONE
MAJ ST SAT F£OW:
Th= 1900, Rt= 1650
CRITICAL GAP ADJUST
LEFT THRU RIGHT
SB 0.0 --- 0.0
EB 0.0 ......
SIGNAL WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 21 Street B/Centra[ Oubtin
Count Date Time Peak Hour
94 HCM Unsi gna [
133 0 5
I
~--- V --->
44---' 1.0 t.1 0.0 1.1 1.1 ---- 5
36 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 107
0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0
W+E 0 0
S
ACCEL ~ % PEAl< HOUR
LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR .....
FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT
N 0 0 O 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
ORIG ADJ ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT ~ APP APP
MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOS I DELAY LOS
SB L 5 6 6.5 190 822 803 { 3.5 A
T 0 0 6.0 190 868 840
I
R 133 146 5.5 109 1219 1219
LTR 138 152 3.5 A
EB L 44 48 5.0 112 1516 1516 2.5 A I 1.3 A
T 36 40 0.0 A
I
WB T 107 118 I 0.0 A
R 5 6
I
TR 112 124 0.0 A
INT TOTAL: 1.8 A
MINOR MOVEMENTS: ( 3.2) (A)
I MT=MASTER. I NT,VOL=BACKGRND. PMV+TRANSCTR. PMV+M I DPT. PMV~ CAP=C:.. LOSCAP.
N/S CONTROL: STOP
E/W CONTROL: NONE
MAJ ST SAT FLOW:
Th= 1900, Rt= 1650
CRITICAL GAP ADdUST
LEFT THRU RIGHT
SB 0.0 --- 0.0
EB 0.0 ......
SIGNAL WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base+Proj.-mitigation 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 2 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Oate Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 300 2007 0
LEFT--I 3.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 - RIGHT
THRU 0 --~> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 1834 --- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
I < ....... > I
v v
W+E 15 1 65
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE
Z-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
] 580 EB RAMPS
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 365 365 1800 0.2028
THRU (T) 1551 1551 5400 0.2872
SB RIGHT (R) 300 300 1800 0.1667
THRU (T) 2007 2007 5400 0.3717 0.3717
EB RIGHT (R) 1834 1834 3273 0.5603
LEFT (L) 1777 1~7 4695 0.3785 ~ '~ ~ 8~ ....
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.~3 0,'~
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MITIG8. INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR-AMV+MIDPT-AMV,CAP=C:--LOSCAP'
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base+Proj.-mitigation 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 2 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 1286 1669 0
<--- v ---> j Split? N
LEFT 1~82---I 3.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU I 580 EB RAMPS
RIGHT 218 --- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
N SIG WARRANTS:
W + E 24 0 I 58 Urb=Y, Rur:Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 1458 1458 1800 0.8100
THRU (T) 2400 2400 5400 0.4444 0,4444
SB RIGHT (R) 1286 1286 1800 0.7144
THRU (T) 1669 1669 5400 0.3091
EB RIGHT (R) 218 218 3273 0.0606
LEFT (l) 1382 1382 4695 0.2944 0.2944
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.74
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
1NT=MIT1GS.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+MIDPT-PMVoCAP=C:--LOSCAP-
LEFT 0 ...I 0.0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0
RIGHT ~3 -" 0.0
¥
~+E
S
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base+Proj.-mitigation 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 3 HACIENDA DRIVE/I 580 UB RAMPS CiTY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 867 761 0
<--- v ---> { Split? N
1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 --- 1151 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
(NO. OF LANES) 0~0<--- 0 THRU I 580 UB RAMPS
0.0 3.0 1.9 3.0 --- 1536 LEFT
27 6 69 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 569 569 1800 0.3161
THRU (T) 2756 2756 5400 0.5104 0.5104
SB RIGHT (R) 867 867 1800 0.4817
THRU (l) 761 761 5400 0.1409
WB RIGHT (R) 1151 1151 3273 0.3517 0.3517
LEFT (L) 1536 1536 4695 0.3272
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.86
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MITIGS. INT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV+MIDPT.AMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base+Proj.-mitigation 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 3 HACIENDA DRIVE/! 580 ~B RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 1994 2276 0
<--- v ---> { Split? N
LEFT 0---{ 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 --- 500 RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 3.0 --- 538 LEFT
v v
N
W+E 2241 ?'9
S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: HACIENDA DRIVE
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
I 580 WB RAMPS
SIG ~ARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 1579 1579 1800 0.87Z2
THRU (T) 2204 2204 5400 0.4081
SB RIGHT (R) 1994 1994 1800 1.1078 **
THRU (T) 2276 2276 5400 0.4215 0.4215
WB RIGHT (R) 500 500 3273 0.1528 0.1528
LEFT (L) 538 538 4695 0.1146
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.5?'
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED ~ APPROACHING OR EXCEEDING CAPACITY
lNT=MITI68.1NT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+MIDPT.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour;Future Base+Proj - Mitigation 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 5 SANTA RITA ROAD/I 580 E8 RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 495 1233 172
<--- v ---> / Split? Y
LEFT 1367---I 3.1 1.9 2.0 1.0 2.5--- 524 RIGHT
THRU 161 ---> 1.1 (NO. OF LANES) O.O<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 6{)5 ~-- 1.9 0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 -~- 209 LEFT
v v
N
W+E ~ 142 76
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: SANTA AlTA ROAD
4-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
I 580 EB RAMPS
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 5?6 461 * 3000 0.1537
THRU (T) 1482 1482 4950 0.2994
T + R 1943 6300 0.3084 0.3084
SB RIGHT (R) 495 495 1650 0.3000
THRU (T) 1233 1233 3300 0.3736
LEFT (L) 172 172 1650 0.1042 0.1042
EB RIGHT (R) 605 605 1650 0.3667
THRU (T) 161 161 1650 0.0976
LEFT (L) 1367 1367 4304 0.3176
T + L 1528 4304 0.3550 0.3550
WB RIGHT (R) 524 211 * 3000 0.0703 0.0703
LEFT (L) 209 209 3000 ,0.0697
TOTAL VOLUME'TO-CAPACiTY RATIO: 0.84
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MITIGS. IflT,VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR.AMV+MIDPT.AMV,CAP=~:..LOSCAP.
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour;Future Base+Proj - Mitigation 06/29/01
INTERSECTION 5 SANTA RITA ROAD/I 580 EB RAMPS CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Oate Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 1524 932 221
<--~ v ---> / Split? Y
LEFT 1232---I 3.1 1.9 2.0 1.0 2.5--- 391 RIGHT
THRU 303 ---> 1.1 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 183 --- 1.9 0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 --- 114 LEFT
v 111 v
N
14+ E 183 94
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: SANTA RITA ROAD
4-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
I 580 EB RAMPS
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 594 531 * 3000 0.1770
THRU (T) 1833 1833 4950 0.3703
T + R 2364 6300 0.3752 0.3752
SB RIGHT (R) 1524 1524 1650 0.9236 **
THRU (T) 932 932 3300 0.2824
LEFT (L) 221 221 1650 0.1339 0.1339
EB RIGHT (R) 183 183 1650 0.1109
THRU (T) 303 303 1650 0.1836
LEFT (L) 1232 1232 4304 0.2862
T + L 1535 4304 0.3566 0.3566
WB RIGHT (R) 391 0 * 3000 0.0000
LEFT (L) 114 114 3000 0.0380 0.0380
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.90
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT ~URN ON RED ** APPROACHING OR EXCEEDING CAPACITY
INT=MITIGS. INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+MIDPT.PMV,CAP:C:..LOSCAP.
^
LEFT 16---I 1.o
THRU 400 ---> 2.0
RIGHT 0 --- 1.0
¥
S
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Proj - mitigation 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 18 Street D/Dublin Blvd. Dublin
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 49 0 169
<--- v ---> '---
1.0 0.0 1.0 '1.0- - ~- RIGHT
STREET NAME:
(NO. OF LANES) 2,0<--- 156 THRU Dublin Blvd.
0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 --- 0 LEFT
<_.. A .__> I
0 0 Urb=N, Rur=N
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Street D
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
SB RIGHT iR) 49 33 * 1650 0.0200
LEFT il) 169 169 1650 0.1024 0.1024
EB RIGHT iR) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU iT) 400 400 3300 0.1212 0.1212
LEFT il) 16 16 1650 0.0097
WB RIGHT iR) 52 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU iT) 156 156 3300 0.0473
LEFT il) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.22
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MITIGS. INT,VOL=MIDPT.AMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Proj - mitigation 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 18 Street D/Dublin Blvd. Dublin
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 32 0 104
<--- v ---> I Split.? N
LEFT 56 ...... { 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 189 RIGHT
THRU 804 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 532 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 --- 0 LEFT
N
W+E 0 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Street D
STREET NAME:
Dublin Blvd.
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
SB RIGHT (R) 32 0 * 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 104 104 1650 0.0630 0.0630
EB RIGHT iR) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU iT) 804 804 3300 0.2436 0.2436
LEFT il) 56 56 1650 0.0339
WB RIGHT (ET 189 85 * 1650 0.0515
THRU iT) 532 532 3300 0.1612
LEFT il) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.31
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MITIGS.INT,VOL=MIDPT.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Future Base + Project -I'f~!_~t~ 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 19 Fal[on Rd,/Project Oriveway CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 0 276 10
^
LEFT 0 --- 0.0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0
I
V
W+E
S
III
0.0 2,0 1,0 1,0 ---' 31 RIGHT
(NO, OF LANES) 0,0<--- 0 THRU
0,0 2,0 1,0 1,0 --- 55? LEFT
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consuttants
Condition: pm peak hour; Future Base + Project - Iv~_~ev~ 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 19 Fa[ton Rd./Project Driveway CITY OF DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT
LEFT 0 __.l 0,0 0,0
STREET NAME:
Project Driveuay THRU 0 ---> 0,0 (NO,
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0
/
V
S[G WARRANTS: N
Urb=N, Rur=Y W + E
S LEFT
STREET NAME: FaLton Rd.
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 183 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 98 98 3300 0.0297
SB THRU (T) 276 276 3300 0.0§36 0.0836
LEFT (l) 10 10 1650 0.0061
WB RIGHT (R) 31 21 * 1650 0.0127
LEFT (L) 557 557 1650 0.33?6 0.3376
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.42
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=HASTER.INT~VOL=BACKGRND.AMV+TRANSCTR-AMV+MIDPT'AMV~CAP=c:''LOSCAP'
THRU LEFT
258 35
II
2,0 1.0
OF LANES)
2.0 1.0
^
STREET NAME: Fallon Rd.
4-PHASE SIGNAL
^
I spti~N
1.0 --- RIGHT
0,0<-"- 0 THRU
1.0 --- 35? LEFT
I
v
STREET NAME:
Project Driveway
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME . VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
,B ............................. RIG,T (.) ...... ; ..... ..... .......
THRU (T) 299 299 3300 0.0906
SB THRU (T) 258 258 3300 0.0782
LEFT (L) 35 35 1650 0.0212 0.0212
WB RIGHT (R) 20 0 * 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 357 357 1650 0.2164 0.2164
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0,41
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MASTER.INT,VOL=BACKGRND.PMV+TRANSCTR.PMV+MIDPT-PMV~CAP=C:--LOSCAP-
LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
CUMULATIVE YEAR 2025 - NO PROJECT
Table 3.6-5
ortation Model Cumulative Year 2025 (No Projec0
Peak Hour Intersection LeVelS OI ~efvlcg -- · rt- v ittt~:y a a q~a~p~,z za~,~,,, · .................. . .... n ir ·
Umnitigated Mitigated
Intersection Control
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
* LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS
I Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.94 E 1.00 E .......
2 Hacienda Drive/l-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.73 C 0.84 D
3 Hacienda Drive/l-580 Westbound Rampg Signal 0.84 D 0.93 E 0.66 B 0.72 C
4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.84 D 0.97 E ........
5 Santa Rita Road/l~580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.85 D 0.77 C
6 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.71 C 0.75 C
7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.72 C 0.88 D
8 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.71 C 0.63 B
9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.59 A 0.50 A
10 Grafton Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.3 ! A 0.41 A
I I Grafton Street/Central Parkway Signal 0.06 A 0.09 A
12 Graf~on Street/Gleason Drive Signal 0.44 A 0.36 A
13 El Charro Road/l-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.47 A 0.54 A
14 Fallon Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.57 A 0.69 B
15 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.67 B 0.88 D
16 Fallon Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.54 A 0.72 C
17 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.42 A 0.28 A
Note: * = Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections.
Table 3.6-6
Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service-Tri-Valley Transportation Model ,Cumulative Year 2025 plus Project
Intersection Control Unmitigated Mitigated
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
* LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS
I Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.93 E 1.03 F
2 Hacienda Drive/l~580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.72 C 0.81 D
3 Hacienda Drive/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.83 D 0.96 E 0.65 B 0.75 C
4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.82 D 1.00 E ........
5 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.86 D 0.74 C
6 Tassajara Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.69 B 0,73 C
7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.74 C 0.86 D
8 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.70 B 0.61 B
9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.56 A 0.47 A
I 0 Grafton Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.35 A 0.44 A
I I Graflon Street/Central Parkway Signal 0. l0 A 0.12 A
12 Grafton Street/Gleason Drive Signal 0.44 A 0.37 A
! 3 El Charro Road/l-580 Eastbound Ralllps Signal 0.60 A 0.63 B
14 Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.63 B 0.76 C
15 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.88 D l.l I F ........
15A Fallon Rd./Dublin Blvd. w/New Int. Signal ...... 0.77 C 0.91 E
XX Fallon Road/New Intersection Signal ........ 0.62 B 0.71 C
16 Fallon Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.83 D 0.84 D
17 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.51 A 0.31 A
18 Street D/Dublin Boulevard One-Way STOP >120 F >120 F
Street D/Dublin Boulevard - Mitigated Signal ........ 0.80 C 0.83 D
19 Fallon Road/"Project Road", One-Way STOP >120 F >120 F
Fallon Road/"Project Road" - Mitigated Signal ........ 0.55 A 0.49 A
20 Street D/Central Parkway One-Way STOP 7.6 B 7.6 B
21 Street B/Central Parkway One-Way STOP 7.7 B 4.9 A
Note:
* = Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections;
Average Delay in Seconds for stopping and yielding movements at l-way STOP-controlled intersections.
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; C~ulative 2025 No Project 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 3977DOUGHERTY RD./DUBLIN BLVD. DUBLIN
Count Oate YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 ~/0 PRJ Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 135 2101 9
<''' V
LEFT 14 ---I 1.0 1.1 4.1 2.0
THRU 940 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES)
RIGHT 914 --- 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.5
~:.._ ^
S LEFT THRU RIGHT split? N
STREET NAME: OOUGNERTY MO.
8-PHASE SIGNAL
^
1.1 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
3.1<--~ 1204 THRU OUBLIN BLVD.
3.0 --- 622 LEFT
¥
SIG ~ARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 553 119 * 3000 0.0397
THRU (T) 718 718 4950 0.1451
LEFT (L) 1164 1164' 4304 0.2704 0.2704
SB RIGHT (R) 135 135 1650 0.0818
THRU (T) 2101 2101 ~00 0.31~
LEFT (L) 9 9 3000 0.0030
T + R 2236 6600 0.3388 0.3388
EB RIGHT (R) 914 103 * 3000 0.0343
THRU (T) 940 940 4950 0.1899 0.1899
LEFT (L) 14 14 1650 0.0085
~B RIGHT (R) 33 33 1650 0.0200
THRU (T) 1204 1204 4950 0.2432
LEFT (L) 622 622 4304 0.1445 0.1445
T + R 1237 4950 0.2499
========================================================================
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.94
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.AMV~CAP=C:-.LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 3977 DOUGHERTY RD./DUBLIN BLVD. DUBLIN
Count Oate YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 N/O PRJ Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 31 1465 60
v ---> !
THRU 1334 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.1<--- 1204 THRU
RIGHT 1191 --- 2.5 3.0 '3.0 2.5 3.0 --- 744 LEFT
N
~J + E 142 20 7 ~
S
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
DUBLIN BLVD.
SIG ~ARRANTS:
Urb=Y~ Rur=Y
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: DOUGHERTY RD.
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 773 254 * 3000 0.0847
THRU (T) 2017 2017 4950 0.4075
LEFT (L) 1429 1429 4304 0.3320 0.3320
SB RIGHT (R) 31 31 1650 0.0188
THRU (T) 1465 1465 6600 0.2220
LEFT (L) 60 60 3000 0.0200
T + R 1496 6600 0.2267 0.2267
~4~'~iGHT (~; .... i191 .... 195 * 3000 0.0650
THRU (T) 1334 1334 4950 0.2695 0.2695
LEFT (L) 62 62 1650 0.0376
WB RIGHT (R) 25 25 1650 0.0152
THRU (T) 1204 1204 4950 0.2432
LEFT (L) 744 744 4304 0.1729 0.1729
T + R 1229 4950 0.2483
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 1.00
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NE~SRP.INT~VOL=NXRUN4.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants
Condition: am peak hour; CumuLative 2025 No Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 8302 Hacienda Dr/l~580 EB ramp Pteasanton
Count Date YR,2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 ~/0 PRJ Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 0 1682 0
LEFT 681---I 2.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0:-0- RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 1186 --- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
I ~ ....... ~ I
N
~ + E 19 1 91
S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumutative 2025 No Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 8302 Hacienda Dr/i-580 EB ramp Pteasanton
Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 ~/0 PRJ Peak'Hour PM PEAK VOL
2-PHASE SIGNAL CCTA METHOD RIGHT
LEFT 636---I 2.0 1.9
STREET NAME:
1-580 EB ramp THRU 0 -:-> 0.0 (NO.
RIGHT 1100 --- 2.0 0.0
SIG ~ARRANTS: N v /
Ur'b=Y~ Rur=Y W + E
S LEFT
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 491 491 1800 0.2728
THRU (T) 1991 1991 5400 0.3687 0.3687
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 1682 1682 5400 0.3115
~--~;~Fi~; .... ;;~ ....... ;i~; ....... ~ ..... ;~;~ ..... ~;~ .......
LEFT (L) 681 681 3273 0.2081
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.73
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.AMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
THRU LEFT
1916 0
II
3.0 0.0
OF LANES)
3.0 1.9
THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
^
0.0 I Sprit? N
--- 0 RIGHT
0.0<--- 0 THRU
0.0 -~- 0 LEFT
¥
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
1-580 EB ramp
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 763 76~ 1800 0.4239
THRU (T) 2702 2702 5400 0.5004 0.5004
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 1916 1916 5400 0.3548
EB RIGHT (R) 1100 1100 3273 0.3361 0.3361
LEFT (L) 636 636 3273 0.1943
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.84
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 8305 Hacienda Dr/I-580 NB. ramp Dublin
Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 N/O PRJ Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 587 1621 0
<--- v ---> { Split? N
LEFT 0 .... I 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 -- 1017 RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2~0 --- 645 LEFT
v v
N
N+E 182 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
1-580 NB ramp
S[G WARRANTS:
Urb=¥, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED VIC CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 1892 1892 ~qZO.~ 0.5256 -E~.5256
SB RIGHT (R) 587 587 1800 0.3261
THRU (T) 1621 1621 5400 0.3002
NB RIGHT (R) 1017 1017 3273 0.3107 0.3107
LEFT (l) 645 645 3273 0.1971
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NENSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUM4.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 8305 Hacienda Dr/I-580 NB ramp Dublin
Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 N/O PRJ Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 1217 2209 0
<--- v ---> J Split? N
LEFT 0---I 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0--- 990 RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 692 LEFT
v v
N
W+E 223 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
1-580 WB ramp
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=YI Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 2243 2243 3q?O.,T~ 0.6231 0.6231
SB RIGHT (R) 1217 1217 1800 0.6761
THRU (T) 2209 2209 5400 0.4091
WB RIGHT (R) 990 990 3273 0.3025 0.3025
LEFT (L) 692 692 3273 0.2114
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: -0~93'
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E
* ADJUSTED FOR'RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.PMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 8306 Hacienda Dr/Dublin BLvd Dublin
Count Date YR,2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 9 912 137
<--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 57 .... I 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 -- 40 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 517 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 1009 THRU Dubkin Blvd
RIGHT 456 --- 2.5 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 958 LEFT
N SIG WARRANIS:
W + E 99 5 2 87 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 387 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 572 572 4950 0.1156
LEFT (L) 998 998 4304 0.2319 0.2319
SB RIGHT (R) 9 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 912 912 4950 0.1842 0.1842
LEFT (L) 137 137 3000 0.0457
EB RIGHT (R) 456 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 517 517 4950 0.1044 0.1044
LEFT (L) 57 57 3000 0.0190
WB RIGHT (R) 40 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1009 1009 4950 0.2038
LEFT (L) 958 958 3000 0.3193 0.3193
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.84
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
[NT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.AMViCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 8306 Hacienda Dr/Oubtin Btvd Dublin
Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 N/O PRJ Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 5 916 148
<--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 82 ...... I 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 33 RIGHT
THRU 1242 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 685 THRU
RIGHT 877 --- 2.5 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 634 LEFT
v
N
W + E 138 7 7 40
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
STREET NAME:
Dublin Btvd
WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 940 591 * 1650 0.3582
THRU (T) 757 757 4950 0.1529
LEFT (L) 1387 1387 4304 0.3223 0.3223
SB RIGHT (R) 5 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 916 916 4950 0.1851 0.1851
LEFT (L) 148 148 3000 0.0493'
..... .......... F; ..... ..... ..................
THRU (T) 1242 1242 4950 0.2509 0.2509
LEFT (L) 82 82 3000 0.02T3
.. RIGHT eR) .....
THRU (T) 685 685 4950 0.1384
LEFT eL) 634 634 3O0O0.2113 0.2113
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACiTY RATIO: 0.97
INTERSECT[ON LEVEL OF SERVICE: E
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
I ~ I I f I .I ~ I l I I I I I t I I I
LOS Software byTJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 4041 Santa Rita Rd/I-580 eb-off PLEASANTON
Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4.W/O PRJ Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD
A
I
LEFT 831 "- 2.0
THRU 104 ---> 1.0
RIGHT 181 --- 1.9
I
¥
S
RIGHT THRU LEFT 0 1326 151
<--- v ---> I split? Y
1.9 2.0 1.0 2.0 :-- 678 RIGHT
(NO. OF LANES) 0:0<--- 0 THRU
0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 --- 0 LEFT
LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: Santa Rita Rd
4-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
1-580 eb-off
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 423 423 3000 0.1410
THRU (T) 634 634 4950 0.1281
T + R 1057 6300 0.1678
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1326 1326 3300 0.4018 0.4018
LEFT (L) 151 151 1650 0.0915
EB RIGHT (R) 181 181 1650 0.1097
THRU (T) 104 104 1650 0.0630
LEFT (L) 831 831 3000 0.2770 0.2770
tis EIGHT (R) 678 527 * 3000 0.1757 0.1757
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.85
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: 0
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEtiSRP.INToVOL=NXRUN4.AMV,CAP=C:--LOSCAP-TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 4041 Santa Rita Rd/I-580 eb-off PLEASANTON
Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 ti/O PRJ Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 0 1389 289
I <-~- V ---> ! SpLit? Y
LEFT 530 --- 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.0 2.0 -- 290 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 208 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 eb-off
RIGHT 113 --- 1.9 0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 --- 0 LEFT
v
N SIG tiARRANTS:
ti + E 20 5 2 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Santa Rita Rd
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPAC I TY RAT I 0 V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 2 2 3000 0.0007
THRU (T) 2085 2085 4950 0.4212 0.4212
T + R 2087 6300 0.3313
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1389 1389 3300 0.4209
LEFT (L) 289 289 1650 0.1752 0.1752
EB RIGHT (R) 113 113 1650 0.0685
THRU (T) 208 208 1650 O. 1261
LEFT (L) 530 530 3000 0.1767 0.1767
LiB RIGHT (R) 290 1 * 3000 0.0003 0.0003
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.77
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
I NT=NEtiSRP. I NT ~ VOL=NXRUN4.PMV~ CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; CumuLative 2025 No Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 3988 Tassajara Rd/l-580 wb-off PLEASANTON
Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour AN PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 1077 1333 0
<--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 0---I 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 --- 743 RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 0 --~ 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 474 LEFT
N
W+E 174 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET HAME:
1-580 wb-off
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACI'TY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 1754 1754 3600 0.4872 0.4872
SB RIGHT (R) 1077 1077 1800 0.5983
THRU (T) 1333 1333 5400 0.2469
WB RIGHT (R) 743 743 3273 0.2270 0.2270
LEFT (L) 474 474 3273 0.1448
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.71
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
........................................
]NT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LEFT 0---J 0.0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0
¥
W+E
S
LOS Software by TJKMTransportation ConsuLtants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 3988 Tassajara Rd/I-580 wb-off PLEASANTON
Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 ~/0 PRJ Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 1199 1762 0
<--- v ---> { SpLit? N
1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 --- 650 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
(NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 wb-off
0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 493 LEFT
~--- ^ '-->
19 2 0 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 1972 1972 3600 0.5478 0.5478
SB RIGHT (R) 1199 1199 1800 0.6661
THRU (T) 1762 1762 5400 0.3263
~B RIGHT (R) 650 650 3273 0.1986 0.1986
LEFT (L) 493 493 3273 0.1506
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.75
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
( ~ondition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/03/01
Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 g/O PRJ Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD
^
LEFT 397---I 2.0
THRU 380 -'-> 3.0
RIGHT 203 --- 2.5
I
¥
S
RIGHT THRU LEFT
742 1912 82
<-~- ¥ -'-> I Split? N
2.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 --- 47 RIG}ti
(NO. OF LANES) 3.0<-~- 966 THRU
3.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 --- 516 LEFT
,.._ ^ ___). J
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd
8-P}IASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
Dublin Btvd
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb:Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 524 326 * 3000 0.1087
THRU (T) 1192 1192 6600 0.1806
LEFT (L) 421 421 4304 0.0978 0.0978
SB RIGHT (R) 742 524 * 3000 0.1747
THRU (T) 1912 1912 6600 0.2897 0.2897
LEFT (L) 82 82 3000 0.0273
· EB RIGHT (R) 203 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 380 380 4950 0.0768
LEFT (L) 397 397 3000 0.1323 0.1323
NB RIGHT (R) 47 2 * 1650 0.0012
THRU (T) 966 966 4950 0.1952 0.1952
LEFT (L) 516 516 4304 0.1199
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.72
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: , C
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
iNT=NEWSRP.INToVOL=NXRUN4.AMV,CAP=C:.-LOSCAP.TAB
LOS SOftware by TJKM 'Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 1573 Tassajara Rd/Oublin Blvd Alameda County
Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 U/O PRJ Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 353 1579 76
<*-- v ---> !
