HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachmt 14 Casimira/Moller Final EIR
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
E
I
I
Ulb-/J;(I bu.J-t J IJ r1d..M.- ~A/G (irve.IL
Casimira Valley I
Moller Ranch Project
Reorganization! Annexation
Specific Plan Amendment
Prezoning
P A 03-060
Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report
SCH# 2005052146
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
Prepared By:
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner
March 2001
5 -1- IJ 7
&,3
R fkvJhryUrl r c;2 7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I'
I
I
Table of Contents
Introduction..................... ........... .............. ..... ....... ................................ 2
Clarifications and Modifications to the DSEIR ....................................... 5
Annotated Comment Letters and Responses..................................... ..11
Summary of DSEIR Comment Letters ..................................................12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Introduction
A Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) dated October 2006 was
prepared for this Project and distributed for public review in November and December
2006. The Project area contains approximately 238.8 acres of land located on the east
and west sides of Tassajara Road just south of the Alameda/ Contra Costa County line
in the Eastern Dublin area.
DSEIR circulation
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and implementing CEQA
Guidelines, after completion of the Draft SEIR, lead agencies are required to consult
with and obtain comments from public agencies and organizations having jurisdiction
by law over elements of the Project and to provide the general public with an
opportunity to comment on the DSEIR. Lead agencies are also required to respond to
substantive comments on environmental issues raised during the SEIR review period.
As the lead agency for this Project, the City of Dublin held a public review period
between October 30, 2006 and December 13, 2006.
This Comments and Responses document augments the DSEIR and, together with the
DSEIR, comprise the Final Supplemental EIR (FSEIR) for this Project. This document
contains all public comments received during the 45-day public review process
regarding the DSEIR and responses to those comments. Included within the document
is an annotated copy of each comment letter, identifying specific comments, followed
by a response to that comment.
The FSEIR also contains clarifications and minor corrections to information presented in
the DSEIR, including the applicant's request for approval of Alternative 4 rather than
the original Project. In the course of preparing the responses to comments, the City
generated new information as well as clarifications and modifications to the DSEIR. The
City has carefully reviewed the responses in this document, especially any new
information or clarifications and modifications to the DSEIR text, against the
recirculation standards of CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5. None of the new
information or clarifications / modifications in this document constitutes significant new
information as defined in the Guidelines, such as new or substantially more severe
significant impacts or different feasible alternatives or mitigations, therefore the City
has determined that no recirculation is required.
Project description
Several changes have been made to the underlying Project description and these are
summarized below.
DSEIR Project. The DSEIRincluded an analysis of 195 single-family dwellings, 14
attached "duet" dwellings, a 1.1-acre neighborhood square and open spaces on a
226-acre portion of the Moller Ranch located east of Tassajara Road along with
construction of a loop access road and utility extensions to serve the proposed
development. The Project also included annexation of the Moller Ranch property
and the Tipper property located on the west side of Tassajara Road to the City of
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 2
March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District. The total Project area is 238.8
acres of land. No development is proposed on the Tipper property as part of the
proposed Project.
Proposed land uses analyzed in the DSEIR is summarized in Table 3.1 on page 15
of the DSEIR.
Requested land use entitlements included amendments to the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan to include the 226-acre portion of the Moller Ranch property into
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, prezoning, a Stage 1 Development Plan, a pre-
annexation agreement and annexation of the Project area to the City of Dublin
and Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). If the annexation to the City of
Dublin is completed, an existing Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreement
on the Moller Ranch would be considered for cancellation by the City of Dublin.
DSEIR Alternative 4. Included in the DSEIR is Alternative 4, which is described
on page 150 of the DSEIR as the Medium Density Attached and Detached
Housing Development Alternative. Alternative 4 analyzed the development of
up to 326 attached dwellings with dwellings ranging in size between 2,200 to
2,450 square feet each and would all be multi-story. The development envelope
would be approximately the same under Alternative 4 as included in the
proposed Project and would be served by a looped access road from Tassajara
Road. The same land use entitlements would be required to implement
Alternative 4 as the proposed Project with the addition of an amendment to the
Dublin General Plan to allow attached housing types. The Tipper property
located west of Tassajara Road is also included in Alternative 4 for annexation to
the City and DSRSD but no development is proposed for the Tipper property.
December 2006 Stage 1 Development Plan. The Project applicant submitted a
Stage 1 Development Plan to the City of Dublin in September, 2006 that included
298 dwellings. This application was superceded by a revised Stage 1
Development Plan submitted to the City On December 26, 2006. The revised
Stage 1 Project includes construction of 298 Medium Density Residential
dwellings, both attached and detached housing types, on approximately 49 acres,
a 1.1-acre neighborhood square, a 32.6-acre open space/ stream corridor area, 7.2
acres of interior collector roads, a right-of-way reservation of 3.8 acres for the
widening of Tassajara Road along the Moller Ranch Project frontage. The latest
Stage 1 Development Plan application also includes 132.7 acres of land on the
Moller Ranch site that are designated Rural Residential that would be preserved
as a permanent non-buildable easement area.
The revised Stage 1 Development Plan requires the same land use entitlements
as the proposed Project with the addition of an amendment to the Dublin
General Plan to allow attached housing types. However, under the revised Stage
1 Development Plan proposal and following completion of annexation of the
Project area to the City of Dublin, the applicant would request cancellation and
rescission of approximately 70 acres of land on the Project site covered by the
Williamson Act Agreement. The DSEIR only discussed Williamson Act
cancellation.
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 3
March 2007
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3.1. Project Land Use Summary
Acres
Maximum Dwellin Units
30.3
H1.1
173.6
20.9
226.3
209
209
Ti
Residential
8.2
4.3
12.5
238.8
82
82
291
3) Page 32 is corrected as follows.
"...Act (Government Code Sec. 56000 et seq.) governed..."
4) Page 32, is corrected as follows:
the reference to the Public Resources Code, is hereby corrected to 21061.1.
5) Page 35 regarding LAFCO findings for annexation of Williamson Act lands, to
read as follows.
"Section 56856.5/1
6) Page 45, Project Trip Generation is corrected as follows:
":]4g 141 AM peak hour trips and ~ 189 PM peak hour trips./I
7) Page 46, Table 4.2-3 is corrected as follows:
Table 4.2-3. Intersection Levels of Service -
Baseline Plus Project Conditions
10 Study Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
VlC LOS VlC LOS
1 Dougherty RoadlDublin Boulevard 0.64 B 0.74 C
2 Hacienda Drive/l-580 Eastbound Ramps 0.67 B 0.61 B
3 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps 0.61 B 0.50 A
4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard 0.50 A 0.70 B
5 Santa Rita/l-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp/Pimlico 0.70 B 0.71 C
Drive
6 T assajara Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps 0.62 B 0.75 C
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 6
March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.71 C 0.76 C
8 Tassajara Road/Fallon Road Q....73 G
0.67 B
0.50 8
9 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.44 A 0.42 A
10 EI Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps 0.07 A 0.10 A
11 Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps 0.22 A 0.37 A
12 Fallon Road/Street "E" 0.09 A 0.14 A
13 Tassajara Road/North Project Access 0.56 A 0.65 B
14 Tassajara Road/South Project Access 0.59 A 0.68 B
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, 2006
8) Page 49, Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA lb is corrected as follows:
Supplemental Mitigation SM-TRA-1b (Project contribution to impact to Santa
Rita/I-580 E/B ramp/pimlico Drive intersection). The Project developer shall
contribute a pro-rata share of the cost to improve the Santa Rita Road/I-589- 580
east bound rampLfimlico Drive intersection aBd Pimliee Drive to include a
third left-turn lane for the eastbound approach and related downstream
improvements as identified by Dublin Public Works Department
Alternatively, the Project Developer shall contribute a fair share of the cost to
install the above improvements by payment of the Eastern Dublin Traffic
Impact Fee, if the Traffic Impact Fee is updated to include the above
intersection improvements prior to the time building permits are issued for the
Proj ect.
9) Page 52, Supplemental Impact TRA 2 is corrected as follows:
Supplemental Impact TRA-2 (Project contribution to Tassajara Road traffic).
The proposed Project would contribute additional traffic to Tassajara Road
adjacent to the proposed Project. This includes the segment of Tassajara Road
between Fallon Road and the City/County limit line, the segment of Tassajara
Road between Northern Access for Dublin Ranch West and Fallon Road and
the segment of Tassajara Road between North Dublin Ranch Drive and
Northern Access for Dublin Ranch West (significant supplemental cumulative
impact and mitigation required).
10) Page 52, Supplemental Mitigation Measure TRA-2a is corrected as follows:
a) The Project developer shall construct the widening of Tassajara Road
between Fallon Road and the City/County line to four lanes and shall
dedicate additional property as determined by the Dublin City Engineer.
11) Page 72 regarding Project watersheds is corrected as follows:
"The Project area is located within the /\rroyo Las Positas Tassajara Creek
watershed. a sub-basin of the Alameda Creek watershed. The Arroyo Las Positas
v:atCl'shed draino westerly into and through the f...rroyo :Mocho to the ~^.rroyo
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 7
March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
De La Lagun:1, which discharges into .'\l:lmeda Creek near Sunol, and discharges
to San Francisco Bay near Union City
12) Page 78 of the DSEIR is corrected as follows:
"The plan includes demineralizing shallm': groundwater from existing Zone 7
wells (Mocho Wells 1.2.3 and 4) with high salt content and reinjecting it into the
groundwater basin; thc resulting salty brine is to bc pipcd out of the basin
thiough the L'\ V\^&1.^. disposal facility. (Zone 7, Salt Balance .^~lflUal Report,
June 20, 2001.) The mitigation for salt loading. i.e. the demineralization facility
(Mocho Groundwater Demineralization Plant) is funded partly from water
connection fees and partly from water rate revenues. All development within the
Project area will pay for mitigation of increased salt loading impacts through the
payment of their water and sewer hook up fees and water rates. Zone 7 hao
addresscd the salt loading impacts to the main gronndv.'atcr basin and the
mitigations needcd in a joint .^.CWD DERW /'. study. Based on this study Zone 7
has included the construction of brine processing facilities as part of their Capital
:K:~:~~\~r~~f::~~~:;r:~)~~~~~ :;~: ~ f;:;l;:~ity
problem. Thc funding for mitigations of salt loading ...:ill bc paid for ,\lith
increascd 'water and sewer rat-cs of Zones 7 and DSRSD. i\ll deTy'clopment within
the Project area will pay for mitigation of increased salt loading impacts thiough
the payment of their T:.'atcr and ocwcr hook up kes and water rates. This
complies with Eastern Dublin EIR MM 3.5. / 23.0, which required recycled water
projects to be coordinated with any salt mitigation requirements of Zone 7.
Salt loading to the :Main Basin from this Project development is considcred by
Zone 7 t{) be "minim:11." This impact is more of a regional salt v:atcr
managcmcnt problem, because it reQults from the accumulation of all eJQsting
and proposed irrig:1tion system improTy'ements of the entire region. The salt
loading impact from this Project is part of a regional salt management issue.
which results from salt accumulation from all the existing and proposed
irri gation systems in the entire region. As noted in the Environmental Setting
section above, Zone 7 is implementing a regional demineralization program of
which individual developments within the Project area would participate
through payment of fees to Zone 7. Therefore, there would be no supplemental
impacts with regard to Project contribution to local or regional salt loading.
13) Page 104,Mitigation Measure SM-BI0-4c is modified to read as follows:
"The applicants shall retain the services of a qualified biologist to develop a
program to capture and relocate tiger salamanders from the Project site prior
to the initiation of construction. The program, including specific methods for
capturing salamanders (e.g., drift fencing, pitfall traps, etc.), location of
suitable relocation sites, and timing of implementation, shall be approved by
the City, USFWS and CDFG and implemented prior to the initiation of
construction."
14) Page 140 of the DSEIR is modified as follows:
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 8
March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II In Fcbruaf"Y 2004. May 2006, the City of Dublin adopted an updated Parks and
Recreation Master Plan."
15) Page 152 of the DSEIR is modified as follows:
Table 5.1-2. Roadway Segment ADT with Project Alternative 4
Baseline Baseline Buildout
Roadway Segment Existing Baselin Plus Plus With
e Proposed Project Project
Project Alt. 4 Alt. 4
1. Northbound Tassajara Road
between Interstate-580 and 11,920 21,700 22,260 22,290 30,330
Dublin Boulevard
2. T assajara Road between 34;9W
Dublin Boulevard and Gleason 18,260 33,900 34,940 48,860
Drive ~
3. Tassajara Road between ~
Gleason Drive and North Dublin 14,540 30,760 32,310 40,530
Ranch Drive ~
4. T assajara Road between l8;63e
North Dublin Ranch Drive and 6,850 1 18,630 20,180 32,730
Northern Access for Dublin 20.100
Ranch West
5. Tassajara Road between ~
Northern Access for Dublin 6,850 13,140 14,690 27,140
Ranch West and Fallon Road 14.610
6. Tassajara Road between 6,850 12,030 ~ 13,860 26,530
Fallon Road and County Limit 13.760
Notes: 1 From machine counts taken in May 2005.
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 9
March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Summary of DSEIR Comment Letters
Comment letters were received by the City of Dublin during the public comment
period on the DSEIR from the following agencies, organizations and other interested
parties.