LEFT 906---J 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 - RIGHT
T}IRU 1363 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 326
RIG}IT 384 --- 2.5 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 --- 1031 LEFT
N
W + E 54 17 34
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd
STREET NAME:
THRU Dublin Blvd
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 434 39 * 3000 0.0130
THRU (T) 1776 1776 6600 0.2691
LEFT (L) 545 545 4304 0.1266 0.1266
SB RIGHT (R) 353 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU CT) 1579 1579 6600 0.2392 0.2392
LEFT (L) 76 76 3000 0.0253
EB RIGHT (R) 384 4 * 3000 0.0013
THRU (T) 1363 1363 4950 0.2754 0.2754
LEFT (L) 906 906 3000 0.3020
WB RIGHT (R) 63 21 * 1650 0.0127
THRU (T) 326 326 4950 0.0659
LEFT (L) 1031. 1031 4304 0.2395 0.2395
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.88
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: O
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NENSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.PMV,CAP=C:.-LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 6430 TASSAJARA RD./CENTRAL PKWY DUBLIN
Count Date FROM MODEL Time FROM MODEL Peak Hour FROM MODEL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 42 2004 140
LEFT 35--- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1,0 - RIGHT
THRU 48 '--> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1,0<~-- 56 THRU
RIGHT 188 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 516 LEFT
v v
N
W + E 16 2 08
-S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: TASSAJARA RD.
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
CENTRAL PKWY
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 408 124 * 1650 0.0?52
THRU (l) 772 772 4950 0.1560
LEFT (L) 168 168 1650 0.1018 0.1018
SB RIGHT (R) 42 7 * 1650 0.0042
THRU (T) 2004 2004 4950 0.4048 0.4048
LEFT (L) 140 140 1650 0.0848
EB RIGHT (R) 188 20 * 1650 0.0121
THRU (T) 48 48 1650 0.0291 0.0291
LEFT (L) 35 35 1650 0.0212
WB RIGHT (R) 67 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 56 56 1650 0.0339
LEFT (L) 516 516 3000 0.1720 0.1720
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.71
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 6430 TASSAJARA RD./CENTRAL PKWY DUBLIN
Count Date FROM MODEL Time FROM MODEL Peak Hour FROM MODEL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 22 1009 93
I <-'- v --'> ! Split? N
LEFT 42 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 -- 146 RIGHT
THRU 55 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<.~" 75 THRU
RIGHT 163 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 638 LEFT
W +N E 18~ ~ [16 5
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: TASSAJARA RD.
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
CENTRAL PKWY
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 654 303 * 1650 0.1836
THRU (T) 1615 1615 4950 0.3263 0.3263
LEFT (L) 188 188 1650 0.1139
SB RIGHT (R) 22 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1009 1009 4950 0.2038
LEFT (L) 93 93 1650 0.0564 0.0564
EB RIGHT (R) 163 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 55 55 1650 0.0333 0.0333
LEFT (L) 42 42 1650 0.0255
WB RIGHT (R) 146 53 * 1650 0.0321
THRU (T) 75 75 1650 0.0455
LEFT (L) 638 638 3000 0.2127 0.2127
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.63
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak houri Ct~u[ative 2025 No Project ' 07/03/01
========================================================================
I]INIERSEClION 3987 lassajara Rd/G[eason Ave Alameda County
~..~Count Date FROM MODEL Time FROM MODEL Peak Hour FROM MODEL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 352 1681 80
<--- v ---> / Split? N
LEFT 39---I 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0--- 49 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU /.1 --'> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 179 THRU Gteason Ave
RIGHT 99 --- 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 --- 475 LEFT
N SIG NARRANTS:
la + E 22 4 5 95 Urb:Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 195 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 475 475 4950 0.0960
LEFT (L) 227 227 3000 0.0757 0.0757
SB RIGHT (R) 352 331 * 1650 0.2006
THRU (T) 1681 1681 4950 0.3396 0.3396
LEFT (L) 80 80 1650 0.0485
EB RIGHT (R) 99 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 41 41 3300 0.0124 0.0124
LEFT (L) 39 39 3000 0.0130
WB RIGHT (R) 49 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 179 179 3300 0.0542
LEFT (l) 475 475 3000 0.1583 0.1583
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.59
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NENSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.AMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 3987 Tassajara Rd/Gteason Ave ALameda County
Count Date FROM MODEL Time FROM MODEL Peak Hour FROM MODEL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 48 633 58
<--- v ---> I Sprit? N
LEFT 418 ...... I 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 59 RIGHT
THRU 235 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 36 THRU
RIGHT 27'5 --- 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 --- 271 LEFT
v v
N
~l + E 19 13 1 52
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Sprit? N
STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
Gteason Ave
SIG ~ARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 352 203 * 3000 0.0677
THRU (T) 1361 1361 4950 0.2749 0.2749
LEFT (L) 195 195 3000 0.0650
SB RIGHT (R) 48 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 633 633 4950 0.1279
LEFT (L) 58 58 1650 0.0352 0.0352
EB RIGHT (R) 2~ 166 * 1650 0.1006 0.1006
THRU (T) 235 235 3300 0.0712
LEFT (L) 418 418 3000 0.1393
NB RIGHT (R) 59 1 * 1650 0.0006
THRU (T) 36 36 3300 0.0109
LEFT (L) 271 271 3000 0.0903 0.0903
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.50
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADdUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NENSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.PMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION ~17 MAIN STREET/DUBLIN BLVD DUBLIN
Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 0 0 65
THRU 82i ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 1363
RIGHT 0 --- 1.0 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT
v 131 v
N
W+E 0 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
6-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
TNRU DUBLIN BLVD
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000
T + R 0 1650 0.0000
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 65 65 1650 0.0394 0.0394
T + R 0 1650 0.0000
EB RIGNT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 821 821 4950 0.1659
LEFT (L) O 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
~B RIGHT (R) 14 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1363 1363 4950 0.2754 0.2754
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.31
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGNT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT~VOL=NXRUN4.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01
========================================================================
INTERSECTION ~17 MAIN STREET/DUBLIN BLVD DUBLIN
Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/D PRJ Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 6-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 0 0 37
STREET NAME;
THRU 1922 ---> ).0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 90}' THRU DUBLIN BLVD
RIGHT 0 --- 1.0 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT
v
N SIG WARRANTS:
W + E 0 0 Urb=N, Rur=N
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
· LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000
T + R 0 1650 0.0000
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0..0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 37 37 1650 0.0224 0.0224
T + R 0 1650 0.0000
EB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1922 1922 4950 0.3883 0.3/),03
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
WB RIGHT (R) 44 7 * 1650 .0.0042
THRU (T) 907 907 4950 0.1832
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.41
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
I RT=NEWSRP. INT ~ VOL=NXRUN4. PMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 6615 MAIN STREET/CENTRAL PARKNAY DUBLIN
Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 0 0 0
<--- V ---> I Sptit~ N
LEFT 0 ---I 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 --- u RIGHT
THRU 35 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 49 THRU
RIGHT 87 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT
W+E 7 0 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
5-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
CENTRAL PARKWAY
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 o.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 78 78 1650 0.0473 0.0473
T + R 0 1650 0.0000
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
T + R 0 1650 0.0000
EB RIGHT (R) 87 9 * 1650 0.0055
THRU (T) 35 35 3300 0.0106
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
WB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 49 49 3300 0.0148 0.0148
LEFT (l) 0 0 1650 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.06
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 6615 MAIN STREET/CENTRAL PARKWAY DUBLIN
Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 0 0 0
<--- v ---> I Split?,, N
LEFT 0---I 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 --- u RIGHT
THRU 68 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<-~- 9 THRU
RIGHT 95 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT
I < ....... ~ I
v
N
W+E 11 0 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
5-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
CENTRAL PARKIdAY
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT eL) 114 114 1650 0.0691 0.0691
T + R 0 1650 0.0000
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
T + R 0 1650 0.0000
EB RIGHT (R) 95 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 68 68 3300 0.0206 0.0206
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
~B RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 9 9 3300 O.OOZ?
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consu£tant$
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 6618 MAIN STREET/GLEASON DRIVE DUBLIN
Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 399 33 14
THRU 123 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 308 THRU
RIGHT 1 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT
N
W+E ? 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
GLEASON DRIVE
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 17 17 1650 0.0103
LEFT (L) 1 1 1650 0.0006 0.0006
T + R 17 1650 0.0103
SB RIGHT (R) 399 399 1650 0.2418
THRU (T) 33 33 1650 0.0200
LEFT (L) 14 14 1650 0.0085
T + R 432 1650 0.2618 0.2618
EB RIGHT (R) 1 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 123 123 3300 0.0373
LEFT (L) 136 136 1650 0.0824 0.0824
WB RIGHT (R) 11 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 308 308 3300 0.0933 0.0933
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.44
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConSultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 6618 MAIN STREET/GLEASON DRIVE DUBLIN
Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 165 16 7
I <---v ---> I Sptit? N
LEFT 348 --- 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 ---10 RIGHT
THRU 309 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 122 THRU
RIGHT 2 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT
I < ....... > I
v v
N
W+E 4 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Sprit? N
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
STREET NAME:
GLEASON DRIVE
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 34 34 1650 0.0206
LEFT (L) 1 1 1650 0.0006 0.0006
T + R 34 1650 0.0206
SB RIGHT (R) 165 165 1650 0.1000
THRU (T) 16 16 1650 0.0097
LEFT (l) 7 7 1650 0.0042
T + R 181 1650 0.1097 0.1097
EB RIGHT (R) 2 1 * 1650 0.0006
THRU (T) 309 309 3300 0.0936
LEFT (L) 348 348 1650 0.2109 0.2109
WB RIGHT (R) 10 3 * 1650 0.0018
THRU (T) 122 122 3300 0.0370 0.0370
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.36
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
========================================================================
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP. INT,VOL=NXRUN4.PMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 9957 Et Charro Rd/I-580 EB ramp Alameda County
Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
0 1218 0
THRU 0 "--> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<"" 0 THRU
RIGHT 103 --- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
v v
N
14+E 63 51
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? H
STREET NAME: Et Charro Rd
STREET NAME:
1-580 EB ramp
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (Ri 851 851 1800 0.4728
THRU (Ti 633 633 5400 0.1172
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (Ti 1218 1218 5400 0.2256 0.2256
EB RIGHT (R) 103 103 3273 0.0315
LEFT (L) 798 798 3273 0.2438 0.2438
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.47
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.]NT,VOL=NXRUN4.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 9957 El Charro Rd/I-S80 EB ramp Alameda County
Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD
LEFT 895---I 2.0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0
RIGHT 48 --- 2.0
¥
$
RIGHT THRU LEFT
0 1453 0
III
<--- v ---> I sprit?_.
1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0--- 0 RIGHT
(NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
0.0 ~.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
LEFT THRU RIGHT Sprit? ~1
STREET NAME: El Charro Rd
Z-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
1-580 EB ramp
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 977 977 1800 0.5428
THRU (T) 810 810 5400 0.1500
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (Ti 1453 1453 5400 0.2691 0.2691
EB RIGHT (R) 48 48 ~Z7~ 0.0147
LEFT (L) 895 895 3273 0.2734 0.2734
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.54
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
I~T=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.PMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project
INTERSECTION 9956 Fatton Rd/I-580 WB ramp Alameda County
Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 1051
LEFT 0 --- 0,0 1.9
THRU 0 "--> 0.0 (NO.
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0
IS LEFT
1747 0
II
v ---> / Split? N
3.0 0.0 2.0-'-~ 806 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 t4B ramp
3.0 1.9 2.0 --- 693 LEFT
14 0 0 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Falton Rd
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 1410 1410 5400 0.2611
SB RIGHT (R) 1051 1051 1800 0.5839
THRU (T) 1747 1747 5400 0.3235 0.3235
WB RIGHT (R) 806 806 3273 0.2463 0.2463
LEFT (L) 693 693 3273 0.2117
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.57
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.1NT,VOL=NXRUN4.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 9956 Fatton Rd/I-580 WB ramp Alameda County
Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
1334 1632 0
<~-- v ---> I Split/ N
LEFT 0---I 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0---1254 RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 2.0 --- 747 LEFT
v v
N
W+E 150 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Fatton Rd
STREET NAME:
1-580 WB ramp
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NH RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 1590 1590 5400 0.2944
SB RIGHT (R) 1334 1334 1800 0.7411
THRU (T) 1632 1632 5400 0.3022 0.3022
WB RIGHT (R) 1254 1254 3273 0.3831 0.3831
LEFT (L) 747 747 3273 0.2282
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.69
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
lOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/03/01
========================================================================
(~'~INTERSECTION 8336 Fat[on Rd/Dublin 8tvd ALameda County
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 1 1082 177
I <--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 0 --- 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 --- 0 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 223 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<-~- 899 THRU Dublin BLvd
RIGHT 278 --- 2.5 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 -~~ 1456 LEFT
N SIG ~ARRANTS:
~ + E 36 4 11 83 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Fat[on Rd
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 1183 625 * 3000 0.2083
THRU (T) 411 411 6600 0.0623
LEFT (L) 364 364 3000 0.1213 0.1213
SB RIGHT (R) 1 1 1650 0.0006
THRU (T) 1082 1082 6600 0.1639 0.1639
LEFT (L) 177 177 3000 0.0590
EB RIGHT (R) 278 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 223 223 4950 0.0451 0.0451
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 .
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 899 899 4950 0.1816
LEFT (L) 1456 1456 4304 0.3383 0.3383
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.67
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 8336 Fatlon Rd/Dublin Blvd ALameda County
Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 ~/0 PRJ Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 0 460 0
v ---> !
THRU 1206 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 188 THRU
RIGHT 444 --- 2.5 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0--- 1692 LEFT
N
14 + E 29 10 3 1 92
S
STREET NAME:
Dublin Btvd
SIG gARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Fa[[on Rd
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 1392 743 * 3000 0.2477 0.2477
THRU (T) 1083 1083 6600 0.1641
LEFT (L) 298 298 ~000 0.0993
SB RIGHT (R) 0 '0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 460 460 6600 0.0697
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000 0.0000
EB RIGHT (R) 444 146 * 3000 0.0487
THRU (T) 1206 1206 4950 0.2436 0.2436
LEFT (L) 1 1 3000 0.0003
~B RIGHT (R) 81 81 1650 0.0491
THRU (T) 188 188 4950 0.0380
LEFT (L) 1692 1692 4304 0.3931 0.3931
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.88
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: O
........................................
INT=NENSRP.INT~VOL=NXRUN4.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 6438 FALLON ROAD/CENTRAL PARKWAY DUBLIN
Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 10 1051 304
<--- v ---> [ sprit? N
LEFT 14---I 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.1 --- 218 RIGHT
THRU 66 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 103
RIGHT 207 --- 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 0 LEFT
v
N
W+E 6 30 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
THRU CENTRAL PARKWAY
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 350 350 3300 0.1061
LEFT (L) 61 61 3000 0.0203 0.0203
SB RIGHT (R) 10 O * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1051 1051 3300 0.3185 0.3185
lEFT (L) 304 304 1650 0.1842
EB RIGHT (R) 207 1~3 * 3000 0.0577
THRU (T) 66 66 1650 0.0400
LEFT (L) 14 14 1650 0.0085 0.0085
~B RIGHT (R) 218 218 1650 0.1321
THRU (T) 103 103 1650 0.0624
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000
I + R 321 1650 0.1945 0.1945
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.54
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.1NT,VOL=NXRUN4.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants
Condition: pm peak hour; CumuLative 2025 No Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 6438 FALLON ROAD/CENTRAL PARKWAY DUBLIN
Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PAd Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 12 385 300
<--- v -'-> J sprit? N
LEFT 7---I 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.1--- 337 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 175 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<-~- 56 THRU CENTRAL PARKWAY
RIGHT 75 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 0 LEFT
v
N StG WARRANTS:
W + E 17 9 6 0 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 986 986 3300 0.2988 0.2988
LEFT (L) 177 177 3000 0.0590
SB RIGHT (R) 12 5 * 1650 ' 0.0030
THRU (T) 385 385 3300 0.1167
LEFT (L) 300 300 1650 0.1818 0.1818
EB RIGHT (R) 75 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 175 175 1650 0.1061
LEFT (L) 7 7 1650 0.0042 0.0042
WB RIGHT (R) 337 337 1650 0.2042
THRU (T) 56 56 1650 0.0339
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000
T + R 393 1650 0.2382 0.2382
========================================================================
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.72
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
'* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.PMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project 07/02/01
========================================================================
iNTERSECTION 9954 FaLton Rd/G[eason Rd Atameda County
Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 ~/0 PRJ Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 39 1361 0
I <--- v ---> I SpLit~ N
LEFT 20 --- 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 --- RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
v
N
~4+E 53 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: FaLton Rd
4-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
Gteason Rd
S[G WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB THRU (TI 583 583 4950 0.1178
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
58 RIGHT (RI 39 19 * 1650 0.0115
THRU (T) 1361 1361 3300 0.4124 0.4124
EB RIGHT (RI 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 20 20 1650 0.0121 0.0121
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.42
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants
Condition: pm peak hour: CUmULative 2025 No Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 9954 Fat[on Rd/Gieason Rd Alameda County
count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour PM PERK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 12 697 0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
N
la+E 135 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Sprit? N
STREET NAME: FaL[on Rd
STREET NAME:
Gteason Rd
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB THRU (T) 1325 1325 4950 0.2677 0.2677
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 O.O000
SB RIGHT (RI 12 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (TI 697 697 3300 0.2112
EB RIGHT (RI 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 25 25 1650 0.0152 0.0152
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.28
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 No Project ~{~d~f~.YIGy~07/03/01
Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour R~ PERK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 587 1621 0
<--- v ---> ~ Split? N
LEFT 0---I 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0--- 1017 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<-" 0 THRU 1-580 WB ramp
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 3.0 --- 645 LEFT
I < ....... > I
N SIG WARRANTS:
~ + E 18 2 0 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 1892 1892 5400 0.3504 0.3504
SB RIGHT (R) 587 587 1800 0.3261
THRU (T) 1621 1621 5400 0.3002
WB RIGHT (R) 1017 1017 327'5 0.3107 0.3107
LEFT (L) 645 645 4695 0.1374
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.66
INTERSECT]ON LEVEL OF SERVICE: B
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
'INT=MITIGS.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.AMV~CAP=C:.-LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
========================================================================
Condition: pm peak hour; CumuLative 2025 No Project-l~l~V07/O~/01
INTERSECTION 8305 Hacienda Dr/I-580 NB ramp DubLin
Count Date YR.2025 ANNEX Time RUN 4 W/O PRJ Peak Hour'PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 1217 2209 0
I <--- v ---> I SpLit? N
LEFT 0--- 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0--- 990 RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 3.0 --- 692 LEFT
v Ill v
N
W+E 223 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
1-580 WB ramp
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 2243 2243 5400 0.4154 0.4154
SB RIGHT (R) 1217 1217 1800 0.6761
THRU (T) 2209 2209 5400 0.4091
~B RIGHT (R) 990 990 3273 0.3025 0.3025
LEFT (L) 692 692 4695 0.1474
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.7~
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MITIG8.INT,VOL=NXRUN4.PMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION
CUMULATIVE YEAR 2025 + PROJECT
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01
L._~fCount Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 127 2216 9
<--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 14---I 1.0 1.1 4.1 2.0 1.1 --- 41 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 908 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.1<"- 1337 THRU DUBLIN BLVD.
RIGHT 949 --~ 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 --- 616 LEFT
N SIG WARRANTS:
u + E 10 9 17 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Spt~t? N
STREET NAHE: DOUGHERTY RD.
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
HOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 517 88 * 3000 0.0293
THRU (T) 689 689 4950 0.1392
LEFT (L) 1076 1076 4304 0.2500 0.2500
SB RIGHT (R) 127 127 1650 0.0770
THRU (T) 2216 2216 6600 0.3358
LEFT (L) 9 9 3000 0.0030
T + R 2343 6600' 0.3550 0.3550
EB RIGHT (R) 949 199 * 3000 0.0663
THRU (T) 908 908 4950 0.1834 0.1834
LEFT (L) 14 14 1650 0.0085
WB RIGHT (R) 41 41 1650 0.0248
THRU (T) 1337 1337 4950 0.2701
LEFT (L) 616 616 4304 0.1431 0.1431
T + R 1378 4950 0.2784
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.93
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
iNT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:.-LOSCAp-TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 3977 DOUGHERTY RD./DUBLIN BLVD. DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 31 1457 63
<--- v --'> ! Split? N
LEFT 60---J 1.0 1.1 4.1 2.0 1.1 -- 25 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 1371 ---> 3,0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.1<-" 1159 THRU DUBLIN BLVD.
RIGHT 1180 --' 2.5 '3.0 3.0 2,5 3.0 --- 763 LEFT
v
~1 SIG I~ARRANTS:
W + E 148 19 2 46 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: DOUGHERTY RD.
IORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 746 '214 * 3000 0.0713
THRU (T) 1952 1952 4950 0.3943
LEFT (L) 1488 1488 4304 0.3457 0.3457
S8 RIGHT (R) 31 31 1650 0.0188
THRU CT) 1457 1457 6600 0.2208
LEFT (L) 63 63 3000 0.0210
T + R 1488 6600 0.2255 0.2255
EB RIGHT (R) 1180 143 * 3000 0.0477
THRU (T) 1371 1371 4950 0.2770 0.2770
LEFT (L) 60 60 1650 0.0364
~JB RIGHT (R) 25 25 1650 0.0152
THRU (T) t159 1159 4950 0.2341
LEFT (L) 763 763 4304 0.1~ 0.1~
T + R 1184 4950 0.2392
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 1.03
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: F
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
l NT=NEt4SRP. l NT,VOL=MI DNOFSA.PMVo CAP=C:. · LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM TransportatiOn Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; CumutatiYe 2025 + Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 8302 Hacienda Dr/I-580 EB ramp PLeasanton
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 0 1600 0
<--- v ---> { Split? N
LEFT 701 ......J 2.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 0 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 EB ramp
RIGHT 1200 --- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
N SIG WARRANTS:
W + E 19 6 39 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 539 539 1800 0.2994
THRU (T) 1916 1916 5400 0.3548 0.3548
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 1600 1600 5400 0.2963
EB RIGHT (R) 1200 1200 3273 0.3666 0.3666
LEFT (L) 701 701 3273 0.2142
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.72
iNTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software byTJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumutative 2025 + Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 8302 Hacienda Dr/I-580 EB ramp Pteasanton
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 0 1949 0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 1056 -~- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
N
W+E 2 6 32
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
2'PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
1-580 EB ramp
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 832 832 1800 0.4622
THRU (T) 2626 2626 5400 0.4863 0.4863
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 1949 1949 5400 0.3609'
.... 13 ; ....... ....... ..... ..... .......
LEFT (L) 717 717 3273 0.2191
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.81
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: O
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
i 1 t i J I J I I I J I J t i i J i
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 8305 Hacienda Dr/l-580 NB ramp Dublin
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 518 1588 0
<--- v ---> J Sprit? N
LEFT 0---J 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0--' 1000 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<'" O THRU 1-580 NB ramp
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 606 LEFT
v
N SIG ~/ARRANTS:
14 + E 18 3 0 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
ND ........................................................ RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 .... ~'~'~
THRU (T) 1883 1883 ~:S~OG' 0.5231 4)?~
SB RIGHT (R) 518 518 1800 0.2878
THRU (T) 1588 1588 5400 0.2941
NB RIGHT (R) 1000 1000 3273 0.3055 0.3055
LEFT (L) 606 606 327-5 0.1852
................................. =======================================
..... ~[-~[~F~:~;-~,o: - o,,~o.
iNTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NENSRP.INT,VOL=HIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consuttants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01
iNTERSECTION 8305 Hacienda Dr/I-580 NB ramp Dublin
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 1170 2246 0
LEFT 0 ~--J 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES)
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9
N+E 220 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? M
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
2-PHASE SIGNAL
J Sprit? N
2.0
--- 1096 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
0.0~--o 0 THRU 1-580 NB ramp
2.0 --- 675 LEFT
I
V
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 2240 2240 ~D"'~88' 0.6222
SB RIGHT (R) 1170 1170 1800 0.6500
THRU (T) 2246 2246 5400 0.4159
NB RIGHT (R) 1096 1096 3273 0.3349 0.3349
LEFT (L) 675 675 3273 0.2062
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NENSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
ConditiOn: am peak hour~ Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 8306 Hacienda Dr/Dublin ~lvd Dublin
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 9 920 150
<--- v ---> ! Split? N
LEFT 52---J 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0--- 42 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 529 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 1147 THRU Dublin Btvd
RIGHT 411 --~ 2.5 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 904 LEFT
N SIG I,JARRANTS:
tJ + E 98 5 5 84 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 384 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 575 575 4950 0.1162
LEFT (L) 982 982 4304 0.2282 0.2282
SB RIGHT (R) 9 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 920 920 4950 0.1859 O. 1859
LEFT (L) 150 150 3000 0.0500
THRU (T) 529 529 4950 0.1069 0.1069
LEFT (L) 52 52 3000 0.0173
WB RIGHT (R) 42 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1147 1147 4950 0.2317
LEFT (L) 904 904 3000 0.3013 0.3013
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.82
INTERSECTIO)I LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
........................................
I NT=N EWSRP. I NT, VOL=M I DNOF SA. AMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 8306 Hacienda Dr/Dublin BIvd Dublin
Count Date Time Peak Hour
...................... L .................................................
CCTA METHOD
^
LEFT 78---I 2.O
THRU 1282 ---> 3.0
RIGHT 861 --- 2.5
¥
RIGHT THRU LEFT
5 882 152
1.0 3.0 2.0 t.0 - RIGHT
(NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 685 THRU
- 3.0 3.0 1.0 ~.0 --- 689 LEFT
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? ~1
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
8~PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
Dublin Btvd
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 979 600 * 1650 0.3636
THRU (T) 780 780 4950 0.1576
LEFT (l) 1435 1435 4304 0.3334 0.3334
sa RIGHT (R) 5 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 882 882 4950 0.1782 0.1782
LEFT (L) 152 152 3000 0.0507
EB RIGHT (R) 861 ..... ~-; ..... ~ ..... ~:~ ..................
T,RU 1 82 1 82 4950 0.2590 0.259o
LEFT (L) 78 78 3000 0.0260
...... .......... ..... ..... ..................