Commenter Date
Federal A~encies
None
State A~encies
1.1 Department of Highwav Patrol 11/15/06
1.2 Department of Toxic Substances 12/07/06
Control
1.3 Department of Transportation 12/11/06
Local A~encies
2.1 Dublin San Ramon Services District 11/13/06
(DSRSD)
2.2 City of Dublin, Parks and Community 11/21/06
Services Department
2.3 East Bav Regional Park District 12/06/06
2.4 City of Livermore 12/11/06
2.5 Local Agency Formation Commission 12/07/06
(LAFCO)
2.6 Alameda County Resource 12/12/06
Conservation District
2.7 Alameda County Public Works 12/13/06
Agency
2.8 Zone 7 12/13/06
Interested Persons/Ore:anizations
None
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 10
March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Annotated Comment Letters and Responses
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 11
March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
State ~ CaIifomia
BusiDess, ~8DdB-""Ap1q
Memorandum
Letter 1.1
Date:
November 15,2006
RECEIVED
NOV 2 8 2006
To:
State Clearing House
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
STATE CLEARING HOUSE
Sacramento, CA 95814
~~:~
\\t Q
From:
DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIABlGBWAYPATROL
Dublin Area
File No.:
390.11292.9787
Subject:
CASAMIRA V ALLEY/.MOLLER RANCH PROJECT - SCH2005052146
Thank you for the opportunity to review the environmental document from the State Clearinghouse
regarding the "Casamira Valley I Moller Ranch PrOject'~ This project is located on the east side of
the City of Dublin, California bordered by Interstate 5.80 (1-580) and TassajaraRoad. The California
Highway Patrol is the primary agency that provides traffic Jaw enforcement, safety and traffic
management on 1-580, within Alameda County. Dublin Area is responsible for the aforementioned
functions and will be affected by the implementation of this project
1.1
This project is expected to bring an additional 209 dwellings. With each home having an average of
two vehicles, and each vehicle making numerous triPs per day, thiS increase could potentially add
approximately 20-30,000 vehicle trips monthly on 1-580 and the supPorting city and county
roadways. This significant increase would impact Dublin Area's. abilitY to proactivelyreduce
collisions and encourage voluntaIy compliance with Vehicle Code provisions as we would have
greater congestion and more service related calls to handle. Therefore, this project would more than
likely increase the number of traffic collisions (fatal, injury and property-damage only) along with.
1he potential driving under the influence incidents.
If you have any questions regarding these comments please contact Lieutenant S. Latimer at
(925) 828-0466.
~.b{~
Commander
Cc: Golden Gate Division
Special Projects Section
Safety, Service, and Security
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'~/U~/~UUb Ir:~~ r^^ ~~~ ~~~ bb~~
IS/ VV.;Jf VVO
1..1IT ur uu~L..L1'4
e
,\1
-.:-~
-
":'"
"l-
ft'
.
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Maureen F. Gorsen, Director
700 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley. California 94710-2721
ArnOld Scnwatzeneager
Governor
Unda S, Adams
Secretary for
EnvIronmental Protection
December 7, 2006
Letter- 1.2
Ms. Erica Fraser
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, California 94568
Dear Ms Fraser:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report (Supplemental DEIR) (SCH#2005052146) for the Casamira Valley Moller
Ranch Project. As you may be aware, the California Department of Toxic Substances
Control (OTSC) oversees the cleanup of sites where hazardous substances have been
released pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code, DMsion 20, Chapter 6.8.
The Supplemental DEIR indicates that a number of hazardous materials were identifted 1.2.1
in the Project area including but not limited to abandoned automobiles, oils, pesticides,
PCBs, lead-based paint and asbestos. DrSC recommends that soil and groundwater
sampling be conducted prior to development to ensure that no contamination exists
above acceptable levels. If hazardous substances have been released at other
properties, they will need to be addressed as part of this project. The remediation
aCtivities would then need to be addressed in the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) compliance docum.ent.
For example, if the remediation actMties include the need for soil excavation. the CEOA
document should include: (1) an assessment of air impacts and health impacts
associated with the excavation activities; (2) identification of any applicable local
standards which may be exceeded by the excavation activities, including dust levels
and noise; (3) transportation impacts from the removal or remedial activities; and (4) risk
of upset should be there an accident at the Site.
DTSC can assist your agency in overseeing characterization and cleanup activities
through our Voluntary Cleanup Program. A fact sheet desCribing this program is
enclosed. We are aware that projects such as this one are typically on a compressed
schedule, and in an effort to use the available review time efficiently. we request that
DTSC be included in any meetings where issues relevant to our statutory authority are
discussed.
. Prtnted on Reeycted Paper
rtECEIVED
DEe 0 8 2006
DUIUN PLANNING
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l~{Oij{~OO~ 11:~~ tAA ~~~ ti~~ ~~~ti
IS.IVVIf,VVO
1.~IY Ut UUI:lL~1'l
Ms. Erica Fraser
December 7. 2006
Page 2
Please contact Ms. Bamali Barua at (510) 540-3757 if you have any questions or would
like to schedule a meeting. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Karen M. Toth, P.E., Unit Chief
Northern California
Coastal Cleanup Operations Branch
Enclosure
cc: without enclosure
Governors Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, California 95812-3044
Guenther W. Moskat
CEQA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
1001 UI" Street, 22nd Floor
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, California 95812-0806
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l~fVaf~VVtl
II.~~ r^^ ~~o a~~ oo~o
lr~IT ur UUDL.L"
qg \lYJ, YYU
Voluntary Cleanup
Program
Statutory Authority:
Callfomia Health and
safety Code, Chapter
6.8,sec:tion
28355.5(a)(1 )(C)
DTse's Voluntary Cleanup Program allows motivated parties who are able to
fund the investigation and cleanup and DTSC's oversight to move ahead at
their own pace to investigate and remediate their sites.
Some of the highlights of this program are:
. Project Proponents do not admit to legal liability for remediation of a site
by entering into an agreement with DTSC.
. The cleanup process is consistent with the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Contingency Plan (the "National Contingency Plan", NCP)
and Chapter 6.8 of the Health and Safety Code.
. Provides direct access to qualified DTSe staff including, but not limited
to, geologists. engineers. scientists, and toxicologists.
. DTSC provides coordination with other State, federal, or local agencies
who may have input on certain aspects of a project.
. Services to be provided by DTSC and a cost estimate for this work are
set forth in an agreement.
. The Project Proponent or DTSC may terminate the agreement for any
rea~on by giving 30-day advance written notice to the other party.
. Professional services provided include document review, oversight of site
characterization, risk Bssessment, evaluation of feasible cleanup alterna-
tives, and implementation of site remediation, and certification upon com-
pletion.
Public participation activities are tailored to the project.
Project Proponents may include, but are not limited to owners of property
with known or suspected hazardous substance contamination, other State or
local agencies, real estate developers or others involved with proposed
changes in land use or ownership.
Most properties are eligible. The main exclusions are if the site is listed as a
Federal or State Superfund site, is a military facility, is under current DTSC
enforcement, or if it falls outside of DTSC's jurisdiction. Sites under the cur-
rent oversight of other State or local regulatory agencies may enter the pro-
gram for specific services only with the overseeing agency's consent.
@
I
I"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1;!/VlS/;!UUt)
I(:~~ t~^ ~;!O lS~~ bb~~
1,J.' Y ur UUIH.J."
lfg VVOf VVO
Page 2
Voluntary Cleanup Program
Under the Voluntary Cleanup
Program, DTSC is committed to
a cooperative I team approach
with the Project Proponent. The
common goal is to achieve an
efficient remediation which is
protective of public health and
the environment.
For Further Information
Please Contact
Steven Becker
Sacramento Regional Office
(916) 255-3586
8800 Cal Center Drive
Sacramento, Califomia 95826-3200
SBecker@dtsc.ca.aov
Tom Kovac
Clovis Field Office
(559) 297-3939
1515 Tollhouse Road
Clovis. California 93611-0522
TKova~dtsc.ca,aov
Janet Naito
Berkeley Regional Office
(510) 540-3833
700 Heinz Avenue, Suite 200C
Berkeley, California 94710
JNalto@dtsc.ca.aov
Curtis Plotkin
Glendale Regional Office
(714) 484-5448
1011 North Grandview Avenue
Glendale, California 91201
CPlotkin(B)dtsc.ca.aov
Maryam Tasnif-Abbasi
Cypress Regional Office
(714) 484-5489
5796 CDrporate Avenue
Cypress, California 90630
MTasniflCildtsc.Qj3.gov
Additional information is available on
DTSC's webpage:
. Fact Sheet
httD:/IwWw.dtBc.ca.;ovlSiteCleanuDlBrownfie
IdsluDloadISMP FS VCP .Ddf
. Lead Agency Identification Application:
httD:/{www.caleDa.ca.govlBrownfieldslM
Q/i..
. Policy and Procedure:
htto:llwww.dtsc.ca.aovlLawsReasPolicieslin
dex.cfm#Policie.s and Procedures
. EnviroStor.
httD:/Iwww.envirostor.dtsc.ca.aov/oublicl
Town and COuntry Village Shopping Center
San Jose, California
Further information is available Dn the DTSC
webpage at: http://www.dtsc.ca .gov
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. .Govemor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
111 GRAND AVENUE
P. O. BOX 23660
OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
PHONE (510) 286-5505
FAX (510) 286-5559
TTY (800) 735-2929
~
Flex your power!
Be energy efficient!
December 11, 2006
Letter 1.3
ALA580815
SCH 2005052146
Ms. Erica Fraser
Community Development Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Ms. Fraser:
Casamira ValleylMoQer Ranch Project - Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report
Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Department)
in the environmental review for the proposed project. The comments below are based on the
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for the proposed Casamira
Valley/Moller Ranch Project. As lead agency, the City of Dublin is responsible for all project
mitigation, including improvements to state highways. The project's fair share contribution,
financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be
fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. Any required roadway improvements
should be completed prior to certificate of occupancy. While an encroachment permit is only
required when the project involves work in the State Right of Way (ROW), the Department will
not issue an encroachment permit until our concerns are adequately addressed. Therefore, we
strongly recommend that the lead agency ensure resolution of the Department's concerns prior to
submittal of an encroachment permit application. Further comments will be provided during the
encroachment permit process; see the end of this letter for more information regarding
encroachment permits.
1.3.1
F orecastin1!
Project Land Use data is not consistent.
1.3.2
Table 3.1, page 15 of the DSEIR, October, 2006 shows:
Moller Ranch Property 209 maximum dwelling units
Tipper Property 82 maximum dwelling units
Table 3, page 19 of the Final Traffic Report, February 10, 2006, shows:
Single Family Homes 186
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
RECEIVED
DEe 1. 3 2006
DUBLIN PLANNlNG
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ms. Erica Fraser
December 11, 2006
Page 2
Table C2, Appendix C shows:
Single Family Residential 269
It is difficult to find trip generation and distribution information for the proposed project. A table
showing the trip generation data and a figure showing the trip distribution for the proposed
project would simplify the review process.
1.3.3 .
Miti1!ation Measures
Mitigation Measure 2 for the Santa Rita RoadJInterstate 580 eastbound ramps intersection on
page 35 of the Final Traffic Report, February 10, 2006, should be completed prior to the
commencement of this project.
1.3.4
Encroachment Permit
Any work or traffic control within the State ROW requires an encroachment permit that is issued
by the Department. Traffic-related mitigation measures will be incorporated into the construction
plans during the encroachment permit process. See the following website link for more
information: http://www.dot.ca.govlhq/traffops/developserv/permits/
1.3.5
To apply for an encroachment permit, submit a completed encroachment permit application,
environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of plans (in metric units) which clearly indicate
State ROW to the address at the top of this letterhead, marked ATIN: Michael Condie, Mail
Stop #5E.
Should you require' further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please call
Lisa Carboni of my staff at (510) 622-5491.
. 'JJt--
TIMOTHY . SABLE
District Branch Chief
IGRlCEQA
c: State Clearinghouse
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DUBLIN
SAN RAMON
SERVICES
DISTRICT
7051 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, California 94568
Phone: 925 828 0515
FAX: 925 829 1180
www.dsrsd.com
November 13, 2006
Erica Fraser, Project Planner
City of Dublin - Community Development Dept.
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Letter 2.1
Subject:
Casamira Valley (Moller Ranch) DRAFT Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report (DRAFT SEIR)
EIR SCH # 2005052146
Dear Ms. Fraser:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above subject document. The Dublin San Ramon
Services District (DSRSD) has reviewed the DRAFf SEIR and has the following comment.
In regards to Section 4.4 (Supplemental Impacts and Mitigation Measures pg. 66): The western portion of 2.1.1
the project, west of Tassajara Road, is not currently within the DSRSD service area. However, the
proposed project is within the current DSRSD Sphere of Influence and is included in the current DSRSD
Urban Water Management Plan and Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update. The
determination has been made that DSRSD has sufficient water availability and sewer treatment capacity
to serve the proposed project upon annexation by DSRSD. Construction of pipelines and related
appurtenances needed to serve the project area will be required.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you have any questions regarding these comments,
please contact me at (925) 875-2255.
~~:~I-
Senior Engineer
ATJIRNB:jg
cc: Dave Requa
David Behrens
RECEIVED
NOV 1 5 2006
H:\ENGDEPJ\CEQA\Casamira Valley (Moller Ranch) DRAFT" Supplemental Environmental hnpact Report Comments.doc DUBUN PLAtt"1N\,i
The Dublin San Ramon Services District is a Public Entity
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Parks and Community Services Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
November 21, 2006
Letter 2.2
Erica Fraser, Senior Planner
Diane Lowart, Parks & Community Services Director ~.