THRU (T) 685 685 4950 0.q384
LEFT (L) 689 689 3000 0.2297 0.2297
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 1.00
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
[NT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.PMV0CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
! : J
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 0 1353 156
I <-~-v---> ISplit? Y
LEFT 805 --- 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 686 RIGHT
THRU 102 ---> 1.0 (340. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 181 --- 1.9 0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 --- 0 LEFT
v v
N
W+ E 106 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Santa Rita Rd
4-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
1-580 eb-off
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) O 0 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 1036 1036 4950 0.2093
T + R 1036 6300 0.1644
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1353 1353 3300 0.4100 0.4100
LEFT (L) 156 156 1650 0.0945
EB RIGHT (R) 181 181 1650 0.1097
THRU (T) 102 102 1650 0.0618
LEFT (L) 805 805 3000 0.2683 0.2683
WB RIGHT (R) 686 530 * 3000 0.1767 0.1767
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.86
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: p~ peak hour; CUmUlative 2025 + Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 4041 Santa Rita Rd/I-580 eb-off PLEASANTON
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 0 1365 300
<--- v ---> I Split? Y
LEFT 418--'J 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.0 2.0--- 295 RIGHT
THRU 203 ~--> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 110 --- 1.9 0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 --- 0 LEFT
v v
N
W+E 207 2
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Santa Rita Rd
4-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
1-580 eb-off
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, RuP=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 2 2 3000 0.0007
THRU (T) 2097 2097 4950 0.4236 0.4236
I + R 20~ 6300 0.3332
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1365 1365 3300 0.4136
LEFT (L) 300 300 1650 0.1818 0.1818
EB RIGHT (R) 110 110 1650 0.0667
THRU (T) 203 203 1650 0.1230
LEFT (l) 418 418 3000 0.1393 0.1393
~B RIGHT (R) 295 0 * 3000 0.0000 0.0000
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.74
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.PMV,CAP=C=..LOSCAP.TAB
EOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour~ Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 3988 Tassajara Rd/I-580 wb-off PLEASANTON
................... ................ ..............
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 1050 1322 0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --" 512 LEFT
v 113 v
N
W+E 167 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Sprit? N
STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
1-580 wb-off
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 1687 1687 3600 0.4686 0.46B6
SB RIGHT (R) 1050 1050 1800 0.5833
THRU (T) 1322 1322 5400 0.2448
~B RIGHT (R) 731 731 3273 0.2233 0.2233
LEFT (L) 512 512 3273 0.1564
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.69
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B
;=~;~=;;;=;~;=;~=~=;~ ........................................
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LEFT 0 --- 0.0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0
RIGHT 0 ,-- 0.0
¥
~+E
S
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consuttants
Condition: pm peak hour; C~nulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 3988 Tassajara Rd/i-580 wb-off PLEASANTON
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT Z-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 1072 1723 0
<--- v ---> iSprit? N
1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 --- 679 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
(NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 wb-off
0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0--- 508 LEFT
~__. ^ ...> [
18 0 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 1875 1875 3600 0.5208 0.5208
SB RIGHT (R) 1072 1072 1800 0.5956
THRU (T) 1723 1723 5400 0.3191
WB RIGHT (R) 679 679 3273 0.2075 0.2075
LEFT (L) 508 508 3273 O. 1552
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.73
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
........................................
I NT=NEWSRP. I NT ~ VOL=M I DNOFSA. PMV o CAP=C: ·. LOSCAP · TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
('~ondition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01
~,.._~IINTERSECTION 157'5 Tassajara Rd/Dublin Btvd Alameda County
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 714 1893 112
<--- v ---,
LEFT 397---I 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.0- - 35- RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 420 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 1114 THRU Dublin Blvd
RIGHT 200 --- 2.5 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 --- 500 LEFT
N SIG WARRANTS:
W + E 41 11 2 02 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 502 310 * 3000 0.1033
THRU (T) 1152 1152 6600 0.1745
LEFT (L) 417 417 4304 0.0969 0.0969
SB RIGHT (R) 714 496 * 3000 0.1653
THRU (T) 1893 1893 6600 0.2868 0.2868
LEFT (L) 112 112 3000 0.0373
EB RIGHT (R) 200 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 420 420 4950 0.0848
LEFT (L) 397 397 3000 0.1323 0.1323
WB RIGHT (R) 53 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1114 1114 4950 0.2251 0.2251
LEFT (L) 500 500 4304 0.1162
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.74
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 157-5 Tassajara Rd/Dublin Btvd Alameda County
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD R,GHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 390 1492 82
I <--- ', -'-> I spli ,i"
LEFT 978 '-- 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 --- RIGHT
THRU 1412 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 366 THRU
RIGHT 375 --- 2.5 3.0 4.0 '2.0 3.0 --- 960 LEFT
N
W + E 54 17 0 27
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd
STREET NAME:
Dublin Btvd
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 427 59 * 3000 0.0197
THRU (T) 1710 1710 ~00 0.2591
LEFT (L) 541 541 4304 0.1257 0.1257
SB RIGHT (R) 390 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 1492 1492 6600 0.2261 0.2261
LEFT (L) 82 82 3000 0.02~
EB RIGHT (R) 375 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 1412 1412 4950 0.2853 0.2853
LEFT (L) 978 978 3000 0.3260
WB RIGHT (R) 61 16 * 1650 0.0097
THRU (T) 3~ 366 4950 0.0~9
LEFT (L) 960 960 4304 0.2230 0.2230
TOTAL VOLt,ME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.86
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour~ Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 6430 TASSAJARA RD./CENTRAL PKWY DUBLIN
Count Date FROM MODEL Time FROM MODEL Peak Hour FROM MODEL
CCTA METHOD
^
LEFT 34---I 1.0
THRU 54 ---~ 1.0
RIGHT 189 --- 1.0
¥
W+E
S
RIGHT THRU LEFT
41 1916 133
1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 - RIGHI
(NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 70 IHRU
1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 551 LEFT
<._. ^ ___> {
LEFT THRU RIGHT Sprit? N
STREET NAME: TASSAJARA RD.
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
CENTRAL PKWY
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT iR) 406 103 * 1650 0.0624
THRU iT) 754 754 4950 0.1523
LEFT il) 166 166 1650 0.1006 0.1006
SB RIGHT iR) 41 7 * 1650 0.0042
THRU iT) 1916 1916 4950 0.3871 0.3871
LEFT (L) 133 133 1650 0.0806
EB RIGHT iR) 189 23 * 1650 0.0139
THRU iT) 54 54 1650 0.0327 0.0327'
LEFT (L) 34 34 1650 0.0206
NB RIGHT (R) 64 ' 0 * 1650 0'0000
THRU (T) 70 70 1650 0'0424
LEFT (l) 551 551 3000 0.1837 0.1837
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.70
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B
........................................
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consuttants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cu~Jtative 2025 + Project 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 6430 TASSAJARA RD./CENTRAL PKWY DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 21 985 88
<--- v ---> { Sprit? N
LEFT 41---I 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0--- 138 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 62 '--> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<-" 82 THRU CENTRAL PKWY
RIGHT 162 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 619 LEFT
N SIG WARRANTS:
14 + E 18 15 94 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Sptit? N
STREET NAME: TASSAJARA RD.
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT iR) 694 354 * 1650 0.2145
THRU (T) 1573 15F3 4950 0.3178 0.3178
LEFT (L) 189 189 1650 0.1145
SB RIGHT (R) 21 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 985 985 4950 O. 1990
LEFT (L) 88 88 1650 0.0533 0.0533
EB RIGHT (R) 162 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 62 62 1650 0.0376 0.0376
LEFT (L) 41 41 1650 0.0248
..... ......... ..... ..... ..................
THRU (T) 82 82 1650 0.0497
LEFT (L) 619 619 3000 0.2063 0.2063
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.61
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
] NT=NEWSRP. I NT, VOL=M I DNOFSA. PMV,, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01
Count Date FROM MODEL Time FROM MODE[ Peak Hour FROM MODE[
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 371 1594 70
LEFT 37---'2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0--- IG.T
SIREET NAME:
THRU 39 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 230 THRU Gteason Ave
RIGHT 109 --- 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 --- 454 LEFT
N SIG ~ARRANTS:
W + E 22 4 9 85 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? ~
STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd'
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT {R) 185 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 459 459 4950 0.0927
LEFT (L) 229 229 3000 0.0763 0.0763
SB RIGHT (R) 371 351 * 1650 0.2127
THRU (T) 1594 1594 4950 0.3220 0.3220
LEFT (L) 70 70 1650 0.0424
EB RIGHT (R) 109 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU CT) 39 39 3300 0.0118 0.0118
LEFT (L) 37 37 3000 0.0123
~B RIGHT (R) 49 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 230 230 3300 0.0697
LEFT (L) 454 454 3000 0.1513 0.1513
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.56
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
[NT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software byTJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 3987 Tassajara Rd/GLeason Ave ALameda County
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD
LEFT 437---I 2.0
THRU 264 ---> 2.0
RIGHT 270 --- 1.0
¥
S
RIGHT THRU LEFT
47 614 57
1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0: - 61- RIeHl
~0. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 48 IHRU
~.0 3.0 ~.0 2.0 --- 258 LEFT
<---^ ---> I
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
Gleason Ave
SIG UARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 353 211 * 3000 0.0703
THRU (T) 1283 1283 4950 0.2592 0.2592
LEFT (L) 208 208 3000 0.0693
SB RIGHT (R) 47 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 614 614 4950 0.1240
LEFT (L) 57 57 1650 0.0345 0.0345
EB RIGHT (R) 270 156 * 1650 0.0945 0.0945
THRU (T) 264 264 3300 0.0800
LEFT (L) 437 437 3000 0.1457
~B RIGHT (R) 61 4 * 1650 0.0024
THRU (T) 48 48 3300 0.0145
LEFT (L) 258 258 3000 0.0860 0.0860
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.47
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP. INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 6617 MAIN STREET/DUBLIN BLVD DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 6-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 0 0 66
<--- v ---> [ Split? fl
LEFT 0---I 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0'-- 32 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 890 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 1530 THRU DUBLIN BLVD
RIGHT 0 --- 1.0 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT
v
N SIG NARRANTS:
N + E O 0 Urb=N, Rur=N
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000
T + R 0 1650 0.0000
S~ RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 66 66 1650 0.0400 0.0400
T + R 0 1650 O.O00O
EB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 890 890 4950 0.1798
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
~B RIGHT (R) 32 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1530 1530 4950 0.3091 0.3091
LEFT (L) 0 0 lr650 O.O00O
TOTAL VOLUME--TO--CAPACITY RATIO: 0.35
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR EIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NE~SRP,INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 6617 MAIN STREET/DUBLIN BLVD DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 6-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 0 0 55
STREET NAME:
THRU 2014 ~--> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 927 THRU DUBLIN BLVD
RIGHT 0 --- 1.0 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT
v
N SIG WARRANTS:
W + E I 0 0 Urb=N, Rur=N
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
========================================================================
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000
T + R 0 1650 0.0000
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 55 55 1650 O. 0333 0.0333
T + R 0 1650 0.0000
EB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 2014 2014 4950 0.4069 0.4069
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
liB RIGHT (R) 53 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 927 927 4950 0.1873
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.44
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
l NT =N EIJSRP. I N T, VOL=M I DNOFSA. PMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 6615 MAIN STREET/CENTRAL PARKWAY DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 0 0 0
<--- v ---> ] Split? N
LEFT 0---[ 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 --- 0 RIGHT
THRU 42 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 137 THRU
RIGHT 111 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT
I ~ ....... · I
v
N
W+E 9 0 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
5-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
CENTRAL PARKWAY
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
~B RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 O.O00O
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 91 91 1650 0.0552 0.0552
T + R 0 1650 0,0000
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
T + R 0 1650 0.0000
EB RIGHT (R) 111 20 * 1650 0.0121
THRU (T) 42 42 3300 0.0127
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
~B RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 137 137 3300 0.0415 0.0415
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.10
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; cumulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 6615 MAIN STREE1/CENTRAL PARKWAY DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 0 0 0
<--- v ---> [ Split? N
LEFT 0---] 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 --- 0 RIGHT
THRU 151 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) ~,0<--- 34 THRU
RIGHT 120 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT
v v
N
W+E 11 0 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? PI
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
S-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
CENTRAL PARKWAY
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 119 119 1650 0.0721 0.0721
T + R 0 1650 0.0000
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0,0000
LEFT (l) 0 0 1650 0.0000
I + R 0 1650 0.0000
EB RIGHT (R) 120 I * 1650 0.0006
THRU (T) 151 151 3300 0.0458 0.0458
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
WB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 34 34 3300 0.010~
LEFT (l) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0,0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0,12
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
·AOJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cgmulative 2025 + Project 07102101
INTERSECTION 6618 MAIN STREET/GLEASON DRIVE DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 389 32 13
LEFT 126---I 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 - RIGHT
THRU 109 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 371 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 1 LEFT
N
W+E 5 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
GLEASON DRIVE
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 15 15 1650 0.0091
LEFT (L) 1 1 1650 0.0006 0.0006
T + R 15 1650 0.0091
SB RIGHT (R) 389 389 1650 0.2358
THRU (T) 32 32 1650 0.0194
LEFT (L) 13 13 1650 0.0079
I + R 421 1650 0.2552 0.2552
EB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 109 109 3300 0.0330
LEFT (L) 126 126 1650 0.0764 0.0764
WB RIGHT (R) 10 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 371 371 3300 0.1124 0.1124
LEFT (L) 1 1 1650 0.0006
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.44
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07102101
INTERSECTION 6618 MAIN STREET/GLEASON DRIVE DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHO0 RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 158 16 6
<'-- v ---> I Sptit~ N
LEFT 374 ......I 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 V RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 359 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 132 THRU GLEASON DRIVE
RIGHT 2 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT
N SIG WARRANTS:
14 + E 1 0 Urb=N, Rur=B
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
ORIGINAL ADdUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPAC I TY RAT I 0 V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 31 31 1650 0.0188
LEFT (L) 1 1 1650 0.0006 0.0006
T + R 31 1650 0.0188
SB RIGHT (R) 158 158 1650 0.0958
THRU (T) 16 16 1650 0.0097
LEFT (L) 6 6 1650 0.0036
T + R 174 1650 0.1055 0.1055
EB RIGHT (R) 2 1 * 1650 0.0006
THRU (T) 359 359 3300 0.1088
LEFT (L) 374 374 1650 0.2267 0.2267
WB RIGHT (R) 9 3 * 1650 0.0018
THRU (T) 132 132 3300 0.0400 0,0400
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME'TO'CAPACITY RATIO: 0.37
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
I NT=NEWSRP. I NT, VOL=MI DNOFSA. PMV~ CAP=C:.. LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA HETHOD
^
I
LEFT 1133 --~ 2.0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0
RIGHT 100 "-- 2.0
¥
S
RIG~HRU LEFT
0 1367 0
<--- v ---> I SpLit? N
1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT
(NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
<___ ^ _._> {
LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAHE: EL Charro Rd
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAHE:
1-580 EB ramp
SIG ~ARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
HOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 931 931 1800 0.5172
THRU (T) 743 743 5400 0.1376
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 1367 1367 5400 0.2531 0.2531
EB RIGHT (R) 100 100 3273 0.0306
LEFT (L) 1133 1133 3273 0.3462 0.3462
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.60
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
iNT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:-.LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: p~peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 9957 Et Charro Rd/l-580 EB ramp Alameda County
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 0 1603 0
<--- v "-> J SpLit[ N
LEFT 1077---J 2.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 --- u RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 46 --- 2.0 0.0 ].0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
v v
t~+ E 10 1 63
S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: Et Charro Rd
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
1-580 EB ramp
SIG gARRANTS:
Urb=¥, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 963 963 1800 0.5350
THRU (T) 1001 1001 5400 0.1854
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 1603 1603 5400 0.2969 0.2969
EB RIGHT (R) 46 46 3273 0.0141
LEFT (L) 1077 1077 3273 0.3291 0.3291
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.63
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
========================================================================
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01
========================================================================
INTERSECTION 9956 Fatlon Rd/I-580 WB ramp Alameda County
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
^
LEFT 0---I 0.0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0
RIGHT 0 ---
I
¥
~+E
S
1354 2001 0
<--- v ~--> I SpLit? N
1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0--- 855 RIGHT
(NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
0,0 0.0 3.0 1.9 2.0 --- 643 LEFT
~C--- ^ ---) I
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET' NAME: FaLton Rd
STREET NAME:
1-580 WB ramp
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NR RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 1856 1856 5400 0.3437
SB RIGHT (R) 1354 1354 1800 0.7522
THRU (T) 2001 2001 5400 0.3706 0.3706
WB RIGHT (R) 855 855 3273 0.2612 0.2612
LEFT (L) 643 643 3273 0.1965
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.63
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consuttants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project . 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 9956 Fatton Rd/I-580 WB ramp ALameda County
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2'PHASE SIGNAL
........... 1727 1792 0
!
<--- v ---> [ SpLit? N
LEFT 0-,-' 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0-'--1299 RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<'-- 0 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 .0.0 3.0 1.9 2.0 --- .715 LEFT
I < ....... > I
N
W+E 199 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME:
1-580 WB ramp
SIG WARRANTS:
urb=Yo Rur=Y
STREET NAME: Fa[ton Rd
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 1969 1969 5400 0.3646 0.3646
SB RIGHT (R) 1727 1727 1800 0.9594 **
THRU (T) 1792 1792 5400 0.3319
WB RIGHT (R) 1299 1299 3273 0.3969 0.3969
LEFT (L) 715 715 3273 0.2185
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.76
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED ** APPROACHING OR EXCEEDING CAPACITY
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIONOFSA.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025+Proj-no new int. 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 8336 Fallon Rd/Dublin Blvd
Count Date Time
Alameda County
Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD
LEFT 75
RIGHT THRU LEFT 69 1853 509
<--- v ---> I Split? N
1.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 --- 8 RIGHT
THRU 296 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 1017 THRU
RIGHT
N
W + E
S
301 - --
I
2.5 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 --- 1438 LEFT
629 654 992
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Fallon Rd
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
Dublin Blvd
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO
CRITICAL
v/c
NB RIGHT (R) 992 441 * 3000
THRU (T) 654 654 6600
LEFT (L) 629 629 3000
SB RIGHT (R) 69 28 * 1650
THRU (T) 1853 1853 6600
LEFT (L) 509 509 3000
0.1470
0.0991
0.2097
0.2097
0.0170
0.2808
0.1697
0.2808
EB RIGHT (R) 301 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 296 296 4950 0.0598 0.0598
LEFT (L) 75 75 3000 0.0250
WB RIGHT (R) 8 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1017 1017 4950 0.2055
LEFT (L) 1438 1438 4304 0.3341 0.3341
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
0.88
D
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV, CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025+Proj-no new int. 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 8336 Fallon Rd/Dublin Blvd Alameda County
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
19 846 354
I <--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 295 --- 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 --- 256 RIGHT
THRU 1190 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES)
3.0<--- 190 THRU
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
Dublin Blvd
RIGHT 548 2.5 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 --- 2095 LEFT
N
W + E 566 1748 1141
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y~ Rur=Y
STREET NAME: Fallon Rd
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 1141 338 * 3000 0.1127
THRU (T) 1748 1748 6600 0.2648 0.2648
LEFT (L) 566 566 3000 0.1887
SB RIGHT (R) 19 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU. (T) 846 846 6600 0.1282
LEFT (L) 354 354 3000 0.1180 0.1180
EB RIGHT (R)
THRU (T)
LEFT (L)
WB RIGHT (R)
THRU (T)
LEFT (L)
548 0 * 3000 0.0000
1190 1190 4950 0.2404
295 295 3000 0.0983
256 61 * 1650 0.0370
190 190 4950 0.0384
2095 2095 4304 0.4868
0.2404
0.4868
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
1.11
F
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.PMV, CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
cOndition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project w/~y~.,j~C~' 07/03101
ount Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 69 1853 315
STREET NAME:
THRU 296 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 1017 THRU Dublin Bird
RIGHT 301 --- 2.5 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 --- 1330 LEFT
v
N SIG WARRANTS:
W + E 37 6 4 2 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: Fa[ton Rd
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 992 482 * 3000 0.1607
THRU (T) 654 654 6600 0.0991
LEFT (L) 376 376 3000 0.1253 0.1253
SB RIGHT (R) 69 58 * 1650 0.0352
THRU (T) 1853 1853 6600 0.2808 0.2808
LEFT (L) 315 315 3000 0.1050
EB RIGHT (R) 301 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 296 296 4950 0.0598 0.0598
LEFT CL) 20 20 3000 0.0067
WB RIGHT (R) 8 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1017 1017 4950 0.2055
LEFT (L) 1330 1330 4304 0.3090 0.3090
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.77
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
........................................
[NT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project~/~'L~ 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 8336 Fa[ton Rd/Dublin B[vd ALameda County
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 19 846 179
<--- v ---> I SpLit? N
LEFT 80 I 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 ---- 256 RIGHT
THRU 1190 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3,0<--- 190 THRU
RIGHT 548 --- 2.5 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 --- 1471 LEFT
W + E 35 17 8 1 41
S
8'PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
Dublin Btvd
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: FaLton Rd
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
MB RIGHT (R) 1141 577 * 3000 0.1923
THRU (T) 1748 1748 ~00 0.2648 0.2648
LEFT (L) 353 353 3000 0.1177
...... i¢ .......... F; ..... ..... ..................
THRU (T) 846 846 ~00 0.1282
LEFT (L) 179 179 3000 0.0597 0.0597
EB RIGHT (R) 548 195 * 3000 0.0650
THRU (T) 1190 1190 4950 0.2404 0.2404
LEFT (L) 80 80 3000 0.0267
..... ........ i F; ..... ..... ..................
THRU (T) 190 190 4950 0.0384
LEFT (L) 1471 1471 4304 0.3418 0.3418
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.91
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E
· ADdUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIONOFSA.PMV, CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM TransPortation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; cumulative 2025 + Project 07103/01
INTERSECTION 6760 Falton Road/New Intersection Dublin
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD
^
LEFT 49---I 2.0
THRU 13 ---> 1.0
RIGHT 71 --- 2.0
¥
$
RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
136 3178 171
<--- v ---> ~ Split? N
1.0 4.0 2.0 1.1:-- 45 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
(NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 13 THRU New Intersection
2.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 --- 106 LEFT
<.~. ^ ..~> ~
25 19 7 31 Urb=B, Rur=Y
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Fatlon Road
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 531 490 * 1650 0.2970
THRU (T) 1927 1927 6600 0.2920
LEFT (L) 252 252 3000 0.0840 0.0840
S8 RIGHT (R) 136 109 * 1650 0.0661
THRU (T) 3178 3178 6600 0.4815 0.4815
LEFT (L) 171 171 3000 0.0570
EB RIGHT (R) 71 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 13 13 1650 0.0079
LEFT (L) 49 49 3000 0.0163 0.0163
.WB RIGHT (R) 45 ' 45 1650 0.0273
THRU (T) 13 13 1650 0.0079
LEFT (L) 106 106 4304 0.0246
T + R 58 1650 0.0352 0.0352
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RAT[O: 0.62
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEUSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 6760 Fat[on Road/New Intersection Dublin
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 119 2569 176
<--- v ---> [ Split? N
LEFT 212---I 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.1 ---' 208 RIGHT
THRU 35 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 35 THRU
RIGHT 392 --- 2.0 2.0 4,0 1.0 3.0 --- 558 LEFT
N
W + E 21 2 2 27
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Sptit? N
STREET NAME: Fallon Road
8'PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
New Intersection
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, RuP=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 227 13 * 1650 0.0079
THRU (T) 2822 2822 6600 0.4276 0.4276
LEFT (L) 218 218 3000 0.0727
SB RIGHT (R) 119 2 * 1650 0.0012
THRU (T) 2569 2569 6600 0.3892
LEFT (L) 176 176 3000 0.0587 0.0587
EB RIGHT (R) 392 272 * 3000 0.0907 0.0907
THRU (T) 35 35 1650 0.0212
LEFT (L) 212 212 3000 0.0707
WB RIGHT (R) 208 208 1650 0.1261
THRU (T) 35 35 1650 0.0212
LEFT (L) 558 558 4304 0.1296 0.1296
T + R 243 1650 0.1473
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.71
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NENSRP. INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.PMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 6438 FALLON ROAD/CENTRAL PARKWAY OUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 111 1716 218
I <--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 61 --- 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.1 --- 256 RIGHT
THRU 69 -~-> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 152 THRU
RIGHT 223 --- 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 80 LEFT
v v
N
W+E 6 57 19
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD
8'PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
CENTRAL PARICdAY
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
THRU (T) 537 537 3300 0.1627
LEFT (L) ~ 66 3000 0.0220 0.0220
SR RIGHT (R) 111 50 * 1650 0.0303
THRU (T) 1716 1716 3300 0.5200 0.5200
LEFT (L) 218 218 1650 0.1321
EB RIGHT (R) 223 187 * 3000 0.0623
THRU (T) 69 69 1650 0.0418
LEFT (L) 61 61 1650 0.0370 0.0370
WB RIGHT (R) 256 256 1650 0.1552
THRU (T) 152 152 1650 0.0921
LEFT (L) 80 80 3000 0.0267
T + R 408 1650 0.24D 0.24D
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.83
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 6438 FALLON ROAD/CENTRAL PARKWAY DUBLIN
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 51 789 206
I
<--- v ---> [ Split? N
LEFT 106---' 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.1--- 214 RIGHT
THRU 152 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 58 THRU
RIGHT 151 --- 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 28 LEFT
v v
N
W + E 21 16 0 69
s LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: FALLON ROAO
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
CENTRAL PARKWAY
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
...... ;¢ ......... ..... ..... ..................
THRU (T) 1610 1610 ~300 0.4879 0.4879
LEFT (L) 216 216 3000 0.0720
SB RIGHT (R) 51 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 789 789 3300 0.2391
LEFT (l) 206 206 1650 0,1248 0.1248
EB RIGHT (R) 151 32 * 3000 0.0107
THRU (T) 152 152 1650 0.0921
LEFT (L) 106 106 1650 0.0642 0.0642
WB RIGHT (R) 214 214 1650 0.1297
THRU (T) 58 58 1650 0.0352
LEFT (L) 28 28 3000 0.0093
T + R 272 1650 0.1648 0,1648
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.84
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NE~$RP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.PHV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 9954 Fatton Rd/Gteason Rd ALameda County
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 44 1487 0
<--- v ---> [ Sptit~ N
LEFT 18 ...... I 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 U RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 22 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
~I+E 7 64 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: FaL[on Rd
4-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
G[eason Rd
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Nf Rur=N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB THRU (T) 694 694 4950 0.1402
LEFT (L) 77 77 1650 0.0467 0.0467
SB RIGHT (R) 44 26 * 1650 0.0158
THRU (T) 1487 1487 3300 0.4506 0.4506
EB RIGHT (R) 22 0 * 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 18 18 1650 0.0109 0.0109
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.51
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
INT:NEWSRP.INT,VOL:MIDNOFSA.AMVfCAP:C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/02/01
INTERSECTION 9954 Fa[Ion Rd/G[eason Rd ALameda County
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 13 791 0
<--- v --->I Sptit~ N
LEFT 19 ...... ] 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 U RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- O' THRU
RIGHT 65 --- 1.0 1,0 3.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
I < I
N
W+E 2 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: FatLon Rd
4-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
Gleason Rd
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB THRU (T) 1417 1417 4950 0.286~ 0.2863
LEFT (L) 20 20 1650 0.0121
SB RIGHT (R) 13 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 791 791 3300 0.2397
EB RIGHT (R) 65 45 * 1650 0.027~ 0.02~
LEFT (L) 19 19 1650 0.0115
========================================================================
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.31
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT~VOL=MIDNOFSA.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 18 Street D/Dublin BLvd Dublin
Count Date Time Peak Hour AM PEAK
94 HCM UnsignaL
49 0 169
<--- V -'->
16 ...... { 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 52
1637 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 2285
0 -,- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0
I
~+E ~ 0 0
S
ACCEL % % PEAK HOUR
LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR .....
FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT
N 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
- 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
ORIG ADJ ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT I APP APP
MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOSI DELAY LOS
......................................................... +
SB L 169 207 7.0 4376 2 1 999+ F { 999+ F
R 49 60 5.5 1269 315 315 14.1 C
I
EB L 16 20 5.5 2597 69 69 71.9 F I 0.7 A
T 1637 2001 0.0 A
I
~B T 2285 2793 0.0 A { 0.0 A
R 52 64 0.0 A
I
INT TOTAL: 999+ F
MINOR MOVEMENTS: (999+) (F)
INT=NEgSRP.INT,VOL=M~DNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
N/S CONTROL: STOP
E/W CONTROL: NONE
MAJ ST SAT FLO~/:
Th= O, Rt= 0
CRITICAL GAP ADJUST
LEFT THRU RIGHT
SB 0.0 --- 0.0
EB 0.0 ......
~B .........
SIGNAL ~ARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak houri Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 18 Street D/Dublin Btvd Dubtin
Count Date Time Peak Hour AM PEAK
94 HCM Unsignal
32 0 104
<--- V --->
56 ...... I 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 189
2540 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<"- 1902
0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0
N
W+E 0 0
S
ACCEL % % PEAK HOUR
LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR .....
FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT
g 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
ORIG ADJ ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT { APP APP
MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOS I DELAY LOS
SB L 104 127 7.0 4998 1 0 999+ F I 999+ F
R 32 39 5.5 1057 404 404 9.9 B
I
EB L 56 68 5.5 2323 97 97 97.2 F J 2.1 A
T 2540 3104 0.0 A
I
NB T 1902 2325 0.0 A I 0.0 A
R 189 231 0.0 A
I
INT TOTAL: 999+ F
MINOR MOVEMENTS: (999+) (F)
i NT=NE~/SRP. I NT, VOL=MI DNOFSA.PMV, CAP=C :.. LOSCAP. TAB
N/S CONTROL: STOP
E/W CONTROL: NONE
MAJ ST SAT FLOr4:
Th= O, Rt= 0
CRITICAL GAP ADJUST
LEFT THRU RIGHT
SB 0.0 --- 0.0
EB 0.0 ......
~B .........
SIGNAL WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=Y
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 19 Fatlon Road/Project Driveway Dublin
Count Date Time Peak Hour AM PEAK
94 HCM Unsigna[
0 1496 8
<--- v -'-> 1 0{
0---I 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 . --- 33
0 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0
0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 --- 153
W + E 1 8 55
S
ACCEL % % PEAK HOUR
LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR .....
FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT
N 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
N 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
ORIG ADJ ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT I APP APP
MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOSI DELAY LOS
NB T 168 205 6.0 207 850 757 6.5 B J 5.6 B
R 55 67 5.5 0 1385 1385 2.7 A
I
SB L 8 10 6.5 263 745 516 7.1 B J598.6 F
T 1496 1828 6.0 170 888 791 601.8 F
I
EB I 0 0 5.0 37 1647 1647 0.0 A 0.0 A
I 0 0 0.0 A
WB L 153 187 5.0 0 1714 1714 2.4 A 1.9 A
R 33 40 0.0 A
INT TOTAL: 471.5 F
MINOR ~OVEMENTS: (479.7) (F)
]NT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
N/S CONTROL: STOP
E/W CONTROL: NONE
MAJ ST SAT FLOW:
Th: O, At: 0
CRITICAL GAP ADdUST
LEFT THRU RIGHT
NB --- 0.0 0.0
SB 0.0 0.0 ---
EB 0.0 ......
WB 0.0 ......
SIGNAL WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 19 Falton Road/Project Driveway Dublin
Count Date Time Peak Hour
. 94 HCM Unsigna[
0 786 30
I
<--- V ---> J
0 ...... ' 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 5
0 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0
0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 --- 63
I < ....... · I
N
W + E 14 1 41
S
ACCEL % % PEAK HOUR
LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR .....
FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT
N 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
N 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
ORIG ADJ ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT ~ APP APP
MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOSI DELAY LOS
NB T 1431 1574 6.0 68 1005 964 297.5 F 1271.t F
R 141 155 5.5 0 1385 1385 2.9 A
I
SB L 30 33 6.5 779 375 0 999+ F 1391.5 F
T 786 865 6.0 63 1011 970 25.0 O
I
EB L 0 0 5.0 5 1705 1705 0.0 A J 0.0 A
T 0 0 0.0 A
I
WB L 63 69 5.0 0 1714 1714 2.2 A J 2.0 A
R 5 6 0.0 A
I
INT TOTAL: 303.6 F
MINOR MOVEMENTS: (304.3) (F)
! NT=N EWSRP. I NT ~ VOL=M I DNOFSA. PMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. TAB
N/S CONTROL: STOP
E/W CONTROL: NONE
MAJ ST SAT FLOW:
Th= O, Rt: 0
CRITICAL GAP ADJUST
LEFT THRU RIGHT
NB --- 0.0 0.0
SB 0.0 0.0 ---
EB 0.0 ......
WB 0.0 ......
SIGNAL WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
J I~l ~s J
1 i 1 t I ~' t, I I i I l I I i i. I 1 I
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 20 Street D/Central Parkway Dub[in
Count Date Time Peak Hour AM PEAK
94 HCM Unsignat
0 0 0
0 ...... - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0- 0
306 ---> 1.1 (NO, OF LANES) 1.0<--- 488
62 --- 1.1 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 --- 152
S
ACCEL % % PEAK HOUR
LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR .....
FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT
N 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
ORIG ADJ ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT I APP APP
MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOS] DELAY LOS
NB L 48 59 6.5 1086 249 217 22.7 D I 13.) C
R 51 62 5.5 374 895 895 4.3 A
I
EB T 306 374 0.0 A
R 62 ?6
TR 368 450 0.0 A
WB L 152 186 5.0 409 1095 1095 4.0 A 0.9 A
T 488 596 0.0 A
INT TOTAL: 1.7 A
MINOR MOVEMENTS: ( 7.6) (B)
INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
N/S CONTROL: STOP
E/W CONTROL: NONE
MAd ST SAT FLOW:
Th= O, Rt= 0
CRITICAL GAP ADJUST
LEFT THRU RIGHT
NB 0.0 --- 0.0
EB .........
WB 0.0 ......
SIGNAL WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=B
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 20 Street D/CentraL Parkway DubLin
Count Date Time Peak Hour
94 HCM Unsigna[
0 0 0
~--- V ---> {
0 ......{ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0' 0
427 ---> 1.1 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 300
69 --- 1.1 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 --- 98
I < ....... > I
v v
N
t~+ E 7 0 75
S
ACCEL % ~ PEAK HOUR
LAN E % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR .....
FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU ~GHT
N 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 0 0 1,00 1.00 1.00
0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
ORIG ADJ ADd CONFL POT ACT -MVMT MVT I APP APP
MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOSI DELAY LOS
NB L 78 86 6.5 860 337 309 16.1 C I 9.0 B
R 175 193 5 . 5 461 808 808 5 . 8 B
I
EB T 427 470 I 0.0 A
R 69 76
I
TR 496 546 0.0 A
WB L 98 108 5.0 496 995 995 4.1 A I 1.o A
T 300 330 O. 0 A
I
INT TOTAL: 2.3 A
MINOR MOVEMENTS: ( ?.6) CB)
· I N T=N EWSRP. I NT, VOL=M I DNOFSA. PMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. TAB
N/S CONTROL: STOP
E/W CONTROL: NONE
MAJ ST SAT FLOW:
Th= O, Rt= 0
CRITICAL GAP ADJUST
LEFT THRU RIGHT
NB 0.0 --- 0.0
EB .........
WB 0.0 ......
SIGNAL WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=Y
LOS Software bY TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project 07/0~/01
INTERSECTION 21 Street B/Central Parkway Dublin
Count Date Time Peak Hour AM PEAK
94 HCM Unsigna[
133 0 5
<--- v --->
44 ...... ' 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.1 5
357 ---> ?.0 (NO. OF LANES) ~.1<--- 640
0--- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0--- 0
W+E 0 0
S
ACCEL % ~ PEAK HOUR
LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR .....
FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT
N 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90
ORIG ADJ ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT { APP APP
MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOS I DELAY LOS
SB L 5 6 6.5 1159 226 214 17.3 C J 8.5 B
R 133 163 5.5 714 602 602 8.2 B
I
EB L 44 54 5.0 717 781 781 5.0 A { 0.5 A
T 357 436 0.0 A
I
WB T 640 782 I 0.0 A
R 5 6
I
TR 645 788 0.0 A
INT TOTAL: 1.2 A
MINOR MOVEMENTS: ( 7.7) (8)
INT=NEWSRP.[NT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
N/S CONTROL: STOP
E/W CONTROL: NONE
MAd ST SAT FLOW:
Th= O, Rt= 0
CRITICAL GAP ADJUST
LEFT THRU RIGHT
SB 0.0 --- 0.0
EB 0.0 ......
WB .........
SIGNAL WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=Y
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project . 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 21 Street B/Central Parkway Dublin
Count Date Time Peak Hour
94 HCM Unsignal
133 0 5
<--- V '-'> [
44---' 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.1 ---- 5
602 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<-'- 398
0--- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0--- 0
N
W+E 0 0
S
ACCEL % % PEAK HOUR
LANE % COMBO MOTOR ..... FACTOR .....
FOR LT SU/RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT
N 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
ORIG ADJ ADJ CONFL POT ACT MVMT MVT I APP APP
MOVEMENT VOL VOL GAP VOL CAP CAP DELAY LOS { DELAY LOS
SB L 5 6 6.5 1047 262 c I ,
R 133 146 5.5 400 868 868 5.0 A
I
EB L 44 48 5.0 403 1102 1102 3.4 A ) 0.2 A
T 602 662 0.0 A
I
'dB T 398 438 I 0.0 A
R 5 6
I
T R 40~ 444 0.0 A
INT TOTAL: 0.7 A
MINOR MOVEMENTS: ( 4.9) (A)
I N T =N EWSRP. I NT, VOL=M ] DNOF SA. PMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. TAB
N/S CONTROL: STOP
E/W CONTROL: NONE
MAJ ST SAT FLO~:
Th= O, Rt= 0
CRITICAL GAP ADJUST
LEFT THRU RIGHT
SB 0.0 --- 0.0
EB 0.0 ......
~B .........
SIGNAL WARRANTS:
Urb=N~ Rur=Y
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Project -~k~-~a~07/03/01
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 518 1588 0
<--- v ---> ] SpLit? N
LEFT 0 .... ' 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 -- 1000 RIGHT
THRU 0 --~> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 3.0 --- 606 LEFT
N
~/+E 183 O
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? H
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
1-580 WB ramp
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 1883 1883 5400 0.3487 0.3487
SB RIGHT (R) 518 518 1800 0.2878
THRU (T) 1588 1588 5400 0.2941
~B RIGHT (R) 1000 1000 327-5 0.3055 0.3055
LEFT (L) 606 606 4695 0.1291
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.65
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B
........................................
INT=MITIG8.1NT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants
Condition: pm peak hour; CumuLative 2025 + Project-I~X~G~(/v~ 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 8305 Hacienda Dr/I-580 Wa ramp Dub[in
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 1170 2246 0
<--- v ---> J SpLit? N
LEFT 0'--J 0.0 1.9 ~.0 0.0 2.0---1096 RIGHT
THRU 0 ~-'> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<-"' 0 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 3.0 --- 675 LEFT
v v
N
W+E 220 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
1-580 ta~ ramp
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUHE VOLUHE* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 2240 2240 5400 0.4148
SB RIGHT (R) 1170 1170 1800 0.6500
THRU (T) 2246 2246 5400 0.4159 0.4159
WB RIGHT (R) 1096 1096 327"5 0.3349 0.3349
LEFT (L) 675 675 4695 0.1438
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.75
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
........................................
INT=MITIGS. INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cunu[ative 2025 + Proj. mitigate 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 18 Street D/Dub[in Blvd Dublin
Count Date Time Peak Hour AM PEAK
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4~PHASE SIGNAL
49 0 169
<--- v ---> ~ Split? N
LEFT16---I1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0--- 52 RIGHT
THRU 1637 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2,0<-"- 2285
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
v llo)
N
t4+E 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME:
THRU Dublin B[vd
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
STREET NAME: Street D
========================================================================
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
SB RIGHT iR) 49 33 * 1650 0.0200
LEFT il) 169 169 1650 0.1024 0.1024
EB THRU iT) 1637 1637 3300 0.4961
LEFT il) 16 16 1650 0.0097 0.0097
WB RIGHT iR) 52 0 * 1650 0,0000
THRU iT) 2285 2285 3300 0.6924 0.6924
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.80
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MITIGS.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.AMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Proj. mitigate 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 18 Street D/Dublin Btvd Dublin
Count Date Time Peak Hour AM PEAK
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 32 0 104
<--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 56---I 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0--- 189 RIGHT
THRU 2540 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 1902 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
N
t,l+E 0 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Street D
4-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
Dublin Blvd
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
sa RIGHT (R) 32 0 * 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 104 104 1650 0.0630 0.0630
EB THRU iT) 2540 2540 3300 0.7697 0.7697
LEFT (L) 56 56 1650 0.0339
WB RIGHT (R) 189 85 * 1650 0.0515
THRU (T) 1902 1902 3300 0.5764
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.83
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
========================================================================
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
[NT=MIT[GS.INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Proj. mitigate 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 19 Fat[on Road/Project Driveway Dub[in
Count Date Time Peak Hour AM PEAK
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 0 1496 8
THRU 0 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 --- 153 LEFT
W+E 1 55
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Fatton Road
4-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
Project Driveway
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (Ri 55 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (l) 168 168 3300 0.0509
SB THRU (Ti 1496 1496 3300 0.4533 0.4533
LEFT (L) 8 8 1650 0.0048
EB THRU (Ti 0 0 3300 0.0000
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
WB RIGHT (R) 33 25 * 1650 0.0152
LEFT (L) 153 153 1650 0.0927 0.0927
TOTAL VOLUME'TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.55
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
........................................
INT=MITIG8. INT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.A~V,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKH Transportation ConsuLtants
Condition: pm peak hour; Cumulative 2025 + Proj. mitigate 07/03/01
INTERSECTION 19 Fa[ton Road/Project Driveway Dub[in
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 0 786 30
<--- v ---> i SpLit? N
LEFT 0 ...... I 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 5 RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- O' THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 --- 63 LEFT
N
W + E 14 1 41
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: FaL[on Road
4-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
Project Driveway
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
MB RIGHT (R) 141 78 * 1650 0.04T5
THRU (T) 1431 1431 3300 0.4336 0.4336
SB THRU (T) 786 786 3300 0.2382
LEFT (L) ~0 30 1650 0.0182 0.0182
EB THRU (Ti 0 0 3300 0.0000
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
WB RIGHT (R) 5 0 * 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 63 63 1650 0.0382 0.0382
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.49
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
........................................
INT=MITIG8.1NT,VOL=MIDNOFSA.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
CUMULATIVE YEAR 2025 + ECAP ALTERNATIVE
Table 4.2-1
,rtation Model Cumulative ~/ear 2025 ~ ECAP Alternative
l'eag Hour lntersecnon ld..evels Ol oervlcc -i ! s- v ancO' ~t z an~p~,t ,a,l~,,, ~.--, ....................... t
Intersection Control Unmitigated Mitigated
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
* LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS
! Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.93 E 1.03 F .....
2 Hacienda Drive/l-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.71 C 0.81 D
3 Hacienda Drive~I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.80 D 0.93 E 0.65 B 0.76 C
4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.82 D 1.03 F ........
5 Santa Rita Road/l-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.84 D 0.77 C
6 Tassajara Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.72 C 0.73 C
7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.72 C 0.87 D
8 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.71 C 0.62 B
9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.57 A 0.47 A
l0 Grafton Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.33 A 0.45 A
11 Grafton Street/Central Parkway Signal 0.10 A 0.13 A
12 Grafton Street/Gleason Drive Signal 0.41 A 0.35 A
13 E1 Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.70 B 0.67 B
14 Fallon Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.74 C 0.84 D
15 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.89 D 1.35 F ........
15A Fallon Rd./Dublin Blvd. w/New Int. Signal ...... 0.74 C 0.86 D
XX Fallon Road/New Intersection Signal ........ 0.78 C 0.96 E
16 Fallon Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.84 D 0.89 D
17 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.54 A 0.33 A ,
Note: * = Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
========================================================================
Condition: am peak hour; ECAP Alternative 07/12/01
INTERSECTION 6430 TASSAJARA RD./CENTRAL PKWY DUBLIN
Count Date FROM MODEL Time FROM MODEL Peak Hour FROM MODEL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 40 1944 132
<--- v ---> { Split? N
LEFT 3]---I 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0--- 64 RIGHT
THRU 54 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 70 THRU
RIGHT 197 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 557 LEFT
N
W + E 16 7 2 29
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: TASSAJARA RD.
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
CENTRAL PKWY
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 429 123 * 1650 0.0745
THRU (T) 772 772 4950 0.1560
LEFT (L) 166 166 1650 0.1006 0.1006
SB RIGHT (R) 40 7 * 1650 0.0042
THRU (T) 1944 1944 4950 0.3927 0.3927
LEFT (L) 132 132 1650 0.0800
EB RIGHT (R) 197 31 * 1650 0.0188
THRU (T) 54 54 1650 0.0327 0.0327
LEFT (L) 33 33 1650 0.0200
WB RIGHT (R) 64 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 70 70 1650 0.0424
LEFT (L) 557 55? 3000 0.1857 0.1857
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.71
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=ECAP.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; ECAP Alternative 07/12/01
INTERSECTION 6430 TASSAJARA RD./CENTRAL PKWY DUBLIN
Count Oate FROM MODEL Time FROM MODEL Peak Hour FROM MODEL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 21 975 88
<"-- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 39---I 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 --- 136 RIGHT
THRU 63 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 84 THRU
RIGHT 164 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 629 LEFT
v
N
t4 + E 19 15 4 04
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: TASSAJARA RD.
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
CENTRAL PKWY
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 704 358 * 1650 0.2170
THRU (T) 1554 1554 4950 0.3139 0.3139
LEFT (L) 198 198 1650 0.1200
...... ii .......... ;'; ..... ..... ..................
THRU (T) 975 9~5 4950 0.1970
LEFT (L) 88 88 1650 0.0533 0.0533
EB RIGHT (R) 164 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 63 63 1650 0.0382 0.0382
LEFT (L) 39 39 1650 0.0236
WB RIG,T 136 -' 48'; ..... ..... ..................
THRU CT) 84 84 1650 0.0509
LEFT (L) 629 629 3000 0.2097 0.2097
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.62
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B
· ADdUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=ECAP.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
................................................................
ondition: am peak hour; ECAP Alternative
~.~/INTERSECTION 3987 Tassajara Rd/G[eason Ave Alameda County
Count Date FROM MODEL Time FROM MODEL Peak Hour FROM MODEL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 317 1657 71
I <--- v ---> I Spli~ N
LEFT 37 --- 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 --~ RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 36 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 182 THRU Gleason Ave
RIGHT 115 --- 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 --- 413 LEFT
N SIG ~IARRAHTS:
I,/ + E 24 4 9 84 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? )1
STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (RI 184 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 459 459 4950 0.0927
LEFT (L) 249 249 3000 0.0830 0.0830
SB RIGHT (R) 317 297 * 1650 0.1800
THRU (T) 1657 1657 4950 0.3347 0.3347
LEFT (L) 71 71 1650 0.0430
EB RIGHT (RI 115 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 36 36 3300 0.0109 0.0109
LEFT (L) 37 37 3000 0.0123
WB RIGHT (RI 48 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (TI 182 182 3300 0.0552
LEFT (L) 413 413 3000 0.1377 0.1377
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.57
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
iNT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=ECAP.AMV,CAP=C:.-LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; ECAP Alternative 07/12/01
INTERSECTION 3987 Tassajara Rd/GIeason Ave Alameda County
Count Date FROM MODEL Time FROM MODEL Peak Hour FROM MODEL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 46 617 58
<--- v -'-> ! Split? N
I
LEFT 422--- 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0:-- 62 RIGHT
THRU 238 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 46 THRU
RIGHT 264 --- 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 --- 252 LEFT
v
N
t/ + E 21 12 I 34
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
Gleason Ave
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (RI 334 195 * 3000 0.0650
THRU (TI 1281 1281 4950 0.2588 0.2588
LEFT (L) 216 216 3000 0.0720
SB RIGHT (RI 46 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (TI 617 617 4950 0.1246
LEFT (L) 58 58 1650 0.0352 0.0352
EB RIGHT (RI 264 145 * 1650 0.0879 0.0879
THRU (T) 238 238 3300 0.0721
LEFT (L) 422 422 3000 0.1407
WB RIGHT (RI 62 4 * 1650 0.0024
THRU (T) 46 46 3300 0.0139
LEFT (L) 252 252 3000 0.0840 0.0840
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.47
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
iNT:NEUSRP.INT,VOL=ECAP.PMV,CAP=C:-.LOSCAP.TAB
Table 4.2-1
-Tri-Valle ~ortation Model Cumulative Year 2025 dus ECAP Alternative
intersection Control Unmitigated Mitigated
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
* LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS
I Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.93 E 1.03 F ....
2 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.71 C 0.81 D
3 Hacienda Drive/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.80 D 0.93 E 0.65 B 0.76 C
4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.82 D 1.03 F ........
5 Santa Rita Roadfl-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.84 D 0.77 C
6 Tassajara Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.72 C 0.73 C
7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.72 C 0.87 D
8 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway Signal .0.5!
9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive Signal
10 Grafton Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.33 A 0.45 A
I I Grafton Street/Central Parkway Signal 0.10 A 0.13 A
12 Grafton Street/Gleason Drive Signal 0.41 A 0.35 A
13 El Charro Road/l-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.70 B 0.67 B
14 Fallon Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.74 C 0.84 D
15 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.89 D 1.35 F .......
! 5A Fallon Rd./Dublin Blvd. w/New Int. Signal ...... 0.74 C 0.86 D
XX Fallon Road/New Intersection Signal ........ 0.78 C 0.96 E
16 Fallon Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.84 D 0.89 D
17 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.54 A 0.33 A
Note: * = Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants / ................... '-~"~.~.~ LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Alternative ~,..C~e~ ~. 07/09/01 LJp Condition: pm ~ak hour; Alternative ~ 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 3977 DOUGHERTY RD./DUBLIN BLVD. DUBLIN
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 125 2058 9
<--- v ! I
LEFT 14 ....I 1.0 1.1 4.1 2.0 1.1 RIGHT LEFT 62 --- 1.0
STREET NAME:
THRU 967 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.1<--- 1216 THRU DUBLIN BLVD. THRU 1363 --~> 3.0
RIGHT 1005 --- 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 --- 609 LEFT RIGHT 1174 --- 2.5
N SIC UARRANTS: N
I~ + E 112 6 7 68 Urb=Y, Rur=Y t~ + E
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N S
STREET NAME: DOUGHERTY RD.
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (RI 568 144 * 3000 0.0480
THRU (T) 697 697 4950 0.1408
LEFT (L) 1124 1124 4304 0.2612 0.2612
SB RIGHT (R) 125 125 1650 0.0758
TBRU (T) 2058 2058 6600 0.3118
LEFT (L) 9 9 3000 0.0030
T + R 2183 6600 0.3308 0.3308
EB RIGHT (R) 1005 222 * 3000 0.0740
THRU (T) 967 967 4950 0.1954 0.1954
LEFT (L) 14 14 1650 0.0085
UB RIGHT (R) 35 35 1650 0.0212
THRU (TI 1216 1216 4950 0.2457
LEFT (L) 609 609 4304 0.1415 0.1415
T + R 1251 4950 0.2527
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.93
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
INTERSECTION 3977 DOUGHERTY RD./DUBLIN BLVD. DUBLIN
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 31 1442 61
<--- v ---~> ] Sprit? N
1.1 4.1 2.0 1.1 --- 24 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
(NO. OF LANES) 3.1<--- 1208 THRU DUBLIN BLVD.
3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 --- 78] LEFT
<''' ^ '''> I
I [ v SIG I~ARRANTS:
150 19 9 62 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: DOUGHERTY RD.
========================================================================
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (RI 762 216 * 3000 0.0720
THRU (T) 1969 1969 4950 0.3978
LEFT (L) 1507 1507 4304 0.3501 0.]501
SB RIGHT (R) 31 ]1 1650 · 0.0188
THRU (TI 1442 1442 6600 0.2185
LEFT (L) 61 61 3000 0.0203
T + R 14T3 6600 0.2232 0.2232
EB RIGHT (R) 1174 124 * 3000 0.0413
THRU CT) 1363 1363 4950 0.2754 0.2~4
LEFT (L) 62 62 1650 0.0376
~B RIGHT (R) 24 24 1650 0.0145
THRU (T) 1208 1208 4950 0.2440
LEFT (l) 783 783 4304 0.1819 0.1019
T + R 1232 4950 0.2489
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 1.03
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: F
========================================================================
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
I NT=NEWSRP. I NT, VOL=RUNECAP. PMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. TAB
m ~
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Alternative J~L(~ 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 8302 Hacienda Dr/I-580 EB ramp Pteasanton
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 0 1666 0
I <--- v '--> I Split? N
LEFT 667 --- 2.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT STREET NAME:
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 EB ramp
--- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
RIGHT 1157
v SIG ~ARRANTS:
N 19 0 79 UPb=Y, Rur=Y
w+E
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 579 579 1800 0.3217
THRU (T) 1940 1940 5400 0.3593 0.3593
RIGHT(R) ~ 0 1800 0.~
SB
THRU (T) 166 1666 5400 O.