Moller Ranch/Casamira Valley - Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review the aforementioned document. I have several comments as
follows.
Page 15. Table 3.1
For the Moller Ranch Property in the column on Land Use, you refer to Neighborhood Parks. Based on
the acres included (1.5 acres) this should be categorized as a Neighborhood Square per the standards in
the Parks & Recreation Master Plan.
2.2.1
Page 140. Paragraph 3
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan was updated again in May 2006. Please replace February 2004 in 2.2.2
the first sentence with May 2006.
Page 140. Paragraph 4
The Master Plan no longer shows four neighborhood parks and a portion of a Community Park within 2.2.3
the Casamira Valley Project area. The 2006 Update shows two neighborhood parks and one
neighborhood square on the Dublin Ranch WestlWallis Ranch project site; there is no longer a
community park in the project area.
Page 140. Paragraph 5
Phase ill of Emerald Glen Park was completed in spring 2006; the park now encompasses 2.2.4
approximately 42 acres. Two additional phases are anticipated for the future.
Page 141. Paragraph 3
In this paragraph you use the term "local parkland". What does this refer to? You also indicate that this 2.2.5
would be used as a neighborhood park. As noted above, given the acreage, it should be referred to as a
neighborhood square.
Page 141. Paragraph 4
Per the City's parkland standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents, 1.5 acres per 1,000 is for neighborhood 2.2.6
park/square and 3.5 acres per 1,000 is for community park. Based on this, the 1.5 acre neighborhood
"square" proposed for the project actually exceeds the neighborhood park requirement of 1 acre that
would be generated by this project.
il
il
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
Page 142. Paragraph l/Paragraph 2
This paragraph which begins on the preceding page discusses how the Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2.2.7
does not indicate any future City park facilities on the Moller Ranch property and assumes that future
residents of the Moller Ranch would use parks constructed as part of the Dublin Ranch West
development project. It should be noted, however, that at the October 5, 2004 Study Session of the City
Council where the Dublin Ranch West (Wallis Ranch) project was discussed, the Council agreed to
accept Park Option 4 which identified 7.66 acres of neighborhood parkland on the Dublin Ranch West
project and 1.04 acres on either the Mission Peak or Moller Ranch projects. (The Dublin Ranch West
project was originally required to provide 8.7 acres of neighborhood parkland.) Consequently the
proposed 1.S-acre park facility within the Moller Ranch project is not actually an additional recreational
amenity within the proposed project but makes up for the reduction is park acreage on the Dublin Ranch:West project.
If you have any questions on this information, please contact me.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EAST BAY REGIONAL
PAR K D 1ST R leT'
December 6, 2006
Letter 2.3
Ms. Erica Fraser, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Dublin Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Casamira Valley (Moller Valley) Proposed Project and Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report
Dear Ms. Fraser:
The East Bay Regional Park District (The District) appreciates the opportunity to
comment on the proposed Casamira Valley (Moller Valley) project and draft
supplemental environmental impact report. The District is willing and interested
in working with both the applicant and the City regarding potential open space
and trail cooperation.
If you have any questions about this item, please contact me at
Itona@ebparks.ora or 510/544-2621.
Sincerely,
;;V~
Larry To
Interagen Plannin anager
Cc: Jim Summers, The DeSilva Group
Robert E. Doyle, Assistant General Manager
RECEIVED
DEe 0 8 2006
DUBLIN PLANNING
n
~
2950 Peralta Oaks Court P.O. Box 5381 Oakland. CA 94605-0381
TEL 510 635-0135 FAX 510 569-4319 TOD 510 633-0460 www.ebparks.org
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Carol Severin
President
Ward 3
John Sutter
Vice-President
Ward 2
Ayn Wieskamp
Treasurer
Ward 5
Ted Radke
Secretary
Ward?
Beverly Lane
Ward 6
Doug Siden
Ward 4
Nancy Skinner
Ward 1
Pat O'Brien
General Manager
2.3
IIsent Sy: CITY OF LIVER"ORE;
925 geo 4459;
Dec-13-0e 4:54PM;
Page 2/3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
(
December II, 2006
LIVE~~~
Erica Fraser, Project Planner
Cily of Dublin - Community Development Department
Dublin City Hall
tOO Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Letter 2.4
RE:
Comments on Cassamiro. Vallcy (Moller Ranch) Dran SEIR (SCH#2005052146)
Dear Ms. Fraser.
Attached please find comments from the City ofLivennore on the Draft SEIR for Cassamira
Valley (Moller Ranch). The attached document provides more specific commen~ by Chapter and
page number. The City's main comment, however, focuses on open space and conservation issues
as they relate to the 2002 Memorandum ofUndcrstanding (MOU) between the City of Dublin and
the City ofLivcrmore regarding land use planning issues of mutual concern.
The proposed project has the potential to be inconsistent wilh the Doolan Canyon designation and
the intent of the Resource and Open Space Planning provisions of the MOU. To asSUTe cooperative
consideration ofbabitat preservation and restoration in the Doolan Canyon area and consistency
with the intent of the 2002 MOO, the EIR should provide an evaluation ofthe projects consistency
with the MOU within the '.Regulatory Setting" section of the document.
2.4.1
Thank you for providing this opportunity for the City of Livermore to comment If you have any
qucstil'ms, please do not hesitate lo contact me at (925) 960~75.
Sincerely ~
~h'
Ingrid Rademaker
Senior Planner
Attachment
cc:
Mayor Kamens and City Council members
Linda Barton, City Manager
John Pomidor, City Attorney
Marc Roberts, Community Development Director
Eric Brown, Planning Manager
Cheri Sheets, City Engineer
Robert Vinn, Assistant City Engineer Development
12/13/2008 WED 17: 48 [TX/RX NO 8551] ~ 002
I
Sent By:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF LIVERMORE;
925 960 4459;
Dec-13-06 4:55PM;
Page 3/3 .
( .
City of Livermore Comments
Draft SEIR - Cassamira Valley (Moller Ranch)
4.6 Biology
There are several mitigation measures (8M-BIO-l a, SM-BIO-2a and 2b, SM-BIO-4a and 2.4.2
4b, 8M-BIO-5a and 5b that include restoration/enhancement of species habitat including
California red-legged frogs. California Tiger Salamander and also riparian habit. It is not
clear whether this restoration/enhancement will occur oD~ite or offsite. .These mitigation
measures should clarify whether mitigation will occur on or offsite and also should
provide for offsite mitigation to be located within the Livermore and Amador Valleys and
specifically in the Doolan Canyon area.
SM-BIO-4~ - Identify who will be responsible for implementing trapping and relocation 2.4.3
measures prior to initiation of construction. Should include oversight by qualified
biologist.
SM-BIO-4d - Identify who will oversee compliance with condition of approval and 2.4.4
requirements of Plan.
4.10 Parks and Recreation, Page 138
Pg. 142 - This section/discussion relies on a verbal interpretation of policy and 2.4.5
information {in the Dublin Park and Recreation Master Plan to establish the sufficiency
of parkland already planned outside of the project area. The EIR should include relevant
information from the Master Plan (text, tables, maps) to substantiate the assertion or
assumption that there is enough parkland being provided west of the site that future
residents of Moller Ranch would use. The discussion should also include an explanation
as to why the remaining required. 3.5 acres of parkland is not being provided on the
Moller Ranch site.
12/13/2006 WED 17: 46 [TX/RX NO 8551] ~ 003
I
I
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
LAFCO
ALAMEDA LOCAL AGENCY FORMA TION COMMISSION
1221 OAK STREET, SUITE 555 * OAKLAND, CA 94612
(510) 271-5142 FAX (510) 272-3784
Members
Jocelyn Combs, Vice Chair
Special District Member
Katy Foulkes
Special District Member
Alternates
Herbert Crowle
Special District Member
Executive Officer
Crystal Hishida Graff
Gail Steele
County Member
Nate Miley
County Member
Janet Lockhart, Chair
City Member
Marshall Kamena
City Member
Sblend Sblendorio
Public Member
Scott Haggerty
County Member
Jennifer Hostennan
City Member
Linda Sheehan
Public Member
December 7, 2006
Letter 2.5
Jerry Haag, Consultant
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin CA 94568
Subject: Casimira ValleylMoller Ranch Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report -
SCH# 2005052146
Dear Mr. Haag:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the
Moller Ranch project. Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), as Responsible
Agency, needs to ensure that potential impacts relating to the proposed reorganization are evaluated to
enable an informed decision by the Commission. To that end, we offer the following comments:
In July 2005, LAFCo submitted a response to the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study (IS) prepared
for this project. Some of those responses have not been sufficiently evaluated or need to modified as
follows:
. Thank you for including a prezone exhibit. However, the exhibit does not appear to reflect recent 2.5.1
LAFCo annexation actions which amended the City's boundary. Please provide updated exhibits.
. (IS, pA et al) - The project site includes land under Williamson Act jurisdiction until 2014. The 2.5.2
IS & DEIR (pp. 20, 34, 35 et al) contain conflicting and/or partial evaluations of the timing and
status of Williamson Act cancellations and related effects on agricultural land. In one location,
incorrect citations of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg (CKH) Act are given. From LAFCo's
perspective, as implementing agency for projects processed pursuant to the CKH Act,
Government Code (GC) Section 56865 (d) (1) does not apply, as a cancellation has not been
approved by the city. In some locations, the DEIR indicates the City is not currently intending to
approve a cancellation. In other locations, however, it states that a cancellation application has
been received and will be acted upon. These issues need to be clarified. LAFCo also needs to
know the estimated timeline for cancellation actions, and site development, as applicable.
. LAFCo's previous comment on page 7 of the IS does not appear to be addressed. Annexation is 2.5.3
required before subdivision maps are approved.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jerry Haag, consultant
December 7, 2006
Page 2
General comments on the DEIR are provided as follows:
. The 13-year-old EIR is dated and cannot be used effectively for evaluation of potential 2~5.4
agricultural impacts, especially cumulative and growth-inducing impacts due to substantial
changes in land use throughout the project vicinity, changes in laws, and State directed emphasis
on avoidance of premature conversion of farmland to urban uses.
. Please provide a title for the Appendices in the Table of Contents. 2.5.5
. Is this application premature considering that a substantial amount of undeveloped land has been 2.5.6
recently added to the City through two recent annexations? LAFCo's policies discourage
premature conversion of prime agricultural, and state that LAFCo should discourage the
inclusion of land not expected to be developed within five years of LAFCo action in urban
servIces areas.
. LAFCo' s agricultural, service and annexation policies are not reviewed, considered or included 2.5.7
in any section of the OEIR. The EIR needs to evaluate potential impacts stemming from the
proposed project's inconsistency with LAFCo policies, especially timing of conversion of
agricultural land.
. P. 32 - The site does not appear to meet the criteria for an infill site as defined in GC Section 2.5.8
21061.3.
. Please provide more information on the timing of services: when needed and to what locations of 2.5.9
the site. Are any services dependent on build out of the two most recently annexed areas to the
south and west? Does approval of this project prior to build out of those recently annexed areas
cause leapfrog development, inefficient or more expensive services, and what are the potential
impacts?
. What are the potential short and long term effects on adjacent agricultural lands not proposed for 2.5.10
development?
. Is there an SB 610 report?
2.5.11
. Appendix 8.5 states there may be 80 cows on the site, but does not draw conclusions regarding 2.5.12
GC Section 56064 ( c). This issue needs to be disclosed and evaluated in the EIR.
. Is there more recent storage data for the Main Basin? Much has happened in terms of water and 2.5.13
land uses since 1966.
. How many and what types of trees will actually be removed? The DEIR states that oak trees 2.5.14
could be removed, including heritage oak trees 24" or greater in diameter. Pursuant to SB 1334
& CEQA (21083.4), the level of protection for these oak trees stands to be reduced because of
the transfer of land use jurisdiction from the County to the City that will occur because of
LAFCo's action. This is a significant adverse environmental impact which needs to be
quantified. Additional mitigation may need to be provided to raise protection to existing levels.
Protection alternatives listed in SB 1334 include: planting and maintaining an appropriate
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
Jerry Haag, consultant
December 7, 2006
Page 3
number of trees either on-site or in restoration of a former oak woodlands (tree planting is
limited to half the mitigation requirement); contributing funds to the Oak Woodlands
Conservation Fund for the purpose of purchasing conservation easements; or other mitigation
measures developed by the county. This issue needs to be disclosed and evaluated in the ElR.
Should you have questions about the information above, please contact Barbara Graichen, LAFCo
Planner at 916-991-2177 or Mona Palacios, LAFCo Analyst at 510-272-3894.
Sincerely,
cc: Barbara Graichen, LAFCo Planner
Mona Palacios, LAFCo Analyst
I
I
I
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
r
,.
~
. ALAMEDA COUNTY RESOURCE tONSERV A TION DISTRICT
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE
ACRCD . USDA NRCS
. . . Making Conservation Happen in Alameda County
CONSERVATION
PARTNERSHIP
December 12, 2006
Letter 2.6
Erica Fraser, Planner
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Via Email -Erica.Fraser@cLdublin.us
RE: Moller Ranch Project DEIR, '#BA03060 (R27)
Dear Ms. Fraser,
Please accept the following comments on the Moller DEIR for your review and inclusion.