EB RIGHT (R) 1157 1157 3273 0.3535 0.3535
LEFT (L) 667 667 3273 0.2038
0.71
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: C
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
* ADdUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C:--LOSCAp'TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative ~C~ 07/09/01
iNTERSECTION 8302 Hacienda Or/i-580 EB ramp Pteasanton
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK: VOL
...................................... 2-PHASE SIGNAL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 0 1938 0
I <--- v ---> ! s. plit~.
LEFT 647 2.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 - RIGHT
--- STREET NAME:
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 EB ramp
--- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
RIGHT 1072 I <--- " -">
v I ~ I v S]G WARRANTS:
i~ 25 2 01 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
............................. ~i ....... ;~ ..... ~:;.;.~ ..................
NB RIGHT (R) 801
THRU (T) 2592 2592 5400 0.4800 0.4800
~F';;~;'i~ ....... ~ .......... ~'- 18oo o.o&
THRU (T) 1938 1938 5400 0.35.8. y .............
LEFT (L) 6/+7 647 327"~ 0.19"
...........................................................
................................................ --.= ........... ~:~ .......
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: D
iNTERSECT[ON LEVEL OF SERVICE: ............ ====-_
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
I NT=N E~SRP. i NT, VOL=RUN ECAP · PMV, CAP=C: - - LOSCAP. TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Alternative ~ 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 8305 Hacienda Dr/I-580 WB ramp Dublin
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 539 1607 0
<--- v ---> /Split? N
LEFT 0--'1 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0--- 998 RIGHT
THRU 0 '--> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 644 LEFT
v
N
14+E 180 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
1-580 ~B ramp
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000 o.~
THRU (T) 1840 1840 ~IZo3(~ 0.5111
SB RIGHT (R) 539 539 1800 0.2994
THRU (T) 1607 1607 5400 0.2976
~B RIGHT (R) 998 998 3273 0.3049 0.3049
LEFT (L) 644 644 3273 0.1968
..... ;~;2~=~;:;;~2;2~;;;=;2;~; .........................
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: O
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.AMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJIG4 Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak houri Alternative ~ 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 8305 Hacienda Dr/I-580 ~B ran~o Dublin
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 1157 2267 0
<--- v ---> { Spt i t? N
LEFT 0---{ 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0---1097 RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2,0 --- 658 LEFT
v v
N
Id+E 229 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
1-580 WB ramp
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 2209 2209 3~i-L~ ~ 0.6136
SB RIGHT (R) 1157 1157 1800 0.6428
THRU (T) 2267 2267 5400 0.4198
NB RIGHT (R) 1097 1097 3273 0.3352 0.3352
LEFT (L) 658 658 3273 0.2010
..... ;~;2~_=;~; .=;~.--~2;2~;;=;2;~. .........................
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN OH RED
] NT=NE~SRP. [ NT ~ VOL=RUNECAP. PHV ~ CAP=C:,. LOSCAP. TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Trans~rtation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Alternative ~ 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 8306 Hacienda Dr/Dublin Blvd Dublin
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E ~/ EEAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
8 882 193
<--- v -"> ! Split? N
1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0c-- 44 RIGHT
LEFT 58 --- 2.0
THRU 605 ---> 3.0
RIGHT 483 --- 2.5
I
¥
S
(NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 1127 THRU
3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 ---
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
893 LEFT
STREET NAME:
Dublin Blvd
SIG UARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 419 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 543 543 4950 0.1097
LEFT (L) 962 962 4304 0.2235 0.2235
SB RIGHT (R) 8 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 882 882 4950 0.1782 0.1782
LEFT (L) 193 193 3000 0.0643
EB RIGHT (R) 483 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 605 605 4950 0.1222 0.1222
LEFT (L) 58 58 3000 0.0193
~B RIGHT (R) 44 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1127 1127 4950 0.2277
LEFT (L) 893 893 3000 0.2977 0.2977
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.82
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C:-.LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; ALternative J~_CJ~) 07/09101
INTERSECTION 8306 Hacienda Dr/Oublin Blvd Dublin
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E N/ EEAP Peak flour PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 5 875 159
J <--- V ''->
LEFT 69 --- 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0
THRU 1343 '--> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES)
RIGHT 858 --- 2.5 3.0 3.0 1.0
~+E
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
1.0 --- RIGHT
3.0<--- 739 THRU
2.0 --- 715 LEFT
I
V
STREET NAME:
Dublin Btvd
SIG NARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C ..
NB RIGHT (R) 928 535 * 1650 0.3242
THRU (T) 761 761 4950 0.1537
LEFT (L) 1466 1466 4304 0.7~,06 0.3406
SB RIGHT (R) 5 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 875 875 4950 0.1768 0.1768
LEFT (L) 159 159 3000 0.0530
EB RIGHT (R) 858 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 1343 1343 4950 0.2713 0.2713
LEFT (L) 69 69 3000 0.0230
~B RIGHT (R) 36 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 739 739 4950 0.1493
LEFT (L) 715 715 3000 0.2383 0.2383
========================================================================
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 1.03
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: F
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
iNT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.PMV, CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Alternative ~ C~ 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 4041 Santa Rita Rd/I~580 eb-off PLEASANTON
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E g/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 0 1315 154
<'-- V --->
LEFT 781---I 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.0
THRU 102 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES)
RIGHT 169 --- 1.9 0.0 3.1 2.1
<.._ ^ ___>
W+E 108 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Santa Rita Rd
4-PHASE SIGNAL
^
!
Split? Y
2.0 z._ 698 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 eb-off
2.0 --- 0 LEFT
V
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 1078 1078 4950 0.2178
T + R 1078 6300 0.1711
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1315 1315 3300 0.3985 0.3985
LEFT (L) 154 154 1650 0.0933
EB RIGHT (R) 169 169 1650 0.1024
THRU (T) 102 102 1650 0.0618
LEFT (L) 781 781 3000 0.2603 0.2603
~B RIGHT (R) 698 544 * 3000 0.1813 0.1813
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.84
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: 0
· ADdUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative ~CA~ 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 4041 Santa Rita Rd/I-580 eb-off PLEASANTON
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 0 1370 324
<--- v ---> I Split? Y
LEFT 448---I 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 300 RIGHT
THRU 200 --~> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 110 --~ 1.9 0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 --- 0 LEFT
N
W+E 202 2
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Santa Rita Rd
4-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
1-580 eb-off
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 2 2 3000 0.0007
THRU (T) 2082 2082 4950 0.4206 0.4206
T + R 2084 6300 0.3308
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1370 1370 3300 0.4152
LEFT (L) 324 324 1650 0.1964 0.1964
EB RIGHT (R) 110 110 1650 0.0~7
THRU (T) 200 200 1650 0.1212
LEFT (L) 448 448 3000 0.1493 0.1493
WB RIGHT (R) 300 0 * 3000 0.0000 0.0000
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.77
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
condition: am peak hour; Alternative ~A~ 07/09/01
========================================================================
INTERSECTION 3988 Tassajara Rd/I-580 wb-off PLEASANTON
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
1032 1294 0
I <*-- v ---> ! SpLit? N
LEFT 0-'- 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 -' 80~ RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 'THRU
RIGHT 0 --~ 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 -~- 504 LEFT
v
N
W+E 161 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? ~1
STREET NAME:
L-580 wb-off
WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 1691 1691 3600 0.4697 0.4697
SB RIGHT (R) 1032 1032 1800 0.5733
THRU (T) 1294 1294 5400 0.2396
WB RIGHT (R) 803 803 3273 0.2453 0.2453
LEFT (L) 504 504 3273 0.1540
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.72
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERV%CE: C
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
iNT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C:--LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants
Condition: pm peak hour; ALternative ~C~ 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 3988 Tassajara Rd/I-580 wb-off PLEASANTON
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
1079 1740 0
[ <--- v ---> I SpLit? N
LEFT 0--- 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0--- 708 RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 0 -"- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 551 LEFT
g+E ~1 9 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME:
1-580 wb-off
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb:Y, Rur=Y
STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO VIC
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 1849 1849 3600 0.5136 0.5136
SS RIGHT (R) 107~ 1079 1800 0.5994
THRU (T) 1740 1740 5400 0.3222
WB RIGHT (R) 708 708 3273 0.2163 0,2163
LEFT (L) 551 551 3273 0.1683
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.73
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hoUr; Alternative ~D~D 07/09/01
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN '~ime RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 760 1834 132
I
<--- V --=>
LEFT 398 ---' 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0
THRU 534 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES}
RIGHT 200 --- 2.5 3.0 4.0 2.0
g N+ E V 46} 11~8 }26
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd
8-PHASE SIGNAL
^
1.0 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
3.0<--- 973 THRU Dublin B[vd
3.0 --- 502 LEFT
I
¥
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 526 334 * 30DO 0.1113
THRU (T) 1188 1188 6600 0.1800
LEFT (L) 466 466 4304 0.1083 0.1083
SB RIGHT (R) 760 541 * 3000 0.1803
THRU (T) 1834 1834 6600 0.2779 0.2779
LEFT (L) 132 132 3000 0.0440
EB RIGHT (R) 200 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 534 534 4950 0.1079
LEFT (L) 398 398 3000 0.1327 0.1327
gB RIGHT (R) 64 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 973 973 4950 0.1966 0.1966
LEFT (L) 502 502 4304 0.1166
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.72
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NENSRP. INToVOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C=..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak houri Atternative ECd~7 07/09/01
INIERSEClION 15T3 lassajara Rd/Dub[in B[¥d Alameda County
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 393 1488 86
I
<'-- V
LEFT 949 ---' ?.0 2.0 4.0 2.0
THRU 1458 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES}
RIGHT 369 --- 2.5 3.0 4.0 2.0
I 4:___ ^
V
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd
8-PHASE SIGNAL
^
I spti~ N
1.0 --- RIGHT
STREET NAME:
3.0<--- 441 THRU DubLin Btvd
3.0 --- 980 LEFT
I
V
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Yo Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
..... ......... ..... ..... ..................
THRU (T) 1724 1724 6600 0.2612
LEFT (L) 546 546 4304 0.1269 0.1269
SB RIGHT (R) 393 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 1488 1488 6600 0.2255 0.2255
LEFT (L) 86 86 3000 0.0287
EB RIGHT (R) 369 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU CT) 1458 1458 4950 0.2945 0.2945
LEFT (L) 949 949 3000 0.3163
~B RIGHT (R) 66 19 * 1650 0,0115
THRU (T) 441 441 4950 0.0891
LEFT (L) 980 980 4304 0.22?7 0.2277
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.8~
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
·AOJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEI~SRP. tNT,VOL=RUNECAP.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Co~ition: am peak hour; Alternative ~ 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 6430 TASSAJARA RD./CENTRAL PK~Y DUBLIN
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Tim RUN E ~/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
I <--- v ---> I Split~ N
LEFT 33 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 '-- RIGHT LEFT 39 -'- 1.0
STREET NAME:
THRU 0 "'> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 0 THRU CENTRAL PKWY THRU 0 ---> 1.0
--- 1.0
--- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 0 LEFT RIGHT 164
RIGHT 197 I <--' ^ "-> I v
N SIG WARRANTS: N
W + E t 7 2 0 Ur~Y, Rur=Y W + E
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N S
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative ~k~ 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 6430 TASSAJARA RD./CENTRAL PKI~Y DUBLIN
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL
· 8-PHASE SIGNAL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT 1HRU LEFT
21 975 0
STREET NAME:
(NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- ?/~.THRU CENTRAL PKWY
1.0 3~0 1.0 ._ '2'0 -jO LEFT
19 15 4-'~ Urb=Y, Rur=Y
.- it?
LEFT .TH~b RIGHT Sp(' .
STR,E~T/NAME: TASSAdARA RD.
StREEt NAME: TASSAJArA rD. : ........... ~:~;;~;~[ ........
........................................................................
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C MOVEMENT/ VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO _.~
.g RIG.T (RI 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 166 166 1650 0.~006 0.1006 // L:~m ~ ~ ' ...
............................. ~/'/ ....................................................................
........................................... ~' SB RIGHT (ri 21 0 * 1650 0.0000
SB RIGHT (ri 40 7 * 1650 0.0042
THRU (TI 1944 1944 4950 0.~927
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
................................
E..XG,T 3! *
THRU (TI / 200
LEFT (L) 33 33 1650 0.0200/,' 0.0
gB RIGHT (RI 0 0 1650 0~00~0 0.0000
THRU (TI 0 0 1650 ~.0000
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 ,/ 0.0000
..... ~J;~t ~OLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: ,?= 0.51
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: ~'-' A
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED //
I NT =N EWSRP. I NT, VOL=RUN ECAP. AMV,--t~,~P=C:.. LOSCAP
TAB
THRU (TI 975 975 4950 0.1970 0.1970
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
EB RIGHT (RI 164 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (TI 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 39 39 1650 0.0236 0.0236
WB RIGHT (RI 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
THRU (TI 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.34
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
========================================================================
· ADJUSTEO FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.PMV,CAP=C:,,LOSCAP-TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
INTERSECTION 3987 Tassajara Rd/Gteason Ave Alameda County
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour AR PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 317 1657 0
THRU 0 ~--> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 0 THRU
STREET NAME:
G[eason Ave
LOS Software by TJKM TransportatiOn Consultants :
INTERSECTION 3987 Tassajara Rd/G[eason Ave Alameda County
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 46 617 0
STREET NAME:
THRU 0 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 0 THRU Gleason Ave
RIGHT 115 --- 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 --- 0 LEFT RIGHT 264 --- 1.0. 2.0 3.0 2.0>~..2.0 --~ 0 LEFT
, Ill v SIG ~ARRANTS: . v ~y/'I~,~'~ I v SIG ~ARRANTS:
~ + E 249 459 0 Urb=B, Rur=Y ~ + E ,~ 216 1281 0 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N S ~ LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd ~STREET__==N=AME: TassajaraRd
............... ~---~ ................ ~ ..... ~ ...... ~~===~---~ ................ ~ ..... ~[ ......
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C ~ MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
~--~i~-i~i ....... ~ .......... ~ ....... ~ ..... ~ ............ ~ ~F'~i~Fi~i ....... ~ .......... ~ ....... ~ ..... ~ ..... ' ............
THRU (T) 459 459 4950 0.0927 / THRU (T) 1281 1281 4950 0.2588 0.2588
LEFT (L) 249 249 3000 0.0830 0~.08~0 LEFT (L) 216 216 3000 0.0720
~ RIGHT (R) 317' 297 * 1650 0.1800 ~,// SB RIGHT (R) 46 0 * 1650 0.0000 - -
THRU (T) 1657 1657 4950 0.33&T~ 0.3347 THRU (T) 617 617 4950 0.1246
o.,e~OO
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650
EB RIGHT (R) 115 0 * 1650.' .... 0 . 0000
THRU (T) 0 0 3300/ 0.0000
1EFT (l) 37 37 .30bO 0.0123 0.0123
.................................... -~.' .................................
~JB RIGHT (R) 0 0 //' 1650 0.0000 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 Q-" 3300 0.0000
LEFT (L) 0 .~_j_~_ 3000 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACitY RATIO: 0.43
..... L. T ~ELs _E CT Lo._ _ LE _v_E ~_~_?_ _ s ~ [ ~ ~ ............................. A_
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
EB RIGHT (R) 264 145 * 1650 0.0879
THRU (T) 0 0 3300 0.0000
LEFT (l) 422 422 3000 0.1407 0.1407
WB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 3300 0.0000
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.40
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
INT=NENSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
========================================================================
Condition" am ~ak hour; Alternative ~C~ 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 6617 MAIN STREET/DUBLIN BLVD DUBLIN
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E ~/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 6-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 0 0 72
<--- v ---> I Split? N
1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 --- 3~ RIGHT
LEFT 0 --- 1.0
THRU 1065 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 1408 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 1.0 Z.O 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT
v v
N
Id+E 0 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Sptit? N
STREET NAME:
DUBLIN BLVD
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 i~ ~ ~
T,.U 0 0 65o o.oooo
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0,0000
T + R 0 1650 0.0000
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 O.OOOO
LEFT (L) 72 72 1650 0.0436 0.0436
T + R 0 1650 0.0000
EB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1065 1065 4950 0.2152
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
NB RIGHT (R) 32 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1408 1408 4950 0.2844 0.2844
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.33
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
1NT=NEgSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAp'TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consuttants
Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative [C..~ 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 6617 MAIN STREET/DUBLIN BLVD DUBLIN
Count Date YR.2025 E.OUBLIN Time RUN E ~/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHO0 RIGHT THRU LEFT 6-PHASE SIGNAL
0 0 55
I <--- v '-'> I Spti~ N
LEFT 0 --- 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 --- RIGHT
THRU 2055 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 1057 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 1.0 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT
v v
N
id+E 0 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME:
DUBLIN BLVO
SIG ~ARRANTS:
Urb=N~ Rur=N
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
========================================================================
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0,0000 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000
T + R 0 1650 0.0000
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 55 55 1650 0.0333 0.0333
T + R 0 1650 0.0000
EB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU CT) 2055 2055 4950 0.4152 0.4152
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
~B RIGHT (R) 64 9 * 1650 0.0055
THRU CT) 1057 1057 4950 0.2135
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.45
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NENSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.PMV,CAP=C:--LOSCAP-TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
INTERSECTION 6615 MAIN STREET/CENTRAL PARKWAY DUBLIN
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN lime RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 0 0 0
THRU 61 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 139 THRU
RIGHT 117 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT
N
W+E 9 0 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
5-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
CENTRAL PARKWAY
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 O 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 90 90 1650 0.0545 0.0545
T + R 0 1650 0.0000
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
T + R 0 1650 0.0000
EB RIGHT (RI 117 27 * 1650 0.0164
THRU (TI 61 61 3300 0.0185
LEFT el) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
WB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 139 139 3300 0.0421 0.0421
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.10
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
........................................................................
........................................
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
! !
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
INTERSECTION 6615 MAIN STREET/CENTRAL PARKWAY DUBLIN
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 0 0 0
THRU 172 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 56 THRU
RIGHT 120 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT
v v
N
W+E 12 0 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Sprit? N
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
5-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
CENTRAL PARKWAY
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 O 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 128 128 1650 0.0~6 0.077'6
T + R 0 1650 0.0000
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
T + R 0 1650 0.0000
EB RIGHT (R) 120 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (TI 172 172 3300 0.0521 0.0521
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
WB RIGHT (ET 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 56 56 3300 0.0170
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.13
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
................ ' .......................
INT=NEWSRP. INT~VOL=RUNECAP.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Alternative ~k~ 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 6618 MAIN STREET/GLEASON DRIVE DUBLIN
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 373 30 14
THRU 108 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 275 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- I LEFT
v
N
W+E 5 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
GLEASON DRIVE
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 15 15 1650 0.0091
LEFT (L) 1 I 1650 0.0006 0.0006
T + R 15 1650 0.0091
SB RIGHT (R) 373 373 1650 0.2261
THRU (T) 30 30 1650 0.0182
LEFT (l) 14 14 1650 0.0085
T + R 403 1650 0.2442 0.2442
EB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 108 108 3300 0.0327
LEFT (L) 129 129 1650 0.0782 0.0782
WB RIGHT (R) 10 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 275 275 3300 0.0833 0.0833
LEFT (L) 1 1 1650 0.0006
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.41
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.tNT,VOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C:--LOSCAP-TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; ALternative ~.~? 07/09/01
I)4TERSECTION 6618 MAIN STREET/GLEASON DRIVE DUBLIN
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 151 14 6
<--- V
343 --- 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0
LEFT
THRU
RIGHT 2 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1
~+E 0 1
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
305 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES)
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
I spt% N
1.0 -"- RIGHT
2.0<--- 134 THRU
1.0 --- 0 LEFT
I
V
STREET NAME:
GLEASON DRIVE
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 1 1 1650 0.0006
THRU (T) 30 30 1650 0.0182
LEFT (L) I 1 1650 0.0006 0.0006
T + R 31 1650 0.0188
SB RIGHT (R) 151 1~1 1650 0.0915
THRU (T) 14 14 1650 0.0085
LEFT (L) 6 6 1650 0.0036
T + R 165 1650 0.1000 0.1000
EB RIGHT (R) 2 1 * 1650 0.0006
THRU (T) 305 305 3300 0.0924
LEFT (L) 343 343 1650 0.2079 0.2079
NB RIGHT (R) 9 3 * 1650 0.0018
THRU (T) 134 134 3300 0.0406 0.0406
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
TOTAL VOLL~4E-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.35
I~TERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.PMV,CAP=C:--LOSCAP-TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consuttants
Condition: am peak hour; Alternative E(..A~D 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 9957 E[ Charro Rd/I-580 EB ramp Alameda County
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E ~/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 0 1372 0
<--- v ---> I Sprit! N
LEFT 1467 ---I 2.0 1,9 3.0 0.0 0.0 --- u RIGHT
THRU 0 -''> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<~~- 0 THRU
RIGHT 101 -'- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
v 111
N
~+E 98 86
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: E[ Charro Rd
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
1-580 EB ramp
SIG WARRANTS:
UFb=Y0 Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 886 886 1800 0.4922
THRU (TM 948 948 5400 0.1756
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (TM 1372 1372 5400 0.2541 0.2541
EB RIGHT (R) 101 101 327'5 0.0309
LEFT (L) 1467 1467 3273 0.4482 0.4482
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.70
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
^
LEFT 1067~--I 2.0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0
RIGHT 45 --- 2.0
I
¥
~+E
S
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative E-(.~/ekP 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 9957 El Charro Rd/I-580 EB ramp Alameda County
Count Date YR.2025 E.OUBLIN Time RUN E la/ ECAP Peak H'our PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 0 1869 0
1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 - RIGHT
STREET NAME:
(NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 EB ramp
0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
1 7 60 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Et Charro Rd
ORIGINAL ADdUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 960 960 1800 0.5333
THRU (T) 1017 1017 5400 0.1883
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 1869 1869 5400 0.3461 0.3461
EB RIGHT (R) 45 '45 3273 0.0137
LEFT (L) 1067 1067 3273 0.3260 0.3260
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.67
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
I NT=N EWSRP · I NT, VOL =RUN ECAP. PMV o CAP=C: · · LOSCAP · TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; ALternative ~.~A~ 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 9956 Fallon Rd/I-580 ~B ramp Alameda County
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUSLIN Time RUN E g/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT
........... 1230
LEFT 0 ---I 0.0 1.9
THRU 0 --~> 0.0 (NO.
RIGHT 0 --' 0.0 0.0
W+E
S LEFT
THRU LEFT
1981 0
3.0 0.0
OF LANES)
3.0 1.9
STREET HAME: FatLon Rd
^
Split? N
2.0 !-- 966 RIGHT
0.0<-"- 0 THRU
2.0 --- 635 LEFT
¥
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
1-580 gB ramp
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (RI 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (TI 2396 2396 5400 0.4437 0.4437
SB RIGHT (RI 1230 1230 1800 0.6833
THRU (TI 1981 1981 5400 0.3669
~B RIGHT (RI 966 966 3273 0.2951 0.2951
LEFT (L) 635 635 3273 0.1940
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.74
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
* AOdUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
iNT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=RUHECAP.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; ALternative ~j~:~ 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 9956 FaLlon Rd/I-580 NB ramp Alameda County
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 1995 2371 0
<--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 0---I 0.0 1.9 3.0 0,0 2.0--- 1306 RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<"' 0 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 2.0 --- 695 LEFT
¥
N '19 6 0
W+E
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Falton Rd
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
1-580 WB ramp
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUHE VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (TI 1976 1976 5400 0.3659
SB RIGHT (R) 1995 1995 1800 1.1083 **
THRU (TI 2371 2371 5400 0.4391 0.4391
WB RIGHT (R) 1306 1306 3273 0.3990 0.3990
LEFT (L) 695 695 3273 0.2123
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.84
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED ** APPROACHING OR EXCEEDING CAPACITY
]NT=NEWSRP.INT~VOL=RUNECAP.PMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
0 II
· . Il
II
II
ti
"
II
II
II
11
II
II
o~0o
o IJ'l o
0oo
ooo
ooo
l'o 0~ o
00 I, zl o
o ,-.1 o
,0'~
Ln
F~
~o~0
~oLn
~ObO0
0oo
o
0oo
I. J1 o ~0
Il
II
II
II
12'rJ II
I|
011
II ~
["r]
II
II
II
II
O~ll I-~
~11 I-u
, I;J II II
II ~1
II 13J
II
H
II
II
0
II
II
("1 II
~l.-r II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
m
I I I
I I I
,q--i t
V
~ A
~-,,1 [ ·
Hk.O IL',)
~ I
I
A
I--' I
· I
o I
N I
· I
o I
v
o o
A
I-- ).