These comments are intended to recommend:
. mitigation for loss of important rangeland and its natural resources
. Williamson Act Easement Exchange approach for cancellation of William Act
contracts
. managed, "non-buildable open space"
Mitiaation for loss of Qrasslands and its natural resources. While the Moller Ranch
project is not located on prime cultivated agricultural soils, the grasslands provide
significant and diverse natural resources and agricultural values. The Bay Area Open
Space Council states that rangelands are perhaps the largest single habitat area that
remains unprotected in the area. The California Rangeland Conservation Coalition, a
coalition of public agencies, ranchers and environmental organizations, also
acknowledges the significant natural resource values of private rangelands. Recent
University of California research indicates that a viable private ranching industry has a
very important habitat management relationship to public rangelands. The historical
rangelands in Eastern Alameda produce high quality and desirable forage for the
grazing industry of California. Alameda County's General Plan and LAFCo policies
support the sustainability and values of agriculture.
Therefore - The loss of 238 acres of valuable private rangeland should be
mitigated with permanent protection of private rangeland in Alameda County using
2.6.1
3585 Greenville Rd, Suite 2 (925) 371-0154 Phone
Livermore, CA 94550 (925) 371-0155 Fax
www.acrcd.org
"The Alameda County Resource Conservation District provides leadership in the County and region about natural resources
conservation and agricultural issues through education, outreach, resource services, partnerships and funding."
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
conservation easements and by consideration of other innovative approaches in the Tri-
Valley that support the working landscape.
This is achievable, since there are numerous private landowners in Eastern
Alameda County with interest in easement protection for their ranches that also provide
natural resources diversity. Also, there is local capacity to assist with easements by
local resources and easement entities.
Williamson Act contract cancellation. The Williamson Act Exchange Program should be 2.6.2
utilized to mitigate for loss of the grasslands. Not only are other ranches available in the
county for permanent easement, but the associated natural resources and the ranching
industry will benefit from further land protection. In addition, local and regional capacity
exists to facilitate the exchange process.
Manaaement of non-buildable ooen soace. 173 acres or 72% of the project area is 2.6.3
planned for open space, ringing the development and linking enhanced stream
corridors. Those rangeland acres are now managed by grazing, which provides fire fuel
and invasive weed management. The RCD encourages continued active grazing
management where practicable, and to work with agricultural and natural resource
specialists, such as a Certified Rangeland Manager when planning the final
development so as to ensure accessibility of agricultural equipment and animals and to
provide for adequate fencing and stock water. Recent research has shown that without
active grazing or other grassland management tools, the open space values may
deteriorate, including the wetlands and open space values.
Please call on the Conservation Partnership if we can answer any questions.
Karen Sweet
Executive Officer
3585 Greenville Rd, Suite 2 (925) 371-0154 Phone
Livermore, CA 94550 (925) 371-0155 Fax
www.acrcd.org
"The Alameda County Resource Conservation District provides leadership in the County and region about natural resources
conservation and agricultural issues through education, outreach, resource services, partnerships and funding."
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
399 Elmhurst Street · Hayward, CA 94544-1395
(510) 670-5480 December 13, 2006
Erica Fraser
Senior Planner
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Letter 2.7
SUBJECT: Notice of Availability of Draft Supplement Environmental Report
Casamira Valley/Moller Ranch Project EIR SCH # 2005052146
Dear Ms. Fraser:
The Alameda County Public Works Agency is in receipt of your Notice of Availability for
the above subject project. We have reviewed the report and have the following comments:
1. The annexation related to this project should be reviewed. The segment of Tassajara 2.7.1
Road between the existing city limit and the boundary of this project area should be
included in the annexation. The development both to the south and the north along
Tassajara Road would leave only a short segment between abutting City development.
2. Impact TRA-2 - Widening of Tassajara Road should continue through the presently 2.7.2
unincorporated segment of roadway. Roadway widening and improvements along
Tassajara Road have been identified in this report. Roadway improvements consistent
with these development generated improvements are necessary to provide consistent
lanes, lane widths, shoulder, drainage, lighting and roadside improvements.
3. Impact AQ-2 - Provide sidewalk or paths along the County segment of Tassajara Road 2.7.3
connecting to the community network consistent with improvements within the city
municipal boundary.
4. Impact AQ-2 - Provide bike lanes or paths along the County segment of Tassajara 2.7.4
Road connecting to the community network consistent with improvements within the
city municipal boundary. This roadway is on the County bicycle master plan.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.
~ry 7: yours,
~ ~ J..q t~ fA."
John Nguyen, P.t..
Development Services Department
C: Traffic and Road Section
REceiVED
DEe 1 8 2006
DUBLlN PLANNlNG
"To Serve and Preserve Our Community"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
100 NORTH CANYONS PARKWAY, LIVERMORE, CA 94551 ; PHONE (925) 454-5000
December 13, 2006
Ms. Erica Fraser
Community Development Services
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Letter 2.8
Re: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report/or the CllSamira ValleylMoUer Ranch
Project Reorganization/Annexation Specific Plan Amendment Prezoning PA 03-060
Dear Ms. Fraser:
Zone 7 has reviewed the referenced CEQA document in the context of Zone 7' s mission to provide
drinking water, non-potable water for agriculture and irrigated turf, flood protection, and groundwater and
stream management within the Livennore-Amador Valley. Our comments are as follows:
1. On page 72, under Environmental Setting, the first sentence states that the Project area is located 2.8.1
within the Arroyo Las Positas watershed. The Project may be within the Tassajara Creek watershed
as opposed to the Arroyo Las Positas watershed. Please verify.
2. On page 74, under Regulatory Framework, it states that the Dublin Ranch Stonn Drainage Master 2.8.2
Plan was prepared for each development project in Eastern Dublin planning area. Zone 7 requests a
copy of this storm drainage master plan and any other existing hydrology and/or hydraulic studies for
this proposed project for review to determine impacts on Zone 7's regional flood control system.
We would like to understand how the drainage solution will be implemented-to pr-otect all
downstream properties from new drainage impacts (Program 9U).
Under Impacts and Mitigation Measures on the same page, natural channel improvements wherever
possible are proposed. Zone 7 requests that the City and/or the project proponent consult with Zone 7
on any proposed channel improvements. Recent findings in the development of Zone 7's Stream
Management Master Plan (SMMP) indicate the need for consideration and analysis of the impacts of
development to the regional flood control system and the identification of appropriate mitigations.
Therefore, during the interim period, before full implementation of the regional water storage plan
contemplated by the SMMP, the City and/or the project proponent should consult with Zone 7 prior
to undertaking the impact and mitigation analysis. Future improvements to the flood control system
are planned, thus, it is imperative that the City and/or the project proponent provide a teclmical
analysis to identify any impacts to the regional flood control system that may occur downstream of
proposed project in the interim period.
3. The proposed project is subject to Zone 7's Special Drainage Area (SDA) 7-1 Drainage Fees for the 2.8.3
creation of new impervious areas per the ACFC& WCD Ordinance 0-2002-24. The project proponent
will need to complete a Zone 7 SDA 7-1 Impervious Surfaces Worksheet, submit an improvement
plan identifying and quantifying all new proposed impervious areas, and submit a payment for the
proposed impervious surfaces.
RECEIVED
DEe l' 4 7008
DUBUN PLANN'NG
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
4. On page 78, under Salt Loading, 2nd paragraph, beginning with the 3rd sentence, please modify the
remaining text in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs to the following:
2.8.4
''The plan includes demineralizing groundwater from existing Zone 7 wells (Mocho Wells 1, 2, 3
and 4). The mitigation for salt loading, i.e., the demineralization facility (Mocho Groundwater
Demineralization Plant) is funded partly from water connection fees and partly from water rate
revenues. All development within the Project area will pay for mitigation of increased salt
loading impacts through the payment of their water and sewer hook up fees and water rates. This
complies with Eastern Dublin ElR 3.5/23.0, which required recycled water projects to be
coordinated with any salt mitigation requirements of Zone 7.
The salt loading impact from the Project is part of a regional salt management issue, which results
from the salt accumulation from all the existing and proposed irrigation systems in the entire
region. As noted in the Environmental Setting section above, Zone 7 is implementing a regional
demineralization program of which individual developments within the Project area would
participate through payment of fees to zone 7. Therefore, there would be no supplemental impacts
with regard to the Project's contribution to regional salt loading."
5. If wells are to be used or destroyed, a Zone 7 well drilling permit and compliance with the permit
conditions are required to ensure "wellhead protection."
2.8.5
6. All abandoned septic systems should be completely removed to eliminate them as a potential conduit
for the transport of surface contamination, should it occur.
2.8.6
In addition, Zone 7 requests that we be able to review all plans and specifications or any additional
information and/or studies pertaining to proposed development. Please submit such additional
information to me at the address shown above.
2.8.7
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions or comments,
please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience at 925-454-5036 or via e-mail at
mlim@zone7water.com.
Lj;21Y' t^'
M~ t::rf
Environmental Services Program Manager
cc: Karla Nemeth, Environmental & Public Affairs Manager, Zone 7
Jim Horen, Principal Engineer, Zone 7
Matt Katen, Principal Engineer, Zone 7
Joe Seto, Principal Engineer, Zone 7
Jeff Tang, Associate Civil Engineer, Zone 7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
preformed on the Moller Ranch portion of the Project area. The Phase I
assessment identified a number of areas on the Moller Ranch that could contain
hazardous or potentially hazardous materials, including but not limited to buried
or abandoned autos, auto parts, used oil and kerosene containers, an above
ground storage tank and an existing septic system. Supplemental Mitigation
Measures SM HAZ-l and SM-HAZ-2 are found in Section 4.9 of the DSEIR,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Both Supplemental Mitigation Measures
require additional testing prior to development for the potential for asbestos,
lead-based paints and potentially contaminated soil and groundwater. The City
of Dublin has therefore complied or will comply with the requested action from
the commenter through implementation of the identified mitigation measures.
In terms of the Voluntary Oeanup Program, the City of Dublin and the Project
applicant is aware of this program and may pursue the program if hazardous
and contaminated material are identified within the Project area based on
additional testing.
Letter 1.3: State of California Department of Transportation
. Comment 1.3.1: The commenter notes that the City of Dublin, as Lead Agency, is
responsible for all Project mitigation, including improvements to state highways.
The Project's fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation and
monitoring should be discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. Any
required roadway improvement should be completed prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy. Work within a state right-of-way will require issuance
of an encroachment permit by Caltrans. Therefore, it is strongly recommended
that the lead agency ensure that the Department concerns are resolved prior to
submittal of an encroachment permit.
Response: The DSEIR analyzes potential impacts to roadways, including state
highways, in Section 4.2. Mitigation Measures are identified and will be imposed
on development proposals within the Project area, as applicable. These
comments are acknowledged and no further response is necessary.
. Comment 1.3.2: The commenter notes Project land use data is not consistent. The
DSEIR notes that the Moller Ranch portion of the Project area would contain up
to 209 dwellings, while the Tipper Property would contain up to 82 dwellings.
However, the final traffic report contained in the Appendix notes that 186
dwellings are proposed on the Moller Ranch site, while Table C2 shows 269
single family dwellings.
Response: The number of residences examined in the DSEIR for the Moller
Ranch portion of the Project area is 209 dwellings. The traffic analysis
report included in the Attachment section of the Final SEIR analyzed 326
attached townhouses under Alternative 4 of the DSEIR.
The revised detailed traffic report has been appended to this
Final EIR that analyzed 326 attached townhouse dwellings on the Moller
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 13
March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ranch property as noted above. This report is hereby incorporated by
reference into the SEIR and updated the traffic report contained in the DSEIR.
The commenter is directed to review Section 5.2.4 of the DSEIR
(page 150), which includes an analysis of a higher density development
Project on the Moller Ranch site. Alternative 4 includes an analysis of
326 dwellings for the Moller site within the Casamira Valley Project area. The
DSEIR contains an analysis of intersection Level of Service impacts for
Baseline plus Project Alternative conditions (Table 5.1-1) and Roadway
Segment ADT with this. Alternative (Table 5.1-2). The DSEIR concludes that
this higher density development alternative would not result in significantly
changed impacts to local roadways and state freeways or required mitigation
measures as the proposed Project analyzed with 195 dwellings. The City
of Dublin therefore believes that adequate information regarding trip
generation has been provided in the DSEIR and there is no need for
additional analysis on this topic.
The 82 dwellings identified for the Tipper Property within the Project
area are shown as the maximum number of dwellings that would be allowed
pursuant to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, however, there are no
pending applications for development of the Tipper property at this
time
. Comment 1.3.3: It is difficult to find trip generation and distribution information
for the proposed Project. A table showing the proposed trip generation would
simplify the review process.
Response: The traffic analysis report for the proposed project is included in the
Appendix of the Final SEIR. Project trip generation is listed in Table 3 of this
traffic analysis report, as requested by the commenter. Project trip distribution
and assignment are also shown in Figure 6 of the report.
. Comment 1.3.4: The commenter notes that Mitigation Measure 2 contained in
the DSEIR relating to recommended improvements to the Santa Rita Road/I-580,
eastbound ramps, should be completed prior to the commencement of this
Project.
Response: The commenter's opinion on improvement of the Santa Rita Road/I-
580 EB ramps is noted, however, Table 4.2-3 contained in the DSEIR shows this
intersection operating at Level of Service B in the AM peak and C in the PM peak
under Baseline Plus Project Conditions. There is therefore no nexus to require
Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-lbbe completed prior to commencement of this
Project.
Table 4.2-4 of the DSEIR (page 50) does indicate that under future cumulative
conditions, this proposed Project, in conjunction with all other development
projects anticipated in the buildout of the Dublin General Plan and other future
projects in surrounding communities, would contribute to an LOS of E in the PM
peak hour. The City of Dublin will require the developer of the proposed Project
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 14
March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
to pay its pro rata share of costs to offset the Project's contribution to future
cumulative conditions. Alternatively, if the City's Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact
Fee Program is updated in the future to include the improvement required in the
Mitigation Measure, the Project applicant may pay the TIF fee to the City~
. Comment 1.3.5: Any work within a State right-of-way requires an encroachment
permit that is issued by this Department. Traffic-related mitigation will be
incorporated into construction plans during the encroachment permit process.
Response: This comment is noted and encroachment permits will be obtained
from Cal trans, as necessary.
Letter 2.1: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD)
· Comment 2.1.1: The commenter notes that, regarding Section 4.4 of the DSEIR,
the westerly portion of the Project area is not currently within the DSRSD service
area, but the project is within the DSRSD sphere of Influence and has been
included in the current Urban Water Management Plan and Wastewater
Collection System Master Plan update. The determination has been made that
DSRSD has sufficient water availability and sewer treatment capacity to serve the
proposed Project upon annexation to DRRSD. Construction of pipelines and
related appurtenances to serve the Project area will be required.
Response: Comment noted. The DSEIR Project Description includes annexation of
the western portion of the Project area to DSRSD as a part of the Project
Description. The Stage 1 Development Plan for the Casamira Valley portion of
the Project area indicates that the Project developers would be responsible for
extensions of water and wastewater facilities to serve the proposed Project.
Letter 2.2: Diane Lowart, Dublin Parks and Community Services Department
. Comment 2.2.1: The commenter notes that Table 3.1 on page 15 of the DSEIR
should reflect "Neighborhood Squares" and not "Neighborhood Parks."
Response: This comment is noted and included in the Garifications and
Modifications section of the DSEIR.
. Comment 2.2.2: The commenter states that the Parks and Recreation Master Plan
was last updated in May 2006, not February 2004 as indicated on page 140 the
DSEIR.
Response: In response to this comment, a portion of page 140 of the DSEIR is
modified as follows: /I In February 2001 May 2006, the City of Dublin adopted an
updated Parks and Recreation Master Plan./I
. Comment 2.2.3: The commenter notes that the Master Plan no longer shows
four neighborhood parks and a portion of a Community Park within the
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 15
March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
I
I
Casamira Valley Project area. The 2006 Master Plan currently shows two
neighborhood parks and one neighborhood square in the Dublin Ranch West
Project area. There is no longer a community park shown in the Project area.
Response: The commenter's updated information with regard to the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan is noted and is incorporated by reference into the SEIR.
. Comment 2.2.4: The commenter notes that Phase III of Emerald Glen Park was
completed in spring, 2006 and this park now encompasses approximately 42
acres. Two additional phases are anticipated in the future.
Response: The commenter's updated information with regard to Emerald Glen
Park and noted and incorporated by reference into the SEIR.
. Comment 2.2.5: The commenter asks what the term "local parkland" means on
page 141 of the DSEIR. The DSEIR also notes this would be a neighborhood park.
Given the acreage of this facility, this should be referred to as a neighborhood
square.
Response: The applicant's Stage 1 Development Plan for this Project, dated
September 1, 2006, identifies a centrall.l-acre neighborhood square as part of
their Development Plan. The City may wish to modify the terminology of the
Stage 1 Development Plan prior to the approval of this application.
. Comment 2.2.6: The commenter notes that under the City's parkland standards
of 5.0 acres of parks per 1,000 residents that includes 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents
for neighborhood park/ square and 3.5 acres per 1,000 residents for community
parks, the amount of parkland included in the proposed Project (1.1 acres)
exceeds this City standard of 1.0 acres.
Response: This comment is noted and it is also noted that the currently proposed
Stage 1 Development Plan proposes 1.1 acres of neighborhood square, not 1.5
acres as shown in the DSEIR. .
. Comment 2.2.7: The commenter notes that at an October 5, 2004 Dublin City
Council study session where the adjacent Dublin Ranch West Project was
discussed, the City Council agreed to accept Option 4 for the Dublin Ranch West
Project. This option included 7.66 acres of neighborhood parks on the Dublin
Ranch West project and 1.04 acres of parks on either the Mission Peak or
Casamira Valley (Moller Ranch) properties. Consequently, the proposed 1.5-acre
park facility within the Casamira Valley Project is not actually an additional
recreation amenity, but makes up for the reduction of park acreage on the
adjacent Dublin Ranch West project.
Response: This comment is noted and it is also noted that the currently proposed
Stage 1 Development Plan proposes 1.1 acres of neighborhood squares, not 1.5
acres as shown in the DSEIR.
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 16
March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
Letter 2.3: East Bay Regional Park District
. Comment 2.3: The commenter notes his agency is willing and interested in
working with this applicant and the City regarding potential open space and trail
development
Response: This comment is noted and no further discussion is required.
Letter 2.4: City of Livermore
. Comment 2.4.1: The commenter notes that the proposed Project has the
potential to be inconsistent with the Doolan Canyon designation and the intent
of the Resource and Open Space Planning provisions of the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the Cities of Dublin and Livermore. The DSEIR
should provide an analysis of the Project's consistency with this MOU in terms of
habitat preservation and restoration.
Response: The proposed Casamira Valley Project is not inconsistent with the 2002
MOU between Livermore and Dublin. The MOU addresses an Airport Protection
Area, formation of a Conservation Easement on portions of the Fallon Village
project to the east, undertaking of resource and open space planning, water
supply, regional transportation funding, Dublin Boulevard extension, Doolan
Canyon redesignation, Central Parkway alignment, and further environmental
review for the Fallon Village project.
The Doolan Canyon property land use redesignation to remove the Doolan
Canyon area from the Dublin General Plan area has already been accomplished
per the MOD by City of Dublin Council Resolution No. 66-02. The proposed
Casamira Valley Project would have no impact on an Airport Protection Area,
the Central Parkway Alignment or an extension of Dublin Boulevard. A water
supply assessment has been prepared for the Casamira Valley Project consistent
with the MOU and recycled water would be used in this Project. Similarly, the
City of Dublin has prepared a Resource Management Plan consistent with the
MOU and has certified another Supplemental EIR for the Fallon Village Project in
late 2005. The City of Dublin will require the Casamira Valley project developer
to pay the TVTC fee as may be agreed to by the transportation committee
formed by the cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton to fund regional
transportation improvements.
The 2002 MOU is attached to this FSEIR document and incorporated by reference
into the Final Supplemental EIR.
Based on the above analysis, the City of Dublin finds that the proposed Casamira
Valley Project is consistent with the MOU.
. Comment 2.4.2: The commenter notes that is unclear if restoration and
enhancement for sensitive species habitat required in SM/BI- la, -2a, -2b, -4a, -4b,
-5a and -5b will occur on or off of the Project site. If not occurring on-site,
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 17
March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
mitigation areas should be located in the Livermore and Amador Valley area.
specifically the Doolan Canyon area.
Response: The Project applicant has indicated that replacement habitat areas for
special-status species would occur primarily on the Project site as well as on
adjacent properties just north and east of the Project site. Refer to Page 24 of the
Revised Stage 1 Development Plan dated December 26, 2006.
. Comment 2.4.3: The commenter asks who will be responsible for implementing
trapping and relocation measures set forth in Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-4c.
This mitigation should include oversight by a qualified biologist.
Response: The language of Mitigation Measure SM-BI0-4c would require the
applicant to undertake the trapping and relocation efforts mandated by the
mitigation measure. To address the commenter's concern, Mitigation Measure
SM-BIO-4c is modified to read as follows, additional text underlined:
"The applicants shall retain the services of a qualified biologist to develop
a program to capture and relocate tiger salamanders from the Project site
prior to the initiation of construction. The program, including specific
methods for capturing salamanders (e.g., drift fencing, pitfall traps, etc.),
location of suitable relocation sites, and timing of implementation, shall be
approved by the City, USFWS and CDPG and implemented prior to the
initiation of construction."
. Comment 2.4.4: The commenter asks who will be responsible for overseeing
compliance with Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-4d.
Response: Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-4d will be monitored for compliance by
the City of Dublin as part of the required Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
. Comment 2.4.5: Regarding the discussion of parks and recreation on page 142 of
the DSEIR, the DSEIR should include relevant information from the City's Parks
and Recreation Master Plan to substantiate the assertion that enough parkland is
being provided west of the site that future Moller Ranch residents would use.
The discussion should also include an explanation of why the remaining required
3.5 acres of parkland is not being provided on the Moller Ranch site.
Response: The City of Dublin requires dedication of parkland for development
projects at a ratio of 5.0 total acres of parks per 1,000 population, which includes
1.5 acres of neighborhood parks or squares and 3.5 acres of community parks.
With an estimated buildout population of 669 residents for the Casamira Valley
(Moller Ranch) portion of the Project under the original Project, the Stage I
Development Plan was required to show the dedication of 1 acre of
neighborhood parks and/ or neighborhood square. Under the latest Stage 1
Development Plan, the Moller Ranch portion of Project would generate an
estimated 596 persons at 2.0 persons per dwelling, which would result in a need
for 2.98 acres of total park acres, which would be less than the original Project.
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 18
March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Based on Comment 2.2.6, from the City's Parks and Community Services
Director, provision of 1.0 acre of parkland in the form of a neighborhood square
would meet City park requirements.
Provision of community parks is not required within each development project,
but these larger parks are strategically located throughout the City of Dublin.
The Project developer will be required to pay in-lieu fees to the City to satisfy
community park dedication requirements.
The Stage 1 Development Plan submitted by the applicant, dated December 26,
2006, indicates that a 1.1-acre neighborhood square would be provided as part of
the Casamira Valley Project, which exceeds City neighborhood park dedication
standards. The City's current Park and Recreation Master Plan does not show the
placement of a Community Park within the Project area.
The commenter is also directed to Comment and Response 2.2.6 from the City of
Dublin Parks and Community Services Director, which confirms that the
proposed Casamira Valley Project complies with City park standards. Future
project residents could also use other larger City of Dublin park facilities in the
Eastern Dublin area, including Emerald Glen Community Park, Ted Fairfield
Park and the Dublin Sports Park.
Letter 2.5: Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission
. Comment 2.5.1: The prezoning exhibit included in the DSEIR does not appear to
reflect current City boundaries. Please provide updated exhibits.
Response: See revised Exhibits 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6, as referenced in the
Modifications and Clarifications section. The revised Exhibits are hereby
incorporated by reference into this SEIR and are attached to the back of this
FSEIR document and incorporated by reference.
. Comment 2.5.2: The DSEIR contains conflicting information regarding the
existing Williamson Act contract on the Casamira Valley (Moller Ranch) portion
of the Project area. In one location, incorrect citations of the Knox-Cortese-
Herzberg Act are provided. In other locations, The DSEIR indicates the City of
Dublin is currently not intending to approve a cancellation. In yet other locations,
the DSEIR states that a cancellation application has been received and acted upon.
These issues need to be clarified. LAFCO needs to know the estimated timeline
for cancellation actions and site development.
Response: In response to this comment and to clarify the status of the Williamson
Act contract on the Casamira Valley portion of the Project area, a Williamson Act
contract does exist on this property. The applicant has requested that the City of
Dublin cancel and exchange a portion of this contract, approximately 70 acres of
land, following annexation of the Casamira Valley property to the City of
Dublin. Since the annexation action has not occurred, no action has been taken
on the contract cancellation by the City of Dublin. The proposed cancellation and
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 19
March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
exchange must be approved by the Dublin City Council and no such decision has
been made by the City Council.
The commenter does not identify the referenced incorrect citation. City review
of the initial study and DSEIR discovered an incomplete citation in the first full
paragraph on p. 32 of the DSEIR, which is corrected as follows.
".. .Act (Government Code Sec. 5600Q..et seq.) governed..."
The City also corrects the two citations at the middle of page 35 regarding
LAFCO findings for annexation of Williamson Act lands, to read as follows.
"Section 56856.5"
In terms of a schedule for action on the requested Williamson Act cancellation,
the City of Dublin staff anticipates action on this request in 2008, depending on
action taken on the annexation request by LAFCO.
· Comment 2.5.3: Annexation of the Project area is required before subdivision
maps are approved.
Response: Section 66454 of the State Subdivision Map Act authorizes an applicant
to file and the City to approve a tentative subdivision map, conditioned upon
annexation to the City. However, final subdivision maps cannot be approved
until annexation to the City is completed. No tentative subdivision maps have
been filed for any properties in the Project area.
. Comment 2.5.4: The 13-year old EIR is dated and cannot be used effectively for
evaluation of potential agricultural impacts, especially cumulative and growth
inducing impacts based on changes in land use throughout the project vicinity,
changes in laws and State-directed emphasis on avoidance of premature
conversion of farmland to urban uses
Response: The commenter is directed to Sections 2.2 and 2.3 beginning on page 3
of the DSEIR, which set forth the legal basis for reliance on the 1993 Eastern
Dublin Program EIR to assist in the assessment of impacts for the proposed
Project, especially growth inducing and cumulative impacts. Development of the
Eastern Dublin area has proceeded based on the approved Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. Based on the analysis set forth in
these sections, the City of Dublin believes it is proper under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines to rely on this earlier
EIR.