I
I
0 l'1'
0
II II 0
II ~ II 03
II ~ II
~ II I~-II 03
O~ II Fr II O
~mll I-'- II
O II O II rt
II
II m II (~
II ~l II
II II 1~
~0 II '~ II
N II I~ II
1_4 II ~ II
0'~ II ~ II C..I
II II ~
~ II ~ II
m II O II
O II-. II m
l:l II II
II ~ II m
II
~1~ Il ~,Ill ~0
I~l II II I-~
~ II ~ II ~
o- II~ II rt
i-J II ri' II I~-
I-- II. II O
II ~ II
~ II II O
~ II (~ II m
II II l--,
II l-~-II rt
II ri' II ~l
II · II rt
II II ~
II II
II II
II II
II II
II II
II II
~ II II
II II
· II II
~I II II
(1) II II
~ II II
f~ II II
II II
('3 II II
O II II
II II
II 0 II
FI' II '-,,1 II -
~ II ~ II
II I'~ II
II I0 II
II N II
II 0 II
II I-~ II ~,~
II il
II II
[_~ II II
0 II II L~ ~) 0'~
Eli II II o 0'1 o"1
(-~ II II gbs o o
~ II II
II II
II II
II II
II I1 ooo
II II ~ ~ o
II II ~ ~ o
II II
II II
II II
II II
II II
II II o
II II ·
II I'~ II t~
II -- II 0
II b~ II L~
II ~IU1 II ~0
Il II
II II
II II
II II
II II
II II
II II
ooqo
ooo
ooo
ooLfl
ooo
ooo
~0oo
Ul~oo
~.~
~00o
o01o
o0o
ooo
oo0
II
II
II
['~ II
II
II
II
1-411 L'x'J
~ 11
II
II [-1--J
II ,'
11 N
~11 0
II
II ~
II ~
II
II
II
II
II
'o
II
II
II
II
~ II
~ II
~ II
~ II
II
II
II
II
~+~
L~
1 t I
A
I
I 0
~'101' 0
Ii M II ~
M II I~ II
D II ('I' II 0
~1~ II I-" II I-h
(I) H II" II P)
0 il II M
Iltl~ II (1)
·II II
L~ ~ II ~ II ~
0 ~ II (1) II
L~ II PJ II t-]
~C~ II ~i~ II ~
II II
II ~
?,," 0= ,,
~I~II I~ II ~
I~ II Fl II ~{
0 II-. II ~i
L~ ~I II II ~
II ~ II ia
II II 0
..I%1 II II
II
II ~
II ~ II
I-I II II 0
IL'zJ ~ II ~ II ~
~., II · II
II II I-~
II iI- II ~
II (-t II ~
II · II
II II CA
II II
II II
~ II II
(1) II II
PJ II II
~i~ II II
~ II II
II II
II
Ii II
II II
I~ II II
I1~ ~!1 II II
~ II II
{~ II II
tO 0 II II
I~1~ II II
~ II 0 II
I II ~l II
~ II N II
I ~ II I~ II
I0 II ~ II
I~ IIN II
i II0 II
I III-J II
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
INTERSECTION 8336 Fat ton Rd/Dublin atvd Alameda County
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E t4/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
........................................................................
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 50 1903 382
THRU 325 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 902 THRU
RIGHT 454 --- 2.5 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 --- 1058 LEFT
N
$J+ E 41 9 8 66
S
STREET NAME:
Dublin Btvd
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: FallOn Rd
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 966 560 * 3000 0.1867
THRU (T) 928 928 6600 0.1406
LEFT (L) 413 413 3000 0.1377 0.1377
SB RIGHT (R) 50 30 * 1650 0.0182
THRU (T) 1903 1903 6600 0.2883 0.2883
LEFT (L) 382 382 3000 0.1273
EB RIGHT (R) 454 41 * 3000 0.0137
THRU (T) 325 325 4950 0.0657 0.0657
LEFT (L) 37 37 3000 0.0123
idb RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 902 902 4950 0.1822
LEFT (l) 1058 1058 4304 0.2458 0.2458
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.74
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
........................................
INT=NEIdSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative ~(~.~,p 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 8336 Fat[on Rd/Dublin Blvd A[amecla County
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUDLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 42 1344 168
<--- v ---> / Split? N
LEFT 85---I 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.0--- 339 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 1132 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<'" 225 THRU Dublin BLvd
RIGHT 703 --- 2.5 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 --- 1167 LEFT
v v
N SIG WARRANTS:
id + E 45 19 0 7 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Fal[on Rd
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 787 340 * 3000 0.1133
THRU (T) 1940 1940 6600 0.2939
LEFT (l) 456 456 3000 0.1520 0.1520
SB RIGHT (R) 42 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1344 1344 6600 0.2036 0.2036
LEFT (L) 168 168 3000 0.0560
EB RIGHT (R) 703 247 * 3000 0.0823
THRU (T) 1132 1132 4950 0.2287 0.2287
LEFT (L) 85 85 3000 0.0283
idb RIGHT (R) 339 247 * 1650 0.1497
THRU (T) 225 225 4950 0.0455
LEFT (L) 1167 1167 4304 0.2711 0.2711
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.86
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: O
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
I NT=NEIdSRP. 1NT,VOL=RUNECAP. PMV, CAP=C:,. LOSCAP. TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Alternative ~l~k~ 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 6760 Fatlon Road/New Intersection Dublin
Count Date ¥R.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 122 2843 450
I <--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 47 --- 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.1 --- 130 RIGHT
THRU 25 -"-> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 25 THRU
RIGHT 7"5 --- 2.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 3,0 --- 295 LEFT
v [[1
N SIG ~ARRANTS:
W + E 26 21 1 68 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Fatton Road
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 968 855 * 1650 0.5182 0.5182
THRU (Ti 2131 2131 6600 0.3229
LEFT (L) 263 263 3000 0.0877
SB RIGHT (R) 122 96 * 1650 0.0582
THRU (Ti 2843 2843 6600 0.4308
LEFT (L) 450 450 3000 0.1500 0.1500
EB RIGHT (Ri 73 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (Ti 25 25 1650 0.0152
LEFT (L) 47 47 3000 0.0157 0.0157
WB RIGHT (Ri 130 130 1650 0.0788
THRU (T) 25 25 1650 0.0152
LEFT (L) 295 295 4304 0.0685
T + R 155 1650 0.0939 0.0939
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.78
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
STREET NAME:
New Intersection
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative ~(.~ 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 6760 Fal[on Road/New Intersection Dublin
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 115 2590 509
<--- v --'> I Split? N
LEFT 193---I 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.1--- 507 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 73 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1o1<--- 75 THRU New Intersection
RIGHT 347 -'- 2.0' 2.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 --- 1429 LEFT
I < ....... · I
v
N SIG WARRANTS:
W + E 20 24 2 97 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT split? N
STREET NAME: FalLon Read
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (Ri 597 49 * 1650 0.0297
THRU (Ti 2482 2482 6600 0.3761 0,3761
LEFT (l) 203 203 3000 0.0677
SB RIGHT (R) 115 9 * 1650 0,0055
THRU (T) 2590 2590 6600 0.3924
LEFT (L) 509 509 3000 0.1697 0.1697
EB RIGHT (R) 347 235 * 3000 0.0783
THRU (Ti 75 7'5 1650 0.0442
LEFT (L) 193 193 3000 0.0643 0.0643
NB RIGHT (R) 507 507 1650 0.3075
THRU (T) 7-5 75 1650 0.0442
LEFT (L) 1429 1429 4304 0.~320
T + R 580 1650 0.3515 0.3515
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.96
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.PMV,CAP=C:-.LOSCAP-TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
condition: am peak hour~ Alternative 1~_~[:::~ 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 6438 FALLOW ROAD/CENTRAL PARKWAY DUBLIN
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E N/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 163 1970 17-5
<--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 106---I 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.1--- 197 RIGHT
THRU 43 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 63 lHRU
RIGHT 268 --- 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 0 LEFT
v v
N
14+E 6 67 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: FALLOW ROAD
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
CENTRAL PARKWAY
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT iR) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU iT) 637 637 3300 0.1930
LEFT il) 67 67 3000 0.0223 0.0223
SB RIGHT iR) 163 57 * 1650 0.0345
THRU iT) 1970 1970 3300 0.5970 0.5970
LEFT il) 173 173 1650 0.1048
EB RIGHT iR) 268 231 * 3000 0.0770
THRU iT) 43 43 1650 0.0261
LEFT il) 106 106 1650 0.0642 0.0642
gB RIGHT iR) 197 197 1650 0.1194
THRU iT) 63 63 1650 0.0382
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000
T + R 260 1650 0.1576 0.1576
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RAT[O: 0.84
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NE~SRP.INT~VOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative ~.~p 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 6438 FALLOW ROAD/CENTRAL PARKWAY DUBLIN
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RI'GHT THRU LEFT
........... 92 991 160
'(''' V
LEFT 164---I 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0
THRU 97 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<---
RIGHT 174 --- 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 ---
Ill v
N
W+ E 26 18 1 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
8-PHASE SIGNAL
^
1.1 RIGHT
49
0
STREET NAME:
THRU CENTRAL PARKWAY
LEFT
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
STREET NAME: FALLOW ROAD
ORIGINAL ADJUSTEO V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT iR) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU iT) 1851 1851 3300 0.5609 0.5609
LEFT (L) 265 265 3000 0.0883
SB RIGHT iR) 92 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 991 991 3300 0.3003
LEFT (L) 160 160 1650 0.0970 0.0970
EB RIGHT (R) 174 28 * 3000 0.0093
THRU (T) 97 97 1650 0.0588
LEFT (L) 164 164 1650 0.0994 0.0994
~B RIGHT (R) 168 168 1650 0.1018
THRU (T) 49 49 1650 0.0297
LEFT il) 0 0 3000 0.0000
T + R 217 1650 0.1315 0.1315
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.89
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NE~SRP.[NT,VOL=RUNECAP.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
condition: am peak hour; Alternative F-~ ................. ~
INTERSECTION 9954 FaIIon Rd/Gteason Rd Alameda County
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 15 1661 0
I <--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 18 --- 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 26 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
v v
N
W+E 5 78 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Fa[Ion Rd
STREET NAME:
Gteason Rd
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB THRU (TI 708 708 4950 0.1430
LEFT (L) 50 50 1650 0.0303 0.0303
SB RIGHT (RI 15 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1661 1661 3300 0.5033 0.5033
EB RIGHT (RI 26 0 * 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 18 18 1650 0.0109 0.0109
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.54
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C:.,LOSCAP-TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative Er-AP .............
INTERSECTION 9954 Fatton Rd/Gteason Rd Atameda County
Count Oate YR.2025 E.DIJBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 14 814 0
<--- V --->
1.0 2.0 0.0
^
LEFT 11 --- 1.0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0
RIGHT 39 --- 1.0
¥
~+E
$
(NO. OF LANES)
I Sptit~ N
0.0 --- RIGHT
0.0<--- 0 THRU
STREET NAME:
Gleason Rd
1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 ---
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
0 LEFT
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
STREET NAME: Fa[ton Rd
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUHE VOLLME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB THRU (TI 1604 1604 4950 0.]~40 0.~240
LEFT (L) 23 23 1650 0.0139
SB RIGHT (R) 14 3 * 1650 - 0.0018
THRU (T) 814 814 3300 0.2467
~'-RIGHT (R) 39 16 * 1650 0.0097 0.0097
LEFT (L) 11 11 1650 0.0067
TOTAL VOLLq4E-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.33
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.PMVoCAP=C:-.LOSCAP-TAB
^
LEFT 0---I 0.0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0
RIGHT 0 '-- 0.0
I
V
N
S
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; ECAP Alternative - mitigation 07/12/01
INTERSECT[ON 8305 Hacienda Dr/I-580 MB ramp Dublin
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E M/ ECAP Peak Hour AM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 539 1607 0
<--' v ---> { Split? N
1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 --- 998 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
(NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 MB ramp
0.0 3.0 1.9 3.0 --- 644 LEFT
~-'- ^ -~"> I
18 0 0 Urb=¥o Rur=¥
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 1840 1840 5400 0.3407 0.3407
SB RIGHT (R) 539 539 1800 0.2994
THRU (T) 1607 1607 5400 0.2976
WB RIGHT (R) 998 998 3273 0.3049 0.3049
LEFT (L) 644 644 4695 0.1372
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.65
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B
* ADdUSTEO FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MITIGS.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
condition: pm peak hour; ECAP Alternative - mitigation 07/12/01
INTERSECTION 8305 Hacienda Dr/I-580 WB ramp Dublin
Count Date YR.2025 E.DUBLIN Time RUN E W/ ECAP Peak Hour PM PEAK VOL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 1157 2267 0
I <--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 0--- 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0--- 1097 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 WB ramp
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 3.0 --- 658 LEFT
v
N SiG t4ARRANTS:
M + E 22 9 0 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 2209 2209 5400 0.4091
SB RIGHT (R) 1157 1157 1800 0.6428
THRU (T) 2267 2267 5400 · 0.4198 0.4198
WB RIGHT (R) 1097 1097 3273 0.3352 0.3352
LEFT (L) 658 658 4695 0.1401
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.76
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MITIG8.INT,VOL=RUNECAP.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB
LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
CUMULATIVE YEAR 2025 + MITIGATED TRAFFIC ALTERNATIVE
Table 4.3-1
~ortation Model Cumulative Year 2025 ~lus Mitigated Traffic Alternative
Peak Hour Intersection Levels o! ~erwce-i ri-v utter' a l air,pot tauma x.t,,,~,.~ .... ~ ............... .' -o ., ,,
Intersection Control Unmitigated Mitigated
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
* LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS
! Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.94 E 1.02 F .- - - -
2 Hacienda Drive/l-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.72 C 0.82 D
3 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.83 D 0.96 E 0.65 B 0.75 C
4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.84 D 1.01 F ........
5 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.86 D 0.76 C
6 Tassajara Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.71 C 0.73 C
7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.73 C 0.88 D
8 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.72 C 0.61 B
9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.58 A 0.47 A
10 Graf'ton Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.34 A 0.44 A -
11 Grafton Street/Central Parkway Signal 0.09 A 0.12 A
12 Grafton Street/Gleason Drive Signal 0.45 A 0.37 A
13 El Charro Road/l-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.58 A 0.63 B
14 Fallon Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.62 B 0.75 C
15 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.86 D 1.04 F .......
15A Fallon Rd./Dublin Blvd. w/New Int. Signal ...... 0.75 C 0.87 D
XX Fallon Road/New Intersection Signal ........ 0.60 A 0.68 B
16 Fallon Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.76 C 0.85 D
17 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.50 A 0.31 A
Note: * = Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections
........... 42 1994 136
I <--- v ---> ! Split? N
LEFT 34 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 -- 66 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 51 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- ~ THRU CENTRAL PKWY
--- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 541 LEFT
RIGHT 192 I < ..... > v
N Urb=Y, Rur=Y
N + E 16 7 0 10
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
07/12/01
,/~?,Condition:~ am peak hour; Traffic Mitigated ALternative
Count Date FROM MODEL Time FROM MODEL Peak Hour FROM
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME: TASSAJARA RD.
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NH RIGHT (R) 410 112 * 1650 0.0679
THRU (T) 760 760 4950 0.1535
LEFT (L) 167 167 1650 0,1012 0.I012
SB RIGHT (R) 42 8 * 1650 0.0048
THRU (T) 1994 1994 4950 0.4028 0.4028
LEFT (L) 136 136 1650 0.0824
EB RIGHT (R) 192 25 * 1650 0.0152
THRU (T) 51 51 1650 0.0309 0.0309
LEFT (L) 34 34 1650 0.0206
WB RIGHT (R) 66 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 68 68 1650 0.0412
LEFT (L) 541 541 3000 0.1803 0.1803
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.72
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
iNT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=75ALT.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Traffic Mitigated ALternative 07/1Z/01
INTERSECTION 6430 TASSAJARA RD./CENTRAL PKWY DUBLIN
Count Date FROM MODEL Time FROM MODEL Peak Hour FROM MODEL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 21 988 91
I <--- v ---> I SpLit? N
LEFT 42 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 --- 141 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 64 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 77 THRU CENTRAL PKWY
RIGHT 163 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 629 LEFT
W +N E 19 15 1 95 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: TASSAJARA RD.
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRIIICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RAIIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 695 349 * 1650 0.2115
THRU (T) 1541 1541 4950 0,311~ 0.~113
LEFT (L) 192 192 1650 0.1164
SB RIGHT (R) 21 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 988 988 4950 0.1996
LEFT (L) 91 91 1650 0.055~ 0.0552
............................... ..... .....
EB RIGHT (R) 16~
THRU (T) 64 64 1650 0.0388 0.0388
LEFT (L) 42 42 1650 0.0255
WB RIGHT (R) 141 50 * 1650 0.0303
THRU (T) 77 77 1650 0.0467
LEFT (L) 629 629 3000 0.2097 0.2097
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.61
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON REO
1NT=NEgSRP.INT,VOL=75ALT.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condit~on: am peak hour~ Traffic Mitigated ALternative 07/12/01
N,.~INTERSECTION 3987 Tassajara Rd/Gleason Ave ALameda County
Count Date FROM MODEL Time FROM MODEL Peak Hour FROM MODEL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 356 1640
STREET NAME:
THRU 37 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 213 THRU Gteason Ave
RIGHT 109 --- 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 -~- 491 LEFT
v
N SIG WARRANTS:
W + E 22 4 6 90 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 190 0 * 3000 O.OODO
THRU (T) 466 466 4950 0.0941
1EFT (L) 226 226 3000 0.0753 0.0753
SB RIGHT (R) 356 335 * 1650 0.2030
THRU (T) 1640 1640 4950 0.3313 0.3313
LEFT (L) 71 71 1650 0.0430
EB RIGHT (R) 109 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 37 37 3300 0.0112 0.0112
LEFT (L) 38 38 3000 0.0127
WB RIGHT (R) 50 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 213 213 3300 0.0645
LEFT (L) 491 491 3000 0.1637 0.1637
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.58
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75ALT.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Traffic Mitigated Alternative 07/12/01
INTERSECTION 3987 Tassajara Rd/Gteason Ave ALameda County
Count Date FROM MODEL Time FROM MODEL Peak Nour FROM MODEL
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 47 620 58
THRU 292 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 43 THRU
RIGHT 263 --- 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 --- 267 LEFT
N
W + E 20 12 9 53
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
Gleason Ave
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MovEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 353 206 * 3000 0.0687
THRU (T) 1269 1269 4950 0.2564 0.2564
LEFT (L) 205 205 3000 0.0683
SB RIGHT (R) 47 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 620 620 4950 0.1253
LEFT (L) 58 58 1650 0.0352 0.0352
EB RIGHT (R) 263 150 * 1650 0.0909 0.0909
THRU (T) 292 292 3300 0.0~5
LEFT (l) 459 459 3000 0.1530
WB RIGHT (R) 59 1 * 1650 0.0006
THRU (T) 43 43 3300 0.0130
LEFT (l) 267 267 3000 0.0890 0.0890
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.47
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=?'SALT.PMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
Table 4.3-1
~ortation Model Cumulative Year ~025~ ~lus Mitigated Traffic Alternative
Peak Hour Intersection l~eVelS ol ~ervlcc
Intersection Consol Unmitigated Mitigated
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Pe~ Hour
* LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS
I Doughe~ Road~ublin Boulevard Si~al 0.94 E !.02 F ....
2 Hacienda Drive/l-580 E~tbound Ramps Signal 0.72 C 0.82 D
3 Hacienda Drive/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.83 D 0.96 E 0.65 B 0.75 C
4 Hacienda Drive~ublin Boulevard Si~al 0.84 D 1.01 F .......
5 Santa Rita Roa~-580 Eastbound Ramps Si~al 0.86 D 0.76 C
6 Tassajara Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.71 C 0.73 C
7 T~sajara Roa~Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.73 C 0.88 D
8 Tassajara Roa~Central Parkway Sisal
9 Tassajam Road/Gleason Drive Sisal
I 0 Gm~on StreeqDublin Boulevard Si~al 0.34 A 0.~ A
I 1 Gm~on StreeqCentml Parkway Si~al 0.09 A 0.12 A
12 Gm,on SWeeqGleason Drive Si~al 0.45 A 0.37 A
13 El Charro Roa~l-580 Eastbound Ramps Si~al 0.58 A 0.63 B
14 Fatlon Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.62 B 0.75 C
15 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Sisal 0.86 D 1.04 F ........
15A Fallon Rd./Dublin Blvd. w/New Int. Sisal ....... 0.75 C 0.87 D
XX Fallon Road~ew Intersection Signal ........ 0.60 A 0.68 B
16 Fallon Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.76 C 0.85 D
17 Fallon Roa~Gleason Drive Si~al 0.50 A 0.31 A
Note: * = Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01
..... ...........
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR
· CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 131 2131 9
<--- v ---> / split? N
LEFT 14 -~- 1.0 1.1 4.1 2.0 1.1:-- 37 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 930 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.1<--- 1267 THRU DUBLIN BLVD.
RIGHT 975 --- 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 --- 618 LEFT
N SIG WARRANTS:
W + E 113 7 44 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: OOUGHERTY RD.
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 544 113 * 3000 0.0377
THRU (T) 707 707 4950 0.1428
LEFT (L) 1130 1130 4304 0.2625 0.2625
SB RIGHT (R) 131 131 1650 0.0794
THRU (T) 2131 2131 6600 0.3229
LEFT (L) 9 9 3000 0.0030
T + R 2262 6600 0.3427 0.3427
EB RIGHT (R) 975 187 * 3000 0.0623
THRU (T) 930 930 4950 0.1879 0.1879
LEFT (L) 14 14 1650 0.0085
WB RIGHT (R) 37 37 1650 0.0224
THRU (T) 1267 1267 4950 0.2560
LEFT (L) 618 618 4304 0.1436 0.1436
T + R 1304 4950 0.2634
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.94
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
iNT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative . 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 3977 DOUGflERTY RD./DUBLIN BLVD. DUBLIN
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75~ Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 31 1433 62
I <--- v "-> I sprit? N
LEFT 63 -'- 1.0 1.1 4.1 2.0 1.1 "- 25 RIGHT
THRU 1381 '--> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.1<--- 1178 THRU
RIGHT 1188 --- 2.5 .3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 --- 764 LEFT
iii v
N
W + E 14 19 9 87
S
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
DUBLIN BLVD.
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET HAME: DOUGHERTY RD.
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 787 254 * 3000 0.0847
THRU (T) 1979 1979 4950 0.3998
LEFT (L) 1473 1473 4304 0.3422 0.3422
SB RIGHT (R) 31 31 1650 0,0188
THRU (T) 1433 1433 ~00 0.2171
LEFT (L) 62 62 3000 0.0207
T + R 1466 6000 0.2218 0.2218
EB RIGHT (R) 1188 161 * 3000 0.0537
THRU (T) 1381 1381 4950 0.2790 0.2790
LEFT (L) 63 63 1650 0.0382
WB RIGHT (R) 25 25 1650 0.0152
THRU (T) 1178 1178 4950 0.2380
LEFT (L) 764 70/+ 4304 0.1775 0.1775
T + R 1203 4950 0.2430
TOTAL VOLUME'TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 1.02
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: F
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 8302 Hacienda Dr/l-580 EB ramp Pleasanton
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 0 1667 0
LEFT 672 --- 2.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 - RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<-"- 0 THRU 1-580 EB ramp
RIGHT 1173 --- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
N SIG ~ARRANTS:
~ + E 19 1 28 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET ~AME: Hacienda Or
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLLIME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 528 528 1800 0.2933
THRU (T) 1931 1931 5400 0.3576 0.3576
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 1667 1667 5400 0.3087
EB RIGHT (R) 1173 1173 3273 0.3584 0.3584
LEFT (L) 672 672 3273 0.2053
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.72
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; ALternative 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 8302 Hacienda Dr/I-580 EB ramp Ple~$anton
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT Z-PHASE SIGNAL
I
LEFT 669---- 2.0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0
RIGHT 1082 --- 2.0
¥
0 1943 0
<--- v '--> I Sptit~ N
1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 ---
g
RIGHT
(NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
STREET NAME:
1-580 EB ramp
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 796 796 1800 0.4422
THRU (T) 2662 2662 5400 0.4930 0.4930
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 1943 1943 5400 0.3598
EB RIGHT (R) 1082 1082 3273 0.3306 0.3306
LEFT (L) ~9 669 32~ 0.2044
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.82
IMTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: O
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
iNT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 8305 Hacienda Dr/I-580 W8 ramp Dublin
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 598 1605 0
<--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 0 .... I 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 -- 1010 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 W8 ramp
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 641 LEFT
v
N SIG WARRANTS:
W + E 18 1 0 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 1861 1861 3600 0.5169 0.5169
SB RIGHT (R) 598 598 1800 0.3322
THRU (T) 1605 1605 5400 0.2972
WB RIGHT (R) 1010 1010 3273 0.3086 0.3086
LEFT (L) 641 641 3273 0.1958
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.83
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 8305 Hacienda Dr/I-580 W8 ramp Dublin
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 1171 2292 0
<--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 0---I 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0---1080 RIGHT
THRU 0 -"> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 656 LEFT
N
W+E 220 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
1-580 WB ramp
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 2270 2270 3600 0.6306 0.6306
SB RIGHT (R) 1171 1171 1800 0.6506
THRU (T) 2292 2292 5400 ' 0.4244
WB RIGHT (R) 1080 1080 3273 0.3300 0.3300
LEFT (L) 656 656 3273 0.2004
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.96
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E
........................................
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; ALternative 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 8306 Hacienda Dr/Dublin Blvd Dublin
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time ~% Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 9 918 160
I <--- V -'->
LEFT 56 --- 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0
THRU 548 ---· 3.0 (NO. OF LANES)
I Split? N
1.0 --- 44 RIGHT
3.0<--- 1130 THRU
RIGHT 444 --- 2.5 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 958 LEFT
N SIG ~ARRANTS:
~ + E 96 5 7 86 UFb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME:
Dub:in Btvd
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT iR) 386 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU iT) 567 567 4950 0.1145
LEFT (L) 967 967 4304 0.2247 0.2247
SB RIGHT (R) 9 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 918 918 4950 0.1855 0.1855
LEFT il) 160 160 3000 0.0533
EB RIGHT (R) 444 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU iT) 548 548 4950 0.1107 0.1107
LEFT il) 56 56 3000 0.0187
~B RIGHT (R) 44 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1130 1130 4950 0.2283
LEFT (L) 958 958 3000 0.3193 0.3193
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.84
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=75MID,AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 8306 Hacienda Dr/Dublin Blvd Dublin
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK ~OUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 6 889 154
<--- v --'> ! SpLit? N
LEFT 79---{ 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1 .O -- 33 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 1298 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 686 THRU Dubtin Btvd
RIGHT 885 --- 2.5 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 699 LEFT
N SIG gARRANTS:
g + E 146 7 7 46 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? H
STREET NAME: Hacienda Or
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) - 946 562 * 1650 0.3406
THRU (T) 797 797 4950 0.1610
LEFT (L) 1464 1464 4304 0.3401 0.3401
SB RIGHT iR) 6 0 * 1650 0,0000
THRU iT) 889 889 4950 0.1796 0.1796
LEFT (L) 154 154 3000 0.0513
EB RIGHT (R) 885 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU iT) 1298 1298 4950 0.2622 0.2622
LEFT iL) 79 79 3000 0.0263
~B RIGHT (R) 33 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU iT) 686 686 4950 0.1386
LEFT iL) 699 699 3000 0.2330 0.~330
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 1.01
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: F
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=75MIO.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TM
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01
(;~SE~T~--[~-~;~;-~;~-~;-~-~-off .... P~E~SANTON
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75~ Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR
£CTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
~ .......... 0 1352 154
<--- v ---> I Split? Y
LEFT813 ___12.o 1.9 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 690 RIGHT
THRU 103 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 177 --- 1.9 0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 --- 0 LEFT
v Ill v
N
I,/+E 103 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Santa Rita Rd
4-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
1-580 eb-off
SIG ~ARRANTS:
UrI~Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 1053 1053 4950 0.2127
T + R 1053 6300 0.1671
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1352 1352 3300 0.4097 0.4097
LEFT (L) 154 154 1650 0.0933
EB RIGHT (R) 177 177 1650 0.1073
THRU (T) 103 103 1650 0.0624
LEFT (L) 813 813 3000 0.2710 0.2710
· ~B RIGHT (R) 690' 536 * 3000 0.1787 0.1787
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.86
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NENSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TA8
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 404.1 Santa Rita Rd/I-580 eb-off PLEASANTON
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak H6ur PM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 0 1368 303
<--- v ---> I Split? Y
LEFT 458---I 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.0 2,0 --- 295 RIGHT
THRU 206 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 112 --- 1.9 0.0 3.1 2.1 2.0 --- 0 LEFT
N
W+E 213 2
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Santa Rita Rd
4-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
1-580 eb-off
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 2 2 3000 0.0007
THRU (T) 2103 2103 4950 0.4248 0.4248
T + R 2105 6300 0.3341
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1368 1368 3300 0.4145
LEFT (L) 303 303 1650 0.1836 0.1836
EB RIGHT (R) 112 112 1650 0.0679
THRU (T) 206 206 1650 0.1248
LEFT (L) 458 458 3000 0.1527 0.1527
~B RIGHT (R) 295 0 * 3000 0.0000 0.0000
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.76
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT~VOL=75MID.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LEFT 0 --- 0.0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0
RIGHT 0
V
W+E
S
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
========================================================================
Condition: am peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01
========================================================================
INTERSECTION 3988 Tassajara Rd/I-580 wb-off PLEASANTON
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 1023 1332 0
1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 - RIGHT
STREET NAME:
(NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 wb-off
0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 504 LEFT
^ ---~
17 0 Urb~=Y, Rur=Y
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRIIICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (RI 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (TI 1715 1715 3600 0.~764 0.476~
SB RIGHT (RI 1023 1023 1800 0.5683
THRU (TI 1332 1332 5400 0.2467
WB RIGHT (RI 754 754 327'5 0.2304 0.2304
LEFT (L) 504 504 32~ 0.1540
TOTAL VOLUHE-TO-CAPAC1TY RATIO: 0.71
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
iNT=NEWSRP.INToVOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:.-LOSCAP,TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 3988 Tassajara Rd/I-580 wb-off PLEASANTON
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 1112 1728 0
I <--- v ---> I Spl~_~ N
LEFT 0 "' O.O 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 -'- RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<-'- O' THRU
RIGHT 0 "-- 0.0 0.0 2.0 t.9 2.0 --- 519 LEFT
. v v
W+ E 188 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
1-580 wb-off
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (RI 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (TI 1888 1888 3600 0.5244 0.5244
SB RIGHT (RI 1112 1112 1800 0.6178
THRU (TI 1728 1728 5400 0.3200
WB RIGHT (RI 677 677 3273 0.2068 0.2068
LEFT (L) 519 519 327'5 0.1586
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: O.T5
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
iNT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; AlternatiVe 07/09/01
iNTERSECTION 1573 Tassajara Rd/D~blin Hlvd .... ~ameda County
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 778 1865 111
LEFT 401---I 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0
THRU 442 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES)
RIGHT 200 --- 2.5 3.0 4.0 2.0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd
8-PHASE SIGNAL
^
1.0 --- RIGHT
STREET NAME:
3.0<--- 1055 THRU Dublin Blvd
3.0 --- 506 LEFT
¥
SIG ~ARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 515 321 * 3000 0.1070
THRU (T) 1169 1169 6600 0.1771
LEFT (l) 431 431 4304 0.1001 0.1001
SB RIGHT (R) 778 557 * 3000 0.1857
THRU (T) 1865 1865 6600 0.2826 0.2826
LEFT (L) 111 111 3000 0.0370
EB RIGHT (R) 200 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 442 442 4950 0.0893
LEFT (L) 401 401 3000 0.1337 0.1337
~B RIGHT (R) 48 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1055 1055 4950 0.2131 0.2131
LEFT (L) 506 506 4304 0.1176
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RAT[O: 0.73
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
[NT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 157-5 Tassajara Rd/Dublin B[vd Alameda County
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time ~5% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 389 1505 85
<-'- V
LEFT 913 ---I 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0
THRU 1447 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES)
RIGHT 380 --- 2.5 3.0 4.0 .2.0
I <... A _._>
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd
8-PHASE SIGNAL
^
I Split? N
1.0 --- 64 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
3.0<--- 371 THRU Dublin Btvd
3.0 --- 986 LEFT
I
v
S]G ~ARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPAC[TY RATIO V/C
..... ......... ..... ..... ..................
THRU (T) 1738 1738 6600 0.2633
LEFT (L) 544 544 4304 0.1264 0.1264
SB RIGHT (R) 389 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 1505 1505 6600 0.2280 0.2280
LEFT (L) 85 85 3000 0.0283
EB RIGHT (R) 380 1 * 3000 0.0003
THRU (T) 1447 1447 4950 0.2923 0.2923
LEFT (l) 913 913 3000 0.3043
~B RIGHT (R) 64 17 * 16~0 0.0103
THRU (T) 371 371 49S0 0.0749
LEFT (L) 986 986 4304 0.2291 0.2291
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
[NT=NENSRP. INT,VOL=75MID.PMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 6430 TASSAJARA RD./CENTRAL PK~Y DUBLIN
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% M~dpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 42 1994 0
<--- v --->' - ~ Split~N
LEFT 34---I 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0--- . RIG.T
STREET ~AME:
THRU 0 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 0 THRU CENTRAL PKNY
RIGHT 192 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 0 LEFT
N SIG WARRANTS:
W + E 16 7 0 0 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: TASSAJARA RD.
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT IR) 0 0 1650 0.0000 ,.
THRU (l) 760 760 4950 0.1535
LEFT IL) 167 167 1650 0.1012 0.1012
SB RIGHT IR) 42 8 * 1650 0.0048
THRU IT) 1994 1994 4950 0.4028/ 0.4028
LEFT IL) 0 0 1650 0.0000
EB RIGHT IR) 192 25 * 1650 .//0.0152
THRU (T) 0 0 165~' 0.0000
LEFT IL) 34 34 1650 0.0206 0.0206
~B RIGHT (R) 0 0 ,-"'1650 0.0000 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 .... "1650 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACIT~/~ATIO: 0.52
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF/SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75141D.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
^
LEFT 42 --- 1.0
THRU 0 ---> 1.0
RIGHT 163--- 1.0 ~ 3;,0 1.0 2.0---
I /<--: , :--> I
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: TASSAJARA RD.
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak houri Alternative 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 6430 TASSAJARA RD./CENTRAL PKNY DUBLIN
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 21 988 0
<--- v '"> ~1 Spt;t?
1.0 3.0 1..0~1.0 :-- 0 NRIGHT
O~A~) STREET NAME:
(NO. 1.0<--- 0 THRU CENTRAL PK~Y
0 LEFT
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT IR) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1541 1541 4950 0.3113
LEFT IL) 192 192 1650 0.1164 0.1164
SB RIGHT (R) 21 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 988 988 4950 0.1996 0.1996
LEFT IL) 0 0 1650 0.0000
EB RIGHT (R) 163 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU CT) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT IL) 42 42 1650 0.0255 0.0255
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.34
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=75MID.PMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
EOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; A~ternative 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 3987 Tassajara Rd/G[eason Ave Alameda County
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time ?5% ~idpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT .8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 356 1640 0
STREET NAME:
THRU 0 --~> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 0 THRU G[eason Ave
RIGHT 109 --- 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 ~-- 0 LEFT
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 398? Tassajara Rd/Gleason Ave Alan~da County
Count Date Year 2025 E, Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 47 620 0
<--- v ---> I Sptit~ N
LEFT459---I 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0--- u RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 0 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 0 THRU G[eason Ave
RIGHT 263 --- 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 --- 0 LEFT
22~ 4~6 ' 0 Urb=N, Rur=Y W + E ..~205 1269 0 . Urb=Y, Rur=~
. - ~
LEFT THRU RIGHT Sp[~t? N S ~LEFT THRU RIGHT Spt~t. N
~_~_~_~ .................................. ~~~-~-~ ................................
~[---~ ............... ,~ ..... ~;~ ........~ ....... ~;~[---~ ....... , ........ ~ ..... ~;;~;~[ ......
~ ..... ~ .... ~o~F- -F~ ............ -/~"*~,;-i~; ....... ~ .......... ~ ....... ~ .... ~ ..................
~ 466 4950 0'09&1 ~/ THRU (T) 1269 1269 4950 0.2564 0.25~
~ ~ ~ooo o:oz~ o.oz~ .~. ~,,~ ~ ~o~ ~o~ ~ooo
~0 ~640 4~so 0.33~3 ~3 ~..u ~ ~0 ~0 ~so
o o ~o o.oooo ~ ~,,~ ~,o o ~o o.oooo o.oooo
;~ -'- F;--- ;[~--Looo~~' ~, ,~,,~ ~,;-' ~ ';~o * ~o- o.o,o, ....
~, ~, ~ooo~ o.o~ ~,~ ~ ~, ~ ~ooo o.~o o.~o
o o ~o/o.oooo o.oooo ,, ,,~,, ~,~ o o ,~o o.ooooo.oooo
o o ~oo/o.oooo
300~' 0.0000
LEFT (L) 0 0
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: /' 0.42
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: ../_/ A
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
THRU (T) 0 0 3300 0.0000
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.41
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 6617 MAIN STREET/DUBLIN BLVD DUBLIN
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 6-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 0 0 69
v ---> '---
LEFT 0 ---I 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0'-Zb- RIGHT
STREET NAME=
THRU 926 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 1469 THRU DUBLIN BLVD
RIGHT 0 --- 1.0 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT
N SIG WARRANTS:
W + E 0 0 Urb=N, Rur=N
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? M
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000
I + R 0 1650 0.0000
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (l) 69 69 1650 0.0418 0.0418
T + R 0 1650 0.0000
EB RIGHT (r) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 926 926 4950 0.1871
LEFT (l) 0 0 1650 0.0000 OMO000
~B RIGHT (R) 26 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1469 1469 4950 0.2968 0.2968
LEFT (l) 0 0 1650 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.34
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
IMT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; ALternative 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 6617 MAIN STREET/DUBLIN BLVD DUBLIN
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 6-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 0 0 52
---> ! :.,if;.
STREET NAHE:
THRU 2028 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 946 THRU DUBLIN BLVD
RIGHT 0 --- 1.0 · 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT
I < ....... > I
v
N SIG WARRANTS:
W + E 0 0 Urb=N, Rur=N
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? M
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
========================================================================
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0,0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 0 0 3000 0.0000
T + R 0 1650 0.0000
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 52 52 1650 0.0315 0.0315
T + R 0 1650 0.0000
EB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 2028 2028 4950 0.409? 0.4097
LEFT (l) 0 0 1650 O, 0000
WB RIGHT (R) 57 5 * 1650 0.0030
THRU (T) 946 946 4950 0.1911
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO.' 0.44
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
I NT=NEgSRP. I NT · VOL=75M I D. PMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 6615 MAIN STREET/CENTRAL PARKWAY DUBLIN
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75~ Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR
CClA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 5-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 0 0 0
LEFT 0 --- 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 - RIGHT
THRU 39 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 105 THRU
RIGHT 110 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT
v v
W+E 8 0 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
STREET NAME:
CENTRAL PARKWAY
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 88 88 1650 0.0533 0.0533
T + R 0 1650 0.0000
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
T + R 0 1650 0.0000
EB RIGHT (R) 110 22 * 1650 0.0133
THRU (T) 39 39 3300 0.0118
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
~B RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 105 105 3300 0.0318 0.0318
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.09
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 6615 MAIN STREET/CENTRAL PARIG/AY DUBLIN
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% M~dpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 5-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 0 0 0
<-" v ---> ] Split~ N
LEFT 0--'1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 --- u RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 132 -'-> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 27 THRU CENTRAL PARKWAY
RIGHT 121 --- 1.0 ' I~0 1.1 1.1 1.0 .... 0 LEFT
N SIG WARRANTS:
W + E 12 0 0 Urb=N, Rur=N
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NS RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 124 124 1650 0.0752 0.0752
T + R 0 1650 0.0000
....... .......... ....... ..... ..... .......
THRU (T) 0 0 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
T + R 0 1650 0.0000
EB RIGHT (R) 121 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 132 132 3300 0.0400 0.0400
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
WB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 27 27 3300 0.0082
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.12
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=75MID.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
^
I Split? N
LEFT 1.0 --- 10 RIGHT
THRU 2.0<--- 362 THRU
RIGHT 1 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT
H SIG WARRANTS:
W + E 5 0 Ur~N, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
LOS software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
.......................................................... = ..... ~;~;~
Condition: am peak hour; Alternative
INTERSECTION 6618 MAIN STREET/GLEASON DRIVE DUBLIN
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 403 32 13
I <--- V '-->
131 --- 1.0 1.t 1.1 1.0
115 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES)
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
STREET NAME:
GLEASON DRIVE
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 15 15 1650 0.0091
LEFT (L) 1 1 1650 0.0006 0.0006
T + R 15 1650 0.0091
SB RIGHT (R) 403 403 1650 0.2442
THRU (T) 32 32 1650 0.0194
LEFT (L) 13 13 1650 0.0079
T + R 435 1650 0.2636 0.2636
EB RIGHT (R) 1 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 115 115 3300 0.0348
LEFT (L) 131 131 1650 0.0794 0.0794
~B RIGHT (R) 10 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (l) 362 362 3300 0.1097 0.1097
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
..... ......................... .......
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.1NT,VOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 6618 MAIN STREET/GLEASON DRIVE DUBLIN
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PERK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 160 15 6
I <-*- v '"> I Spli~ N
LEFT 371 --- 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 --- RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 353 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.0<--- 133 THRU GLEASON DRIVE
RIGHT 2 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 0 LEFT
v v
N StG t4ARRANTS:
W + E 2 0 Urb=N, Rur=B
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: MAIN STREET
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 32 32 1650 0.0194
LEFT (L) I I 1650 0.0006 0,0006
T + R 32 1650 0.0194
SB RIGHT (R) 160 160 1650 0.09?0
THRU (T) 15 15 1650 0.0091
LEFT (L) 6 6 1650 0.0036
T + R 175 1650 0.1061 0.1061
EB RIGHT (R) 2 1 * 1650 0.0006
THRU (T) 353 353 3300 0.1070
LEFT (l) 371 371 1650 0,2248 0.2248
WB RIGHT (R) 10 4 * 1650 0.0024
THRU (T) 133 133 3300 0.0403 0.0403
LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.37
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
·AOJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT =NEWSRP. ! NT, VOL=75M I O. PMV, CAP=C: · · LOSCAP. TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsuLtants
========================================================================
Condition: am peak hour; ALternative 07/09/01
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time ~g Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 0 1379 0
I
<--- v ---> I N
SpLit?
LEFT 1059 ...... ' 2.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 0 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU ]-580 EB ramp
RIGHT 101 --- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
N SIG WARRANTS:
W + E 9 88 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: EL Charro Rd
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CR]TICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 888 888 1800 0.4933
THRU (T) 739 739 5400 0.1369
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 1379 1379 5400 0.2554 0.2554
EB RIGHT (R) 101 101 3273 0.0309
LEFT (L) 1059 1059 3273 0.3236 0.3236
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.58
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; ALternative 0~/09/01
INTERSECTION 9957 E[ Charro Rd/I-580 EB ramp ALameda County
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD
LEFT 1098 ---I 2.0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0
RIGHT 46 --- 2.0
I
¥
~+E
S
RIGHT THRU LEFT
0 1590 0
<'" v "'> I SpLit? N
1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT
(~10. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
~--- ^ ---> I
LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: EL Charro Rd
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
1-580 EB ramp
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y~ Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUNE VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 978 978 1800 0.5433
THRU (T) 920 920 5400 0.1704
SB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 1590 1590 5400 0.2944 0.2944
EB RIGHT (R) 46 46 3~73 0.0141
LEFT (L) 1098 1098 3273 0.3355 0.3355
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.63
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.PMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consuttants .
Condition: am peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 9956 Fallon Rd/I-580 WB ramp Alameda County
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 1283
LEFT 0 --- 0.0 1.9
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO.
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0
S LEFT
1951 0
3.0 0.0
OF LANES)
3.0 1.9
^
sprit? N
2.0 ;-- 863 RIGHT
0.0<--- 0 THRU
2.0 --- 699 LEFT
V
STREET NAME:
1-580 WB ramp
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
STREET NAME: Fatton Rd
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 1778 1778 5400 0.3293
SB RIGHT (R) 1283 1283 1800 0.7128
THRU (T) 1951 1951 5400 0.3613 0.3613
WB RIGHT (R) 863 863 3273 0.2637 0.2637
LEFT (L) 699 699 327-5 0.2136
========================================================================
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.62
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
iNT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.AMVoCAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Atternative 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 9956 FalLon Rd/I-580 WB tango ALameda County
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% MJdpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD
LEFT 0 --- 0.0
THRU 0 --'> 0.0
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0
I
V
N
W+E
S
RIGHT THRU LEFT
1596 1854 0
1.9 3.0 0.0
(NO. OF LANES)
2-PHASE SIGNAL
0.0 3.0 1.9
STREET NAME: Fatton Rd
split? N
2.0 :-- 1298 RIGHT
0.0<--- 0 THRU
2.0 --- 728 LEFT
I
V
STREET NAME:
1-580 WB rmnp
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 1907 1907 5400 0,3531 0.3531
SB RIGHT (R) 1596 1596 1800 0.8867
THRU CT) 1854 1854 5400 0.3433
WB RIGHT (R) 1298 1298 3273 0.3966 0.3966
LEFT (L) 728 728 3273 0.2224
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.?5
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
I~T=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKMTransportation.Consultants
Condition: am peak hour;Traffic Mit. Alt. no new int
INWERSECTION 8336
07/12/01
Fallon Rd/Dublin Blvd
Count Date YEAR 2025 E. DUB Time 75% MIDPT RUN
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 53 1704 407
I <--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 65 --- 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 --- 0 RIGHT
~ Alameda County
Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR
THRU 306 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 964 THRU
8 - PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
Dublin Blvd
RIGHT 320 --- 2.5
N
W + E
S
2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 --- 1419
641 595 1052
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
LEFT
S IG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
STREET NAME: Fallon Rd
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY
v/c
RATIO
CRITICAL
v/c
NB RIGHT (R) 1052 508 * 3000
THRU (T) 595 595 6600
LEFT (L) 641 641 3000
SB RIGHT (R) 53 17 * 1650
THRU (T) 1704 1704 6600
LEFT (L) 407 407 3000
0.1693
0.0902
0.2137
0.0103
0.2582
0.1357
0.2137
0.2582
EB
RIGHT (R) 320 0 * 3000
THRU (T) 306 306 4950
LEFT (L) 65 65 3000
0.0000
0.0618
0.0217
0.0618
WB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650
THRU (T) 964 964 4950
LEFT (L) 1419 1419 4304
0.0000
0.1947
0.3297
0.3297
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
0.86
D
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL .... 75MID.AMV, CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour;Traffic Mit. Alt. no new int.
~NTERSECTION 8336 Fallon Rd/Dublin Blvd
Count Date YEAR 2025 E. DUB Time 75% MIDPT RUN
CCTAMETHOD
LEFT
THRU
RIGHT
271 --- 2.0
1229 ---> 3.0
531 --- 2.5
V
N
W + E
S
RIGHT THRU LEFT
15 760 239
<--- V --->
1.0 4.0 2.0
07/12/01
Alameda County
Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR
Split? N
--- 195 RI~I-IT
(NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 198 THRU
2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 --- 2010
579 1602 1211
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
LEFT
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
Dublin Blvd
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
STREET NAME: Fallon Rd
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY
NB RIGHT (R) 1211 440 * 3000
THRU (T) 1602 1602 6600
LEFT (L) 579 579 3000
v/c
RATIO
CRITICAL
v/c
0.1467
0.2427
0.1930
0.2427
SB RIGHT (R) 15 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 760
LEFT (L) 239
EB RIGHT (R) 531
THRU (T) 1229
LEFT (L) 271
W-B RIGHT (R) 195
THRU (T) 198
LEFT (L) 2010
760 6600 0.1152
239 3000 0.0797
0 * 3000 0.0000
1229 4950 0.2483
271 3000 0.0903
0.0797
022483
64 * 1650 0.0388
198 4950 0.0400
2010 4304 0.4670
0.4670
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
1.04
F
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=...75MID.PMV, CAP=C: .LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; ALternative 07/09/01
Count Date Year 2025 E. Oub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHAGE SIGNAL
........... 53 1704 251
<--- v --->' - - I sptit~ N
LEFT 17---I 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 ---U RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 306 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 964 THRU Dublin BLvd
RIGHT 320 --- 2.5 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 --- 1332 LEFT
N SIG WARRANTS:
g + E 37 5 5 1 52 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Fatton Rd
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 1052 541 * 3000 0.1803
THRU (T) 595 595 6600 0.0902
LEFT (L) 375 375 3000 0.1250 0.1250
SB RIGHT (R) 53 44 * 1650 0.0267
THRU (T) 1704 1704 6600 0.2582 0.2582
LEFT (L) 251 251 3000 0.0837
EB RIGHT (R) 320 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 306 306 4950 0.0618 0.0618
LEFT (L) 17 17 3000 0.0057
WB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 964 964 4950 0.1947
LEFT (L) 1332 1332 4304 0.3095 0.3095
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.75
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP-TAB
LOS Software by TJKM TransDortation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 8336 Fa[ton Rd/Dublin Btvd Alameda County
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 15 760 103
J <--- v ---> J Split? N
LEFT 64--- 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.0--- 195 RIGHT
THRU 1229 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.0<--- 198 THRU
RIGHT 531 --- 2.5 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 --- 1488 LEFT
W+E 35 1621 1
S
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
Dublin Btvd
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME= Fa[Ion Rd
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
HB RIGHT (R) 1211 641 * 3000 0.2137
THRU (T) 1602 1602 6600 0.2427 0.2427
LEFT (L) 350 350 3000 0.1167
SB RIGHT (R) 15 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 760 760 6600 0.1152
LEFT (L) 103 103 3000 0.0343 0.0343
EB RIGHT (R) 531 181 * 3000 0.0603
THRU (T) 1229 1229 4950 0.2483 0.24~
LEFT (l) 64 64 3000 0.0213
WB RIGHT (R) 195 138 * 1650 0.0836
THRU (T) 198 198 4950 0.0400
LEFT (L) 1488 1488 4304 0.3457 0.3457
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.8?
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: O
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 6760 Falton Road/New Intersection Dublin
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 131 3068 156
<--- v ---> I Spti~t~,
THRU 9 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 9 THRU
RIGHT 78 --- 2.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 --- 87 LEFT
v v
14 + E 26 19 0 35
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Fatton Road
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
New Intersection
SIG ~ARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRIT]CAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
MB RIGHT iR) 435 402 * 1650 0.2436
THRU iT) 1940 1940 6600 0.2939
LEFT il) 266 266 3000 0.0887 0.0887
SB RIGHT iR) 131 105 * 1650 0.0636
THRU (T) 3068 3068 6600 0.4648 0.4648
LEFT il) 156 156 3000 0.0520
EB RIGHT iR) 78 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 9 9 1650 0.0055
LEFT il) 48 48 3000 0.0160 0.0160
gB RIGHT iR) 34 34 1650 0.0206
THRU iT) 9 9 1650 0.0055
LEFT il) 87 87 4304 0.0202
T + R 43 1650 0.0261 0.0261
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.60
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NENSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 6760 Fa[[on Road/New Intersection Dublin
Count Bate Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 116 2527 136
<--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 207---I 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.1 --- 162 RIGHT
THRU 26 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 26 THRU
RIGHT 401 --- 2.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 --- 522 LEFT
N
t4 + E 22 27 5 82
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Fation Road
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
New Intersection
SIG ~ARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT iR) 182 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU iT) 2795 2795 6600 0.4235 0.4235
LEFT (L) 229 229 3000 0.0763
SB RIGHT (R) 116 2 * 1650 0.0012
THRU (T) 2527 2527 ~00 0.3829
LEFT (L) 136 136 3000 0.0453 0.0453
EB RIGHT iR) 401 275 * 3000 0.0917 0.0917
THRU iT) 26 26 1650 0,0158
LEFT il) 207 207 3000 0.0690
~B RIGHT iR) 162 162 1650 0.0982
THRU (T) 26 26 1650 0.0158
LEFT il) 522 522 4304 0.1213 0.1213
T + R 188 1650 0.1139
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.68
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NE~SRP.INT,VOL=75MID.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 81 1548 291
<--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 53---I 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.1 --- 252 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU ~ ---> 1.0 (NO. OF lANES) 1.1<--- 143 THRU CENTRAL PARKWAY
RIGHT 226 --- 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 64 LEFT
N SIG WARRANTS:
W + E 6 4 6 15 Ur~Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 15 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 486 486 3300 0.1473
LEFT (L) 62 62 3000 0.0207 0.0207
SB RIGHT (R) 81 28 * 1650 0.0170
THRU (T) 1548 1548 3300 0.4691 0.4691
LEFT (L) 291 291 1650 0.1764
EB RIGHT (R) 226 192 * 3000 0.0640
THRU (T) 77 77 1650 0.0467
LEFT (L) 53 53 1650 0.0321 0.0321
WB RIGHT (R) 252 252 1650 0.1527
THRU (T) 143 143 1650 0.0867
LEFT (L) 64 64 3000 0.0213
T + R 395 1650 0.2394 0.2394
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.76
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01
INTERSECTIOH 6438 FALLON ROAD/CENTRAL PARKWAY DUBLIH
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Tine 75% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 43 674 248
<--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 84---I 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.1 '" 282 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 159 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 63 THRU CENTRAL PARKWAY
RIGHT 126 --- 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 --- 21 LEFT
N $IG WARRAHIS:
g + E 21 14 1 53 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: FALLON ROAD
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 53 41 * 1650 0.0248
THRU (T) 1451 1451 3300 0.4397 0.4397
LEFT (L) ' 211 211 3000 0.0703
Sa RIGHT (R) 43 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 674 674 3300 0.2042
LEFT (L) 248 248 1650 0.1503 0.1503
EB RIGHT (R) 126 10 * 3000 0.0033
THRU (T) 159 159 1650 0.0964
LEFT (L) 84 84 1650 0.0509 0.0509
WB RIGHT (R) 282 282 1650 0.1709
THRU (T) 63 63 1650 0.0382
LEFT (L) 21 21 3000 0.0070
T + R 345 1650 0.2091 0.2091
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.85
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=NEWSRP.INT,VOL=75MID.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
========================================================================
condition: am peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01
INTERSECTION 9954 Fallon Rd/Gleason Rd Alameda County
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 38 1484 0
I <--- v ---> ISplit? N
LEFT 18 --- 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) O.O<---
RIGHT 20 --- 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT
W+EN 6~ ~ 60 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Fallon Rd
4-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
THRU Gteason Rd
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB THRU (T) 660 660 4950 0.1333
LEFT (L) 60 60 1650 0.0364 0.0364
SB RIGHT (R) 38 20 * 1650 0.0121
THRU (T) 1484 1484 3300 0.4497 0.449T
EB RIGHT (R) 20 0 * 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 18 18 1650 0.0109 0.0109
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.50
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
iNT=NEWSRP.INToVOL=75MID.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour; Alternative 07/09/01
INTERSECTION ~54 Fatlon Rd/Gleason Rd Alameda County
Count Date Year 2025 E, Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 13 761 0
LEFT 24 ---I 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES)
RIGHT 53 --- 1.0 1.0 :3.0 0.0
W+E 1 140 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Falion Rd
4-PHASE SIGNAL
O.olSptit~N
--- RIGHT
0.0<---
0.0 --- 0 LEFT
¥
STREET NAME:
0 THRU Gleason Rd
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=N, Rur=N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB THRU (T) 1420 1420 4950 0.2869 0.2869
LEFT (L) 16 16 1650 0.0097
SB RIGHT (R) 13 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 761 761 3300 0.2306
EB RIGHT (R) 53 3? * 1650 0.0224 0.0224
LEFT (L) 24 24 1650 0.0145
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.31
iNTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
iNT=NE~SRP.[NT,VOL=75MID.PMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: am peak hour;Traffic Mitigated Alt.-mitigation 07/12/01
INTERSECTION 8305 Hacienda Dr/I-580 WB ramp Dublin
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour AM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 598 1605 0
I <---v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 0 --- 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0 --- 1010 RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 3.0 --- 641 LEFT
v v
N
W + E 18 1 0
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
2-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
1-580 NB ramp
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT iR) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 1861 1861 5400 0.3446 0.3446
SB RIGHT iR) 598 598 1800 0.3322
THRU iT) 1605 1605 5400 0.2972
14B RIGHT iR) 1010 1010 3273 0.3086 0.3086
LEFT iL) 641 641 4695 0.1365
========================================================================
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.65
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B ·
========================================================================
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MITIGS.INT,VOL=...75MID.AMV~CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: pm peak hour;Traffic Mitigated Alt.-mitigation 07/12/01
INTERSECTION 8305 Hacienda Dr/l-580 WB ramp Dublin
Count Date Year 2025 E. Dub Time 75% Midpt run Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
........... 1171 2292 0
<--- v ---> I sprit? N
LEFT 0"'1 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 2.0--' 1080 RIGHT
STREET NAME.'