The Eastern Dublin EIR (EDEIR) analyzed the proposed Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. The General Plan Amendment provided a
long-term, comprehensive plan for urbanization of Eastern Dublin over a 20-30
year horizon. The plan proposed to change the largely vacant agricultural and
open lands to an urban community. The comment does not specify what land
use changes are referenced; presumably they are the very changes set in motion
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 20
March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
by approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, as
analyzed in the EDEIR.
The comment does not specify how the EDEIR is ineffective, or what laws have
changed, or how emphasis on avoiding premature conversion of farmland may
have changed since the EDEIR. There have been no major changes to the land
use patterns established in 1993 and assessed in the EDEIR. Similarly, there are
no changes to the current Project site from the vacant conditions assumed in the
prior EIR, and no changes to the surrounding area except as planned and
evaluated in the 1993 documents. Furthermore, the EDEIR, supplemented by the
DSEIR specifically addresses agricultural conversion, cumulative effects and
growth inducing effects of urbanizing Eastern Dublin, including premature
conversion of agricultural lands.
In terms of analysis of Project impacts on agricultural resources, for example, the
Casamira Valley DSEIR includes a new section that updates the 1993 EDEIR in
light of changes in State law and current criteria contained in the latest Cortese-
Knox-Hertzberg Act (CKH Act) (page 32 et seq.). The EDEIR together with the
Project DSEIR is an effective and thorough analysis of the potential for significant
impacts from development of the Project, and an effective informational
document so the public and decision makers can make an informed decision on
the Project.
. Comment 2.5.5: Please provide a title for the Appendices in the table of contents.
Response: In response to this comment, following is a listing of Appendices to the
DSEIR.
Appendix 8.1:
Appendix 8.2:
Appendix 8.3:
Appendix 8.4:
Appendix 8.5:
Appendix 8.6:
Appendix 8.7:
Appendix 8.8:
Appendix 8.9:
Appendix 8.10:
Initial Study
Notice of Preparation
Responses to Notice of Preparation
Dublin City Council Resolution 53-93, certifying the
Eastern Dublin EIR
Agricultural Suitability Analysis
Traffic Impact Analysis
Kit Fox Protection Plan
Native American Tribal Consultation
Air Quality Supplemental Data
Not used
. Comment 2.5.6: The commenter asks if this application is premature considering
that a substantial amount of undeveloped land has been recently added to the
City though two annexations. LAFCO policies discourage premature conversion
of prime agricultural and state that LAFCO should discourage the inclusion of
land not expected to be developed within five years of LAFCO action in urban
service areas.
Response: In answer to the commenter's question, the City of Dublin does not
believe that action on the proposed Casamira Valley is premature. Although
Page 21
March 2007
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alameda County LAFCO has recently approved two annexations to the City of
Dublin, including the Wallis Ranch property approved by LAFCO in May 2005,
and Mission Peak properties, approved by LAFCO in September 2006,
development of these two properties in question is anticipated to be largely
completed within the next five-year period. Also, it is likely that the proposed
Casamira Valley development would offer differing housing types than are
anticipated in other development applications in the Eastern Dublin area.
Specifically, a wide variety of unit types for each density currently exist in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Unit types vary from apartments in projects
such as Archstone, condominium flats in The Villages, high density podium
housing in the Transit Center, small single family detached houses with small
backyards in Sorrento, cluster homes in Wallis Ranch and estate lots in Silvera
Ranch. The Casamira Valley (Moller Ranch) project would provide additional
housing types in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The proposed Project
would contain detached single-family dwellings which are alley loaded. The
Project would also include townhouse units. All dwelling units would have a
small backyard. While some of these types of housing units are present in the
Eastern Dublin today, these unit types are not the predominant unit and would
provide additional units types in the area to meet various housing needs.
The City notes that none of the Project area is prime agricultural land under the
CEQA definition in section 21060.1 or CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, or under
the C:KH Act in section 56064, as set forth in the DSEIR. Finally, the City notes
that annexations and development within Eastern Dublin have proceeded in a
measured, orderly manner since 1993, consistent with both City and LAFCO
policies to avoid urban sprawl and premature conversion of agricultural lands.
The proposed Project does not leapfrog over other unincorporated areas and is
being requested some 14 years after the 1993 Eastern Dublin approvals as befits
property at the outer edge of the General Plan planning area.
. Comment 2.5.7: The commenter notes that LAFCO's agricultural, service and
annexation policies are not reviewed considered or included in the DSEIR. The
DSEIR needs to evaluate potential impacts stemming from the proposed
Project's inconsistency with LAFCO policies, especially timing of conversion of
agricultural land.
Response: The commenter does not specifically identify or cite to the referenced
policies. As informational documents under CEQA, the EDEIR and DSEIR
identified and analyzed the potential for significant impacts related to conversion
of agricultural lands and provision of urban services to the Eastern Dublin
planning area to support planned development. To the extent that the LAFCO
factors and policies address environmental issues, information on potential
impacts and mitigations is contained in the EDEIR and DSEIR for LAFCO
consideration. For example, the CKH Act and LAFCO policies evince a strong
interest in preserving prime agricultural lands. The EIRs directly address and
analyze this issue, and based on the analyses, conclude that no prime agricultural
lands exist on the Project site.
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 22
March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In response to the commenter's request, following is a listing and discussion of
applicable LAFCO policies relating to agricultural and service policies regarding
the proposed Project.
1.01 Agriculture and Open Space
1.0102. Agricultural land shall be determined to be prime based on soil
characteristics, potential for prime agriculture land designation if irrigated or
productivity
Discussion: Refer to Section 4.1 of the DSEIR, which is based on a recent site-
specific analysis of agricultural suitability of the Casamira Valley portion of
the Project site prepared by ENGEO. The ENGEO report and the DSEIR
determined that the Casamira Valley site does not quality as prime
agricultural land based on criteria included in the Knox-Cortese-Hertzberg
Act. This conclusion is based on lack of Class I or Class IT soils, lack of suitable
groundwater resources for irrigation purposes, a Storie Index rating of 44,
and lack of recent sufficient animal grazing or cultivation of field or row crops
on the Moller Ranch site as identified in the DSEIR. Therefore, the proposed
Project would be consistent with this policy.
1.0103. LAFCO shall discourage proposals that encourage or support
urbanization outside of cities unless adverse public health and safety would
occur and there is no feasible proposal alternative.
Discussion: As identified in the above discussion section, the DSEIR notes that
the Casamira Valley site does not qualify as prime agricultural land. This
property has been identified for future urban development in the Dublin
General Plan since 1993. Some 14 years later, this property is now being
considered for urbanization since properties closer to the City of Dublin have
already developed, are in process of developing or have been approved for
development. This application represents most of the remaining undeveloped
land in Eastern Dublin and represents a logical extension of City boundaries.
Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with this policy.
1.0104. LAPCO shall discourage city annexations of prime agricultural or
important open space areas if such areas are not needed for urbanization
within five years.
Discussion: The DSEIR notes that the Casamira Valley site does not qualify as
prime agricultural land and thus this policy does not apply to this application.
Also, as noted in the response to comment 2.5.6, the City of Dublin
anticipates that recently annexed properties to the City of Dublin will be
largely built out within the next five-year period. Wallis Ranch, which was
approved for annexation to the City in May, 2005 recently received City
Council approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan, Tentative Subdivision Map
and Site Development Review. It is anticipated that construction of dwellings
will begin in 2008. The Fallon Crossings Project was recently approved for
annexation into the City and the City is reviewing specific development
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 23
March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
proposals on this site. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent
with this policy.
1.0106. LAPCO will work to preserve agricultural and open space land
resources by considering the proposal's effect on important open space and
agricultural lands and by guiding development away from agricultural and
open space lands not planned or needed for development.
Discussion: Portions of the Casamira Valley property have been designated
for residential land use since 1993 in the City of Dublin General Plan. This is
the portion requested for development. Other portions of the property are
designated for Stream Corridor and Rural Residential / Agricultural uses and
only limited development, one dwelling per 100 acres of land, will be allowed
on these portions of the site. This area would be offered to the City of Dublin
as a permanent non-buildable open space and conservation easement area.
Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with this policy.
1.0107. Development or use of land for other than open space uses shall be
guided away from existing prime agricultural lands in open space towards
areas containing non-prime agricultural lands unless that action undermines
adopted county or city land use plans that include open space and agricultural
land conservation policies and plans.
Discussion: The Casamira Valley property does not contain prime agricultural
lands as identified in the DSEIR and portions of the property have been
designated for Low Density Residential land use in the Dublin General Plan.
The application to the City of Dublin requests that the Casamira Valley
property be included in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. This Specific Plan,
adopted by the City in 1993 provides for Resource Management policies and
programs for open space preservation (Chapter 3.5). Therefore, the proposed
Project would be consistent with this policy.
1.0108. Urbanization or nonagricultural use of existing vacant lots or prime
agricultural land areas within the jurisdiction of SOl of a local agency shall be
encouraged before any proposal is approved which would allow for or lead
to the development of prime agricultural or open space lands outside the
jurisdiction or SOl of any local agency.
Discussion: The Project does not include prime agricultural lands, and is
already within the Spheres of Influence for both the City and DSRSD. No
such major undeveloped parcels of land remain in the incorporated City
limits or Sphere of Influence of Dublin that would accommodate a parcel with
approximately the same dwelling unit count as proposed in the Casamira
Valley Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with this
policy.
1.0109. LAP CO shall require that applications with prezones or SOl proposals
identify areas set aside for agricultural or open space preserves and include
protections for adjacent agricultural land
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 24
March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Discussion: The applicant's most recent Stage I Development Plan submittal to
the City on December 26,2006, indicates that the applicant has proposed the
dedication of a 229 -acre area as a permanent conservation easement. This
area would retain its Rural Residential/ Agricultural (RR/ A) land use
designation and would remain subject to the Williamson Act through the
remainder of the non-renewal period. The RR/ A land use designation is
highly restrictive, normally allowing one dwelling per 100 acres, and is
intended to remain primarily as open space. (EDEIR p. 2-6.) For the proposed
Casamira Valley Project, the terms of the conservation easement would
prohibit construction of dwellings within the easement area. Much of the
lands to the south and east of the Project are also designated RR/ A,
preserving open space uses adjacent to the Project. Also, lands to the east of
the Project area lie outside the General Plan area of the City of Dublin and the
Dublin Sphere of Influence. Therefore, the proposed Project would be
consistent with this policy.
5.0 General City Annexation and Detachment Policies and Standards
5.14. The Commission shall seek to approve changes of organization that
encourage and provide well ordered, efficient development patterns that
include the appropriate preservation and conservation of open space and
prime agricultural lands within and around developed areas, and contribute
to the orderly formation and development of local agencies based upon local
circumstances and conditions.
Discussion: The City of Dublin believes the proposed Casamira Valley Project
is a well-designed project that is consistent with the Dublin General Plan,
which has provided efficient, logical and protective development patterns
that have effectively guided development since 1993. Adequate protection is
provided for stream courses that traverse the Project site through Stage I
Development Plan policies and mitigation measures contained in the DSEIR.
Also, as part of the revised Stage 1 Development Plan application, the Project
applicant has proposed the dedication of a permanent conservation easement
area totaling approximately 229 acres of land, which would be located on the
Rural Residential (non development) portion of the Project area. The
applicant proposes to repair approximately 8,420 linear feet of Moller Creek.
The restoration program would include erosion control and planting of
native emergent wetland species and woody riparian species along creek
banks. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with this policy.
5.15. The Commission shall consider existing zoning and prezones, general
plans and other land use plans, interests and plans of unincorporated
communities, SOls and master service plans of neighboring governmental
entities and recommendations and determinations from related service
review agencies.
Discussion: The City of Dublin believes the proposed annexation is consistent
with this policy, inasmuch as the Casamira Valley property has been included
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 25
March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
in the City's General Plan for Low Density Residential development since
1993, is within both Dublin's and DSRSD's Sphere of Influence and within
DSRSD's master plans, e.g., for water supply and wastewater planning. The
Project is a logical and efficient extension of Dublin boundaries. (See also
Responses 2.5.6 and 2.5.7.) There are no other proximate governmental
agencies that can provide the requested range of level of service other than
the City of Dublin.
5.17. LAFCO discourages the annexation of vacant land or the extension of
urban services unless there is a demonstrated near term (within five years)
need for services.
Discussion: As indicated above, other properties in the City of Dublin that
were recently annexed to the community are in the process of developing.
The City of Dublin therefore believes that there is a need to annex the
Casamira Valley property at this time, as requested by the property owner
and consistent with the Dublin General Plan.
5.18. Prior to annexation to a city or special district, the petitioners shall
provide information demonstrating that the need for governmental services
exist, the annexation agency is capable of providing service, that a plan for
services exist and that the annexation is the best alternative to provide
seI'Vlce.
Discussion: As required by this policy, the City of Dublin's application for
annexation to LAFCO will be accompanied by a Plan for Services. The Project
is therefore consistent with this Policy.
5.111. A proposed annexation shall be a logical and reasonable expansion to
the annexing district.
Discussion: Properties proposed for annexation are contiguous with existing
City boundaries on the west and south. The proposed action would compete
the City of Dublin boundary to the north, where the northerly annexation
boundary would extend to the Alameda/ Contra Costa County boundary
line. Also, the proposed annexation area lies within both the City of Dublin
and DSRSD approved Sphere of Influence, which recognizes that the
properties should be a part of Dublin. For these reasons, the proposed Project
is consistent with this policy.
. Comment 2.5.8: The commenter notes that the site des not appear to meet the
criteria for an infill site as defined in Government Code Section 21061.3.
Response: The commenter is correct. Page 32 of the DSEIR notes that the
proposed Project does not meet the criteria of Section 21061.1 of the Public
Resources Code definition of agricultural lands. The DSEIR does not state or
imply that the Project is an infill site; however, the statutory reference in
parentheses mistakenly refers to PRC section 21061.3, which is hereby corrected
to 21061.1.
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 26
March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Comment 2.5.9: The commenter requests more information on the timing of
services: when needed and to what location of the site. And are any services
dependent on the built out of the two most recently approved annexation areas?
Does approval of this Project prior to build out of those recently annexed areas
cause leapfrog development, inefficient or more expensive services and what are
the potential impacts?
Response: The applicant indicates that domestic water to the Casamira Valley
portion of the Project area would be served by an extension of an existing
DSRSD water line that terminates in Fallon Road south of the Project site. DSRSD
proposes to extend this water line to the northwest to the planned Fallon
Road/Tassajara Road intersection and extension of the water line is not
dependent on the buildout of other recently annexed properties.
The applicant also indicates that an existing 12-inch diameter sanitary sewer
service would be extended from its current terminus at the northerly boundary
of Dublin Ranch in Tassajara Road. This extension is also not dependent on the
buildout of other annexation areas.
The above information is included in the Stage 1 Development Plan for the
Casamira Valley Project submitted to the City of Dublin on December 26, 2006.
The extension of water and sewer service will be required when the proposed
Casamira Valley Project is developed, anticipated for 2009. Additional
information on the proposed extension of municipal services will be submitted to
LAFCO in conjunction with the City's annexation application. The City notes that
the previously mentioned development approval process in connection with the
Wallis Ranch and Mission Peak annexations will also be required for the Project.
The Project is not expected to leapfrog vacant properties. Instead, it is expected
to develop in the consistent, gradual pattern characteristic of the Tassajara Road
area.
. Comment 2.5.10: The commenter asks about the potential long and short term
effects on adjacent agricultural lands not proposed for development.
Response: Conversion of a portion of the Moller Ranch (Casamira Valley) Project
is not anticipated to have any short or long term effects on continuation of
grazing and agricultural operations on lands to the north and east. Lands north
of the Casamira Valley Project are zoned for agricultural uses and are under the
jurisdiction of Contra Costa County. Property east of the Casamira Valley
development area would remain under the ownership of the Moller family but
are considered too remote from urban services to develop. These lands are not,
and never have been, designated for development in the Dublin General Plan
and lie outside the City's General Plan area. The Moller property east of
Casamira Valley area is also extremely steep and development would not
comply with slope preservation requirements contained in the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan. No areas within the City of Dublin to the west or south are
designated for agricultural uses.
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 27
March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Comment 2.5.11: The commenter asks if an SB 610 Water Supply Report has
been prepared for this Project.
Response: The proposed Project does not meet the threshold of 500 dwellings that
require the preparation of the SB 610 Report. The DSEIR water supply discussion
on pages 70-72 notes that the Project is included in DSRSD's Final Water Supply
Analysis and Urban Water Management Plan, as well as its Programmatic Water
Supply Analysis, all of which documents are incorporated herein by reference
and available for review in the Planning Division at Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic
Plaza, Dublin CA, during normal business hours. These analyses demonstrate
that Zone 7 and DSRSD have secured sufficient long term water supplies for all
of Eastern Dublin.
. Comment 2.5.12: The commenter notes that Appendix 8.5 states there may be 80
cows on the site, but does not draw a conclusion regarding Government Code
Section 56064 (c). This conclusion should be disclosed in the DSEIR.
Response: Government Code Section 56064 is the LAFCO definition of prime
agricultural lands. Subsection (c) identifies qualifying lands if they support
livestock at one animal unit per acre. Assuming the 80 cattle were present on the
Moller Project site, the carrying capacity is approximately one animal per 3 acres.
Assuming the cattle were on the 1,070 acre area mentioned in Appendix 8.5, the
carrying capacity is less than one animal unit per 10 acres. Neither of these
figures meets the referenced qualification for the prime agricultural lands
definition.
The commenter is directed to review the fourth full paragraph on page 34 of the
DSEIR, which indicates that the Casamira Valley site supports approximately 0.10
animal unit per area, which is less that the criteria of one animal unit per acre, as
outlined in the first bullet point on page 2 of the ENGEO Agricultural Suitability
Analysis in Appendix 8.5. This information is contained in the DSEIR.
. Comment 2.5.13: The commenter asks if more recent storage data is available for
the Main Basin. The information presented is from 1996.
Response: More recent information regarding the Main Basin storage is not
available, however, the source of the Main Basin reference in Table 4.4-1 is
DSRSD's 2005 Urban Water Master Plan. As further indicated in the
Programmatic Water Supply Analysis and Section 4.3 of the DSEIR, the proposed
Project would not be dependent on the Main basin as a water source. Instead, the
applicant has requested annexation to the Dublin San Ramon Services District
(DSRSD) in order to receive domestic water. DSRSD water sources include
primarily imported water from the State Water Project, as shown in Table 4.4-1
of the DSEIR. Also refer to Letter 2.1 from DSRSD staff, indicating DSRSD has
sufficient water capacity to serve the proposed Project, based on the District's
2005 Urban Water Management Plan.
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 28
March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Comment 2.5.14: The commenter asks how many trees of what type would be
removed. The DEIR indicates that heritage oak trees could be removed. Pursuant
to SB 1334 and CEQA, the level of protection for these trees would be reduced
because of the transfer of land use jurisdiction from County to the City of
Dublin. This is a significant adverse impact that needs to be quantified and
additional mitigation may need to be provided.
Response: In response to the commenter's concern, additional analysis of the
Stage 1 Development Plan indicates that four heritage oak trees are located on
the Casamira Valley site. All are located outside of proposed development area
and are not proposed for removal. These trees will be protected during Project
constructed through adherence to the Dublin Heritage Tree Ordinance, as
enforced by the City of Dublin Community Development. Therefore, there
would be no impact to heritage trees and no additional mitigation measures are
required. This is documented in an arborist report prepared for the proposed
Project prepared by the firm of HortScience dated October 27, 2006, which is
incorporated by reference into this FSEIR. Copies of the HortScience report are
available for review at the Dublin Planning Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin
CA during normal business hours.
A copy of an exhibit from the Hortscience report depicting the location of
heritage oak trees on the Moller Ranch property is attached to this document.
Letter 2.6: Alameda County Resource Conservation District
· Comment 2.6.1: The commenter notes that the proposed Project would result in
the loss of approximately 238 acres of private rangeland in Alameda County and
should be mitigated with permanent protection through conservation easements
and other innovative approaches to support the working landscape.
Response: The commenter is incorrect that the Project would result in loss of 238
acres of private rangeland. The most recently submitted Stage 1 Development
Plan indicates that the developed portion of the site would include approximately
70 acres of land (residential area, roadways and park), not 238 acres of land, as
asserted. Approximately 132 acres of the 226-acre site would continue to be
designated for Rural Residential land uses and would also be placed in a
permanent conservation easement that will preclude future development. The
conservation easement would also include additional lands for a total size of 299
acres of land.
Loss of habitat and rangeland in the Eastern Dublin area has been addressed in
Impact 3.7/ A of the Eastern Dublin EIR, which stated that implementation of the
Eastern Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would result in loss
of as much as 3,700 acres of existing vegetation. Loss of rangeland and
vegetation was also identified as a significant adverse cumulative impact.
Mitigation Measures 3.7/1.0 through 4.0 are contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant
level. These impacts require that disturbance or removal of native trees and
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 29
March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
vegetation be minimized, preparation of vegetation management plans and
preparation of revegetation and restoration plans for disturbed areas. The
approved mitigations also require the preparation of grazing management plans
to protect riparian and wetland areas, increase plant diversity and promote the
recovery of native plants.
The proposed Moller Stage 1 Development Plan dated December 26, 2006 would
minimize disturbance or native vegetation by concentrating development into
Medium Density Residential designated areas rather than dispersing
development through the site. This approach is consistent with Mitigation
Measure 3.7/1.0.
The City of Dublin has prepared a Grazing Management Plan for the Eastern
Dublin area, consistent with Mitigation Measure 3.7/4.0.
The revised Stage 1 Development Plan for the Casamira Valley Project also notes
that grazing would be allowed on the Project site, pursuant to a grazing
management plan prepared by the applicant and approved by the City of
Dublin. The Project grazing plan must be found to be consistent with the overall
Eastern Dublin Grazing Plan. This feature of the proposed Project would be
consistent with Mitigation Measure 3.7/2.0 and 3.0. Grazing would occur on
portions of the Moller Ranch designated in the Dublin General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan (following the proposed amendment to the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan) for Rural Residential land use and where the proposed
conservation easement would be located.
Finally, the commenter is referred to the responses to Letter 2.5 from the
Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission, where it is noted that
the Moller Ranch portion of the Project area does not meet the Knox-Cortese-
Hertzberg criteria for "prime agricultural lands."
· Comment 2.6.2: The Williamson Act Exchange Program should be used to
mitigate for loss of grasslands. Other ranches are available in the county for a
permanent easement and associated natural resources will benefit from land
protection.
Response: The commenter's suggestion is noted. As noted in the Response to
Comment 2.6.1, there are no supplemental impacts of the Project regarding loss
of grassland and no additional mitigation measures are required beyond those
adopted in the Eastern Dublin EIR. As part of the most recent Stage 1
Development Plan submittal, the Project applicant is voluntarily proposing to
participate in the Williamson Act Exchange Program as discussed more fully in
the Clarifications and Modifications section of this FSEIR document.
· Comment 2.6.3: The commenter notes that 173 acres of the Project area is
planned for open space. The commenter encourages continued active grading on
the site where practical.
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 30
March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Response: Refer to the Response to Comment 2.6.1, above, which notes that
grazing would be allowed on portions of the Moller Ranch property.
Letter 2.7: Alameda County Public Works Agency
. Comment 2.7.1: The commenter notes that the annexation portion of the Project
should be reviewed. The segment of Tassajara Road between the existing City
boundary and the boundary of this Project should be included in the proposed
annexation.
Response: This comment is acknowledged and the City of Dublin will submit an
annexation request to LAFCO that does not leave any gaps in local
governmental jurisdiction regarding Tassajara Road.
. Comment 2.7.2: The commenter requests that the widening of Tassajara Road
should continue through the presently unincorporated segment of this roadway.
Roadway widening and improvements have been identified in the DSEIR and
these improvements are necessary to provide consistent lanes, lane widths,
shoulder, drainage, lighting and roadside improvements.
Response: The revised Stage 1 Development Plan dated December 26, 2006
identifies that approximately 3.8 acres of the Moller Ranch portion of the Project
site would be reserved for widening of Tassajara Road. Widening of Tassajara
Road along the frontage of properties included in the DSEIR will be made a
condition of Project approval by the City of Dublin.
. Comment 2.7.3: The commenter requests that sidewalks be provided along the
County segment of Tassajara Road connecting to the community network
consistent with improvements in the City boundary.
Response: Preliminary plans for the widening of Tassajara Road approved by the
City of Dublin show that sidewalks will be constructed as part of Tassajara Road
improvements. Improvements along the Project's frontage along Tassajara Road
will be made a condition approval by the City of Dublin. In addition, the Dublin
General Plan requires construction of a Class II bicycle lane along Tassajara Road
and land will be required to be dedicated to the City for this purpose as part of
roadway improvements.
. Comment 2.7.4: The commenter asks that bike lanes or paths be provided along
the County segment of Tassajara Road consistent with improvements within the
City boundary.
Response: Refer to the Response to Comment 2.7.3, above regarding provision of
a Class II bicycle trail along Tassajara Road.
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 31
March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Letter 2.8: Alameda County Zone 7
. Comment 2.8.1: The COffimenter notes that page 72 of the DSEIR identifies the
Project area as being located in the Arroyo Los Positas watershed. The Project
may be within the Tassajara Creek watershed.
Response: This comment is noted and the following correction is made to the text
on page 72 regarding Project watersheds.
"The Project area is located within the .'\rroyo Las Positas Tassajara Creek
watershed, a sub-basin of the Alameda Creek watershed. Thc i\rroyo Las
Pocitac v"aterched drains westerly into and through the Arroyo Mocho to
the l\rroyo Dc La Laguna, vlhich diocharges into Alameda Creek near
Sunol, and dicchargcc to San Francisco Eay ncar Union City
· Comment 2.8.2: On page 74 of the DSEIR, the commenter notes that a Dublin
Ranch Storm Drainage Master Plan was prepared and has been updated for each
development in the Dublin planning area. Zone 7 requests a copy of the storm
drainage plan as well as any other hydrology of hydraulic information to
determine the impact on Zone 7 flood control facilities.. Zone 7 also requests that
that the City and Project applicant consult with Zone 7 on any proposed channel
improvements. Future improvements to flood control facilities are planned and
the applicant should provide a technical analysis to identify impacts on the
regional flood protection system.