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 14B ramp
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 3.0 --- 656 LEFT
v v
N SIG WARRANTS:
14 + E 22 0 0 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 0 0 1800 0.0000
THRU (T) 2270 2270 5400 0.4204
SB RIGHT iR) 1171 1171 1800 0.6506
THRU iT) 2292 2292 5400 0.4244 0.4244
I,/B RIGHT iR) 1080 1080 3273 0.3300 0.3300
LEFT (L) 656 656 4695 0.1397
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.75
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
1N T =M I T 168.1N T, VOL=... 75M I D. PMV, CAP=C:.. LOSCAP. TAB
APPENDIX H:
POPULATION, HOUSING, AND JOBS ANALYSIS
APPENDIX H: POPULATION, HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT
Introduction
Although no potential supplemental impacts were identified with respect to population or
housing, (see Appendix A, Initial Study p. 49), several comments on the July 2001 DSEIR
addressed population, housing and jobs/housing balance issues. The purpose of this
appendix is to present the information generated in response to those comments for
background and informational purposes. As noted in the Eastern Dublin EIR, population,
employment and housing projections are not analyzed "in terms of environmental impacts
because the physical environmental effects associated with population, employment and
housing are addressed in the appropriate environmental analysis subject areas [in] this
EIR." (Eastern Dublin DEl-R, hereafter, "DEIR" p. 3.2-1.) Similarly, the Revised DSEIR
does not analyze population and housing as environmental effects; the physical
environmental effects are, however, addressed in the appropriate supplemental impact
topic areas.
Eastern Dublin EIR Discussion
Population, housing and employment was discussed in Chapter 3.2 of the Eastern Dublin
EIR. The discussion included a "general description of expected Bay Area growth as well
as more detailed population, jobs and housing development projections for the Th-Valley
subregion and for the City of Dublin ... [and] for both the Specific Plan and the General
Plan Amendment." (Id.) Based on the 1990 U.S. Census and ABAG Projections '90,
projections for the Tri-Valley area (Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, and San Ramon) were
presented for the years 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2005 (See generally, DEIR Tables 3.2-1 to -3).
Even then, ABAG described "inadequate housing production [as] the most serious
persistent obstacle to a healthy regional economy." (DEIR p. 3.2-3.) Th-Valley employees
increasingly sought less expensive housing in San Joaquin communities such as Tracy and
Modesto. (Id., Eastern Dublin Specific Plan p. 30.)
Reflecting the Eastern Dublin project objectives to balance employment and housing and
reduce traffic congestion and air pollution effects, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
proposed land uses and development policies to emphasize affordable housing
opporttmities and work towards a jobs/housing balance. (DEIR pp. 3.2-9, -10.) These
include Policy 4-7 (encouraging the development of affordable housing throughout the
planning area), Policy 4-8 (ensure that projects developed in the plan area provide
affordable housing in compliance with the City's Housing Element and other applicable
housing requirements), Policy 4-9 (affordable housing to include both rental and "for sale"
housing), Policy 4-10 (future developers to include affordable housing in each development),
Program 4F (develop an inclusionary housing program), Program 4G (explore the possibility
of an in-lieu housing fee), Program 4H (develop a monitoring program to track residential
growth by unit type and price categories), Program 4I (develop a specific numerical goal for
a percentage of affordable units in Eastern Dublin).
Other Specific Plan policies are cited in the Eastern Dublin EIR to assist in establishing and
maintaining a city-wide jobs/housing balance. These include Policy 4-26 (maintain balanced
growth of residential and employment uses), Policy 4-27 (discourage Specific Plan
Amendments that would increase employment at the expense of residential), Program 4K
(develop a monitoring program to track employment uses).
Eastern Dublin Project Approval: The Reduced Planning Area Alternative
The City Council did not approve the General Plan Amendment as identified and analyzed
in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Instead, the Council approved a modified version of Alternative
2, the Reduced Planning Alternative. The Eastern Dublin EIR noted that Alternative 2
would "result in a less-favorable jobs/balance ..." (p. 4-10), however, the alternative had a
number of environmental benefits, induding much less loss of habitat area than the original
General Plan Amendment. The currently proposed annexation and prezoning Project is
consistent with the land uses and patterns approved for Eastern Dublin and would have no
different contribution to the jobs/homing balance than as described in the Eastern Dublin
EIR discussion.
Summary of Changes in Population, Housing and Employment Projections Since
Adoption of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
Analysis of supplemental impacts related to physical environmental changes from the
Project is contained in Chapter 3.0 of the main text of the Revised DSEIR. The following
sttmmary of changes to population, housing and employment since adoption of the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan is presented for informational purposes.
Population. Total population of the Bay Area is likely greater in 2000 and projected
to be greater in 2005 than estimated in the Eastern Dublin ErR. According to ABAG's
Projections 2000, total Bay Area population was 6,930,600 in 2000 and was projected to
increase to 7,380,100 in 2005. The Eastern Dublin EIR included population figures of
6,610,500 in 2000 and 7,380,100 in 2005.
For the Tri-Valley area, the Eastern Dublin EIR projected a population level of 234,500 in
2000 and 265,600 in 2005 (Table 3.2-1). ABAG Projections 2000 include Tri-Valley
populations of 222,800 in 2000 (approximately 11,700 fewer people) and 259,800 in 2005,
which is similar, although less than the Eastern Dublin EIR projections.
For the City of Dublin, population projections contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR are less
than anticipated by ABAG in Projections 2000. Specifically, the Eastern Dublin EIR
anticipated a total City population of 29,500 in 1995 and 37,100 by 2005. More recent
estimates from ABAG include a City population of 26,400 in1995 and 31,500 in 2005.
Employment. ABAG's Projections 2000 includes estimates of employed residents
for the entire Bay Area of 3,538,000 in 2000 and 3,799,000 in 2005. These numbers are
slightly lower estimates than in the Eastern. Dublin EIR on Table 3.2-3:3,631,200 (2000) and
3,751,600 (2005). Thus, on a regional level although somewhat lower, the number of
employed residents estimated by ABAG is substantially the same as identified in the
Eastern Dublin ErR.
For the Tri-Valley subregion, Projections 2000 anticipates the number of employed residents
at 118,900 (2000) and 138,900 (2005). These more recent projections are lower than those
on Table 3.2-3 of the Eastern Dublin ErR for the Tri-Valley area (129,800 in 2000 and
146,700 in 2005):
For the City of Dublin, the number of employed residents is estimated at 13,600 in 2000 by
ABAG, which is lower than the Eastern Dublin EIR projection of 17,500.
Jobs/Housing Balance. The Eastern Dublin EIR noted that the jobs/housing balance
was a major issue in the subregion. Among the difficulties cited in attempting to establish
such a balance were the lack of comprehensive planning among the numerous Tri-Valley
jurisdictions; and the need for California cities to raise revenue in the post-Proposition 13
economic climate, often leading to competition for housing or employment-generating uses
without considerations of regional implications. Addressing these difficulties on a policy
level, the approved Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan attempt to
avoid the impacts that can arise from the imbalance between jobs and housing by
establishing a mix of residential and employment-generating land uses. This mixed use
community concept is reflected throughout the Eastern Dublin area, and in the current
Project area as well.
The Project area at buildout would generate fewer jobs than employed residents (0.63 jobs
per employed resident), while the City of Dublin currently has substantially more jobs than
employed residents, (1.99 jobs per employed resident), as shown in Table 1 below. If the
future jobs and employed residents of the Project area are added to the existing jobs and
employed residents of the City of Dublin, the combined jobs/housing balance would fall to
approximately 1.67 jobs per employed resident.
TABLE 1
EXISTING AND PROJECTED JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE
Dwelling Jobs Employed Balance Ratio
Units (a) Residents (c) (d)
(b)
Existing City of 9,230 (f) 27,050 13,600 -13,450 1.99:1.0
Dublin (e)
Project Area 2526 2,575 4,092 (g) 1518 0.63:1.0
TOTAL: 11,756 29,624 17,692 -11,932 1.67:1.0
(a) "Jobs" is defined as jobs existing within the City of Dublin and its Sphere of Influence,
regardless of the location of the workers' residence.
(b) "Employed Residents" is defined as job-holding residents of the City of Dublin and its
Sphere of Influence, regardless of the location of their employment.
(c) "Balance" refers to the number of employed residents in relation to the number of jobs
(i.e., a positive number means there are more employed residents than jobs).
(d) Ratio of jobs to employed residents
(e) Source: ABAG's Projections 2000.
(f) Measured by number of Households
(g) Projections assume a ratio of 1.62 employed residents per household based on ABAG's
Projections 1990.
Over time, the ratio of jobs to housing will vary in Eastern Dublin EIR depending on the
nature of projects that have been or are being developed at the time. Through the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City planned for the area in
consideration not only of land use and housing policy but also of environmental effects.
Implementing projects such as the current Project must be consistent with the comprehensive
planning for development of Eastern Dublin, providing the mix of housing and jobs
anticipated when the Eastern Dublin project was approved.
APPENDIX I: RESPONSES TO PARKS COMMENTS
APPENDIX I: RESPONSES TO PREVIOUS COMMENTS FROM LIVERMORE AREA PARKS
AND RECREATION DISTRICT AND EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
Responses to Letter 6: Livermore Area Recreation and Parks District
Response 6.1: The commentor notes that the District's request for an extension of time for the 45-day
pubhc review period was not granted.
The City of Dublin transmitted copies of the SEIR to all affected public agencies and organizations at
the commencement of the pubhc review period, including the LAPRD. The City did not believe that a
substantial reason for granting an extension existed at the time of the District's request and therefore
chose not to extend the review period.
Response 6.2: The commentor notes that the District is concerned that their environmental issues as
expressed in response to the Notice of Preparation have not been addressed in the DSEIR.
The City of Dublin considered all responses to the Notice of Preparation in determining the scope of
review for recreation and other topics. The City beheves that the Initial Study prepared for the
proposed Project clearly indicates that the project is consistent with the existing Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan and General Plan with respect to land use and recreation facilities. Recreational impacts were fully
identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and mitigation measures were adopted to ensure that any potential
recreational impacts would be less-than-significant. (See Chapter 3.4 of the Eastern Dublin EIR.) The
City of Dublin has no record that the LARPD submitted comments during the 45 day public review
period for the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993 regarding inadequacies in the analysis of recreation.
Response 6.3: The commentor notes that it was not consulted regarding preparation of the DSEIR.
The City determined to prepare a Supplemental EIR and no new impacts were identified in the Initial
Study for the Project with respect to Parks and Recreation that have not been addressed in Chapter 3.4
of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Therefore the City of Dublin did not believe consultation with the LARPD
was required.
Response 6.4: The commentor notes that it is surprised at the City of Dublin's approach in assessing
environmental impacts for the proposed project through preparation of a Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report.
The City's reasons for preparing a Supplemental EIR are outlined in the Initial Study and in Section 2.3,
Update of Prior Environmental Documentation, Project Description, of the DSEIR. That section details
the background of the Project and the reason why a supplemental EIR has been prepared to comply
with CEQA.
Response 6.5: The commentor notes that it concurs with the City of Livermore's comments on the
DSEIR and states that environmental concerns have changed since the adoption of the Eastern Dublin
EIR.
Please refer generally to responses to Letter 8. In addition, as noted in the Response 6.4, Section 2.0 of
the DSEIR outlines in detail the changed conditions and/or new information that result in new or
intensified significant impacts beyond those in the Eastern Dublin EIR, and consequently that
necessitate preparation of a Supplemental EIR. These include a change In status of previously
identified sensitive biological species and identification of new sensitive species not previously
identified, changes in regional traffic patterns, possible related changes in noise and air quality
conditions, potential for cancellation of Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreements on certain
properties, and changes in the provision and distribution of schools and other public utilities. The
Initial Study prepared for the Project, contained in Volume 2 of the DSEIR,'does not identify major or
substantial changes to parks or recreational facilities that would require new environmental analysis,
since the type, density and location of potential development pursuant to the Project is consistent with
that addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Addenda.
Response 6.5a: The commentor notes that the DSEIR fails to consider impacts to LARPD and its
facilities and programs. As identified in the following Responses 6.5b, 6.7, and 6.8, the City of Dublin
believes that impacts to LARPD facilities and programs would be less-than-significant based on the
facts that the Eastern Dublin project plans to supply local and community parks in a manner consistent
with the City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the close proximity of other City of Dublin
community parks and facilities to the Project area (including regional park facilities in Pleasanton
operated by the Eastern Dublin Park District) and the distance and inconvenience of future Project
residents to LARPD facilities.
Response 6.5b: The commentor notes that the DSEIR fails to consider impacts to LARPD and its
facilities and programs, including timing of providing parks. The City of Dublin does not believe the
proposed Project would result In significant impacts to LARPD facilities or programs. This has been
reflected in both the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and Initial Study for the Eastern Dublin Project. As noted
in the response to Comment 6.7, the Stage 1 Planned Development application shows that Project
would provide a greater amount of neighborhood and community park facilities that currently
required by the City of Dublin. The City of Dublin has also constructed major community park and
recreation facilities near the Project areas, as identified in the response to Comment 6.8. Therefore, there
will be minimal need for Project residents to travel outside of Dublin in order to use park facilities so
that impacts to LARPD facilities would be less than significant.
Timing of park development will be considered by the City of Dublin as part of individual Stage 2
Planned Development rezoning applications for individual projects within the Project area.
Response 6.5c: This comment notes that the 1993 EIR and DSEIR do not consider the proximity of
proposed development to LARPD's core service area and estimated increase on District facilities. As
noted in Responses 6.3, 6.5a, 6.5b, 6.7 and 6.8, the City of Dublin does not anticipate significant impacts
to LARPD facilities as a result of the approval of the Project since ample park land is proposed to be
provided within the Project area, consistent with City of Dublin standards, proximity of other nearby
community park and recreation facilities in the Eastern Dublin area and the distance of LARPD
facilities within Livermore from the Project area.
Response 6.6: The commentor states that the DSEIR fails to consider changes to and the addition of
regional parklands in the Tri-Valley area since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR.
The provision of new regional parklands by the LARPD is not a substantial change or significant new
information. The type, density and location of development within the Project area, as detailed in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan, have been available to the District for planning park
facilities since 1993.
The City of Dublin also notes that the location of the new LARPD facilities (Sycamore Grove Regional
Park and Brushy Peak Regional Park) is sited some distance (estimated 10-12 miles) from the project
site. Use of these facilities by future residents of the Project area is therefore anticipated to be limited
due to the inconvenience of the new facilities from Eastern Dublin and the Project site, in particular.
Use of other regional park and recreational facilities, such as the Iron Horse Trail and Shadow Cliffs
Regional Park in the City of Pleasanton, is anticipated to be greater from project residents due to closer
proximity to the Project area and associated convenience of use.
Response 6.7: The commentor states there will be a potential lack of sufficient parklands within the
Project area and impacts to LARPD facilities.
Consistent with the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the Stage 1
Development Plan for the Project provides for 40.8 gross acres of park land, of which 14.1 acres are
community parks, 24 acres are neighborhood parks and 2.7 are neighborhood squares. This total
acreage is equivalent to 5.72 acres of parkland per 1,000 anticipated residents within the Project area.
This number exceeds the 5 acres per 1,000 resident park ratio established by the City of Dublin (see
DSEIR [p. 2-8], Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 9.28 [Quimby Act Ordinance] and Resolution 60-99
[requiring payment of a Public Facilities Fee to provide a ratio of 5 acres of parks per 1,000 residents]).
Therefore, there will be sufficient parklands in the Project area; no significant impacts are anticipated
on LARPD park facilities, which are located 8 to 10 miles east of the Project area.
Response 6.8: The commentor expresses concern that development of the Project would impact
demand for the District's planned Community Center and services and programs which will be offered
at this facilitv.
The District's Community Center is located over 8 miles east of the Project area on the corner of East
Avenue and Lovola Way. Users of this facility from the City of Dublin would have to use the 1-580
freeway to access the site, which is sometimes congested. The City believes that future residents of the
Project are more likely to use the parks and recreation facilities provided by the City of Dublin because
they are closer and more easily accessible. According to the City of Dublin Parks and Community
Services Department, the following services and facilities are either presently available to Dublin
residents or have been funded for construction in the near term:
Emerald Glen Park, is a community-level park containing 29.6 acres of land located on the
west side of Tassajara Road between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive,
approximately 2 miles west of the site. This park includes baseball fields, soccer fields,
lighted tennis and basketball courts, a skateboard park, a children's play area, picnic and
open areas. Future expansions are planned so that the ultimate size of Emerald Glen
Park will encompass over 57 acres of land with a 29,000 square foot
recreation/gymnasium center, 23,000 square foot community center, outdoor
amphitheater, aquatic center and additional playfields. This park is such that future
residents of the Project area could drive due west on Central Parkway to reach the
facility.
Ted Fairfield Park is a recently constructed 5-acre facility located approximately two miles
due west of the Project area containing a combination baseball/soccer field, basketball
court, sand volleyball court, play and picnic areas.
Dublin Ranch Sports~Community Park is being developed in Dublin Ranch jUst west of the
Project area; a portion of the park will be located within the adjacent Project area.
Planned to contain approximately 68 acres, this park will provide a wide range of active
and passive activities as well as being a focus of organized activities by the Dublin Parks
and Community Services Department.
The Dublin Senior Center is currently located at 7437 Larkdale Avenue, but is being
planned for relocation and expansion to 7600 Amador Valley Boulevard by mid-2004.
The relocated Senior Center would be located approximately 5 miles west of the Project
area and accessible via Dublin Boulevard and the planned extension of Central Parkway.
Recreation programs currently offered by the City of Dublin in the Eastern Dublin area (primarily at
Emerald Glen Park but also at Dougherty Elementary School) include after school recreation programs,
summer fun-in-the-sun programs, tennis programs, youth t-ball, Little League, the Dublin United
Soccer League and on-going special events.
The City does not anticipate any significant impacts to LARPD's Community Center.
Response 6.9: The commentor asserts that neither the Eastern Dublin EIR nor the DSEIR addressed
whether the parks planned in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan will meet
LARPD's Master Plai~ if the Project area is not detached from LARPD.
The Project meets City of Dublin park requirements (see Response 6.7); all park and recreation facilities
are also consistent with the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. The entire
Project area lies within the City of Dublin's sphere of influence as approved by LAFCO. The Eastern
Dublin EIR analyzed the impact of jurisdictional boundary issues with respect to parks and found that
the issue was adequately addressed by General Plan Implementing Policy J which requires the City to
work to revise jurisdictional boundaries. The Project includes detachment from LARPD. Should the
Local Agency Formation Commission not detach the Project area from the LARPD, the City and
LARPD would need to discuss ownership and maintenance of the planned park and recreational
facilities.
Response 6.10: The commentor states that the DSEIR does not include a detailed discussion regarding
overlapping ~urisdictional boundaries between the LARPD and East Bay Regional Park District.
Approval of the proposed Project as proposed ensures that any overlapping jurisdictional boundaries
would be eliminated between these two districts. This action is consistent with Implementing Pohcy J
of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan: "Work with the LARPD to revise jurisdictional lines so that City of
Dublin departments have jurisdiction over ail parkland within the Dublin Sphere of Influence." Upon the
approval of the Project, the Project area would be removed from LARPD jurisdiction but left within the
East Bay Regional Park District. Thus, only one agency would be responsible for providing regional
park facilities, not two districts as presently exists. Jurisdictional issues have been adequately
addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, no further environmental analysis is required.
Response 6.11: The commentor states that the DSEIR fails to discuss regional park fees and states that
the loss of property tax revenues if the Project area is detached from LARPD will be an impact that the
LARPD cannot absorb.
The City's Public Facilities Fee will be required of all future developers of individual projects within
the Project area upon approval of individual projects. As noted by the commentor, this fee is intended
to cover development of neighborhood and community park facilities as well as a new community
library, a new senior center and other related community facilities. Since the City does not provide
regional park facilities, this responsibility would continue to reside with the East Bay Regional Park
District (EBRPD). Funding of regional facilities and services by the EBRPD is anticipated to continue to
be from property taxes, assessments, bond revenues, facility use fees and other sources of funding.
There would be no funding of LARPD facilities from the Project area, since the Project area would no
longer be within the District unless LAFCO approves the continuation of bonded debt. However, the
City and EBRPD facilities are located significantly closer to the project area than LARPD facilities,
including, for example, an EBRPD staging area on the west side of Tassajara Road. As noted earlier,
use of LARPD facilities by Project residents is anticipated to be minimal. The Eastern Dublin EIR and
Project Initial Study have adequately addressed the environmental effects of future Project
development on all levels of park facilities and are not required to address economic effects. The
potential detachment of the Project area from LARPD has been a part of the City's Eastern Dublin
planning since the 1993 Eastern Dublin approvals.
Response 6.12: The commentor states that the failure to include regional park land in the Eastern
Dublin GPA/SP area will impact LARPD.
The Eastern Dublin EIR clearly identifies the East Bay Regional Parks District as the primary provider
of regional parks with~ the Eastern Dublin planning area. No existing or future regional parks are
identified on the Project area in terms of future EPRPD or LARPD park facilities, so no direct impacts
would occur. Although approval and construction of the Project would likely increase usage of
regional parks, this use would be offset with additional property taxes and use fees. Any impacts
related to increased use of regional park facilities have been adequately addressed; no further CEQA
analysis is required for this Project.
Response 6.13: The commentor states that the DSEIR fails to analyze the impacts of detachment of the
Project from the LARPD.
The City of Dublin believes approval of the proposed project would have no significant environmental
impacts on the District. Future 'project residents would be far more likely to use City facilities and East
Bay Regional Parks District facilities that are significantly closer to the project area. As noted in
Response 6.7, the City of Dublin offers a similar level and range of parks and recreational services as
provided by LARPD.
In regards to child care services, the City of Dublin does not provide these services to local residents,
but instead relies on local private entities within the community. Given the significant distance of
LARPD child care facilities (approximately 8-10 miles from the Project area), use of LARPD child care
facilities is not anticipated to be significant when competing services are available in closer proximity.
Also, use of LARPD child care facilities may be limited to residents of the District. If the Project is
approved, future Project residents would not be eligible to use District facilities since they would be
outside of District boundaries.
Responses to Letter 7: East Bay Regional Park District
Response 7.1: The commentor is concerned with potential impacts on regional park facilities
maintained by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) from the Project.
Approval of the Project would increase use of EBRPD facilities since additional population would be
located in the Eastern Dublin area. However, the type, density and location of proposed housing is
consistent with the 1993 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan, which plans have been
available to the EBRPD for long range planning. Given the large extent of EBRPD district facilities and
services offered to East Bay residents (over 92,000 acres of park and open space lands in Alameda and
Contra Costa County, including 59 regional parks, recreation areas, wilderness areas, shorelines,
preserves and land bank areas, according to the District's official web site), an increase of 2,526
dwelling units within the project area would represent a less-than-significant increase in use of EBRPD
facilities. Potential impacts to District facilities would be off-set by increased property tax revenues
received by the District, additional assessment revenues from new housing and revenues from user
fees charged by the District.
Response' 7.2: The Commentor is concerned with impacts from the Project on the ownership,
management and maintenance of open space areas within the Project area.
The proposed Stage 1 Development Plan (SDEIR Figure 2-G) indicates that steeper lands located along
the northerly and westerly periphery of the project area would be designated as "RRA-Rural
Residential/Agricultural." At this time and subject to refinements as part of more refined Stage 2
Planned Development actions, these properties are intended to be privately owned and managed.
Options for this would include private individual ownership, ownership and management by one or
more owner's associations or dedication to a land trust. No impacts are anticipated to the East Bay
Regional Park District.