Response: The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that implementation of the Eastern
Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan would result in increased runoff to creeks
with an increased potential for flooding (Impact 3.5/Y). Mitigation Measure
3.5/44 requires future development projects in Eastern Dublin to provide
drainage facilities that will minimize any increased potential for flooding.
Mitigation Measure 3.5 / 46.0 requires a storm drainage master plan to be
prepared for each development projects in Eastern Dublin prior to development
approval. Each storm drain master plan is required to address the following,
among other items hydrologic studies of entire upstream watersheds,
documentation of existing conditions, design-level analysis of impacts of
proposed development and design features to minimize flows into downstream
creeks and channels in order to alleviate potential erosion impacts. Mitigation
Measure 3.5 / 47 requires development projects to provide facilities to alleviate
the potential for downstream flooding due to Project development.
The City of Dublin Public Works Department will require the applicants for
individual development projects within the Casamira Valley Project area to
comply with these mitigation measures prior to approval of a tentative
subdivision map and other future land use entitlements.
· Comment 2.8.3: The commenter notes that the Project is subject to Zone 7 special
drainage fees. A Zone 7 worksheet will need to be completed, improvement
plans submitted to Zone 7 and fees paid to the District.
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 32
March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Response: The requirements of Zone 7 to complete a worksheet, submit
improvement plans and pay District fees are part of the normal Dublin
development review procedure and will be completed for this Project, as
requested by the commenter. Payment of Zone 7 fees will be made a condition
of Project approval by the City of Dublin and such fees must be paid prior to
issuance of a grading permit.
· Comment 2.8.4: The commenter requests that modifications be made to the
portions of page 78 of the DSEIR regarding the salt loading issue.
Response: Based on the request of the commenter, the following modifications
are made to the text of page 78 of the DSEIR.
"The plan includes demineralizing shallow groundwater from existing Zone 7
wells (Mocho Wells 1.2,3 and 4) with high salt eontent and reinjccting it into
the ground\\Tater bn.oin; the reeulting salty brine is to be pipcd out of the basin
through the L^AV'^111J\ dieposal facility. (Zone 7, Salt Balance Annual :Report,
June 20, 2001.) The mitigation for salt loading, i.e. the demineralization
facility (Mocho Groundwater Demineralization Plant) is funded partly from
water connection fees and partly from water rate revenues. All development
within the Project area will pay for mitigation of increased salt loading
impacts through the payment of their water and sewer hook up fees and
water rates. Zone 7 has addrcsscd the salt loading impacts t{) the main
groundwatcr basin and the mitigations needed in a joint ACWD DERvV fA
study. Based on this study Zone 7 has included the construction of brine
proceesing facilitiee ::1.0 part of their Capital Impro~:ement Progt'am that is
currently being fundcd by Zonc 7 fees. The City ,,,,Till continae to work v:ith
Zone 7 and with the other agencics to rcsolvc the pFoolcm. The funciffig for
mitigations of Galt loading will be paid for with increased 'watcr and sev:cr
ratcs of Zonce 7 and DSRSD. All dcvelopment within thc Project area ,..rill pay
for mitigation of increaGcd Galt loading impacts through the payment of their
watcr and scwcr hook up fccs and v:ater rates. This complies with Eastern
Dublin EIR MM 3.5 / 23.0, which required recycled water projects to be
coordinated with any salt mitigation requirements of Zone 7.
SaH loading to thc M3in Basin from this Project devdopment is considered by
Zonc 7 to bc "minima1." This impact is morc of a rcgional salt water
managemcnt problem, bccause it results from the accumulation of all existing
and propoeed irrigation system improvcmcnts of the entire rcgion. The salt
loading impact from this Project is part of a regional salt management issue,
which results from salt accumulation from all the existing and proposed
irrigation systems in the entire region. As noted in the Environmental Setting
section above, Zone 7 is implementing a regional demineralization program
of which individual developments within the Project area would participate
through payment of fees to Zone 7. Therefore, there would be no
supplemental impacts with regard to Project contribution to local or regional
salt loading.
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 33
March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· Comment 2.8.5: If wells are to be destroyed, a Zone 7 well drilling permit and
compliance with the permit will be required to ensure wellhead protection.
Response: There are likely one or more private wells within the Project area to
serve existing dwellings and for agricultural purposes. This comment is noted
and the applicant has been notified of this requirement.
. Comment 2.8.6: All abandoned septic systems should be completely removed to
eliminate them as a potential conduit for the transport of surface contamination
Response: There are likely septic systems within the Project area to serve existing
dwellings. This comment is noted and the applicant has been notified of this
requirement.
. Comment 2.8.7: The commenter requests to review all plans and specifications or
any additional information and/ or studies pertaining to the proposed
development.
Response: The City of Dublin normally and customarily provides Zone 7 with
hydrologic, hydraulic and related development information as part of the review
of tentative subdivision maps. The City of Dublin will forward any subdivision
maps to Zone 7 when they are submitted to the City.
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 34
March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Attachments
Attachment 1: Updated DSEIR Exhibits
Attachment 2: Updated Traffic Report
Attachment 3: Livermore MOU
Attachment 4: Oak Tree Map
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR Page 35
City of Dublin March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Attachment 1
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 36
March 2007
.
L.________.,
.
I
.
I
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Blue Ox Associates, Berkeley, California 2-6-2007
[CITY OF SAN RAMON]
*""'..
l'I1Y --~
Sl"C~---
""CO -""'Nil
C~_rorCO\J
."",.- "tP-M
."",.."""'-
.."",.-
PARKS RESERVE FORCES
TRAINING AREA
SANTA RITA
REHABILITATION
CENTER
r".
.
I
-
-
-
.--
.-
.-
.
---.-.
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
.I
I
.
I
[CITY OF PLEASANTON]
Exhibit 3.2
PROJECT LOCATION
-.-.- City Limit
CITY OF DUBLIN
CASAMIRA VALLEY PROJECT
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
N
I
1/4
.
o
I
1/2
.
314
.
1 mile
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
....
I ~
~
0
'c
~
'0
(J
I :>.
~
0;
""
&
l:i
'C
I .,
::i
.(
S
"
:l
;a
I
I
I
I
I
I
.-----------------
.,;
tr
I!!
'"
:<<f
'"
'"
~
,
,
______J
CITY OF DUBLIN
CASAMIRA VALLEY PROJECT
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
OLIN'!"
COSf~ : - ::;;;-
CONf~~ - :;;-COLl~' '
_~~f.O~
Moller Ranch
226 acres
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
UNINCORPORATED' ALAMEDA COUNTY
----------------------~.---.---.---.---.---.---.---.---.---.---.---.
CITY OF DUBLIN
(Mission Peak Homes)
(Un et al.)
(Pinn Bros. I Silvera Ranch)
Exhibit 3.3
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
N
I
Site Boundary
City Limit
County Line
o 250 500
. , ,
1000
,
2000 feet
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
c
I ~
~
0
'c
~
C
u
I ,;
.
Q;
'"
~
i
"
';:j
I ~
~
~
l!
00
I
I
I
'I
I
I
CO~-
COST~ - - tiT"
C~~~~OlJ
- ~t.A'"
RR/A
(MD)
UNINCORPORATED ALAMEDA COUNTY
------------------------
CITY OF DUBLIN
,,;
a:
I!!
'"
'(if
'"
'"
~
SOURCE: Dublin General Plan, 2/2005,
Exhibit 3.4
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
SC Stream Corridor
RR/A Rural Residential/Agriculture
SF Single Family Residential
MD Medium Density Residential
CITY OF DUBLIN
CASAMIRA VALLEY PROJECT
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
I
Site Boundary
o 250 500
, , ,
1000
,
2000 feet
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
....
0
I 0
~
0
"c
g
0
0
I >.
~
..
"
~
'(j
-a
I .,
:::
-<
~
"
::l
is
I
I
I
I
I
I
(MD)
RR/A
OS'" c9~
cotJ,~t ..c:;;couril"
- ;;.p:v.Wo€
SF
UNINCORPORATED ALAMEDA COUNTY
------------------------
ti
0:
f!!
.,
'iij'
"
"
~
SOURCE: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, 11/2002.
CITY OF DUBLIN
CASAMIRA VALLEY PROJECT
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
N
t
CITY OF DUSLlN
Exhibit 3.5
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
OS Open Space
RR/A Rural Residential/Agriculture
SF Single Family Residential
MD Medium Density Residential
o 250 500
, , ,
Site Boundary
1000 2000 feet
, ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I 0
0
~
0
oE
~
0
()
I ,:.
$
a;
...
.
'"
'"
.3
I ~
:(
S
'"
"
;0
I
I
I
I
I
I
ti
cr
!l1
'"
.~
,2!
CITY OF DUBLIN
CASAMIRA VALLEY PROJECT
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
uN1"
COST~ 99;---
cON~- ~outJT'l
_;-- ~EO~
PO
~ Proposed reorganization boundary
UNINCORPORATED ALAMEDA COUNTY
-------------------.----
CITY OF DUBLIN
Exhibit 3.6
PROPOSED PRE-ZONING
AND REORGANIZATION
(ANNEXATION)
PO Planned Development Zoning District
CPA 03-060)
N
I
Site Boundary
o 250 500
, . ,
1000 2000 feet
, ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Attachment 2
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 37
March 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DRAFT
Traffic Report
Prepared for:
City of Dublin
Prepared by:
~ _.,. Kimley-Horn
~ _, ~ and Associates, Inc.
RECEIVED
JUL 1 9 2006
July 17, 2006
DUBLIN PLANNII....I..:>
097059009
Copyright @ 2006, Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc.
I-
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION AN D SU M MARy............... .......... ...... .............. .......... ........... ..... ........ ................ .... 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................. ................................................. 1
1.2 SUMMARY ...................... ........................................................... ........... ......................................... 1
2 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS METHODOLOGy............................................................................... 8
2.1 STUDY INTERSECTIONS AND SCENARIOS.............. .............. ............... ............ .......... ................. ....... 8
2.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGy................................................................................. 9
2.3 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CRITERIA .......... ..... .............................. .................. ...... .................................. 9
3 EXISTING CON DITION S .................................................... ..... ........................ ...... ...................... .... 11
3.1 ROADWAY NE1WORK ...... ........................... .......... ............................ ............... ................. ............ 11
3.2 ExiSTING TRANSIT SERVICE.. ............................... ..... .................... ................ ......... ........ .............. 13
3.3 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS (EXISTING CONDITIONS) .................................................................. 13
4 BASELIN E CON DITIONS .............. ........... .......... .............. ........ ............. ...... ......... ....... ...... ............. 16
4.1 INTRODUCTION................. ........... ...... ...................................... ........... ......................................... 16
4.2 TRIP GENERATION............. ......... ........... ................. ............... ....................... ....... ........................ 16
4.3 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSiGNMENT.......................... ..... ............................................................ 16
4.4 PLANNED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS.......... ...... .................. ._. ....................... ................................ 17
4.5 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS (BASELINE CONDITIONS).................................................................. 19
5 BASELINE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS................................................................................... 20
5.1 INTRODUCTION... ...... ....................... ................................................ ............................................ 20
5.2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ...... .......... ............................... .......... ................... ....................... ..... 20
5.3 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT ................ ............................................................ 20
5.4 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS (BASELINE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS) ..........................................20
5.5 RECOMMENDED OFF-SITE PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................... 24
5.6 SITE ACCESS, PARKING AND CIRCULATION ................................................................................... 25
6 BUILDOUT CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................... 26
6.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................... ....................... .............. 26
6.2 BUILDOUT ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS.... ................................. .......... ...... .......................... ........ .... 26
6.3 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS (BUILDOUT CONDITIONS) ................................................................. 27
7 ROADWAY SEGM ENT ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 31
8 FREEWAY ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 34
9 BASELINE PLUS PROJECT ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS ........................................................ 36
9.1 INTRODUCTION.............................................. .............................................................................. 36
9.2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION........................................................................ ................................ 36
9.3 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT ............................................................................ 36
9.4 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS (BASELINE PLUS PROJECT ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS)..................... 36
9.5 RECOMMENDED OFF-SITE PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................... 39
9.6 SITE ACCESS, PARKING AND CIRCULATION ................................................................................... 39
10 BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS ...................................................... 40
10.1 INTRODUCTION.............. ....................................................................... ..................................... 40
10.2 BUILDOUT ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS .................................... ..... ................. ............ ...... ............. 40
10.3 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS (BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT ALTERATIVE CONDITIONS) .................... 40
11 ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS WITH PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ....................................... 41
12 FREEWAY ANALYSIS WITH PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ........................................................... 43
13 CON CLUSIONS........................... ...................................... .............................. ............ ....... ........... 45
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE - ExiSTING CONDITIONS .................................................... 15
TABLE 2: INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE - BASELINE CONDITIONS.................................................... 19
TABLE 3: PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION .................................................................................. 20
TABLE 4: INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE - BASELINE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS............................. 24
TABLE 5: INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE - BUILDOUT CONDITIONS ................................................... 29
TABLE 6: ROADWAY SEGMENT ADT ....................................................................................................... 31
TABLE 7: SUMMARY OF FREEWAY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 35
TABLE 8: PROPOSED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE TRIP GENERATION .............................................................36
TABLE 9: INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE-BASELINE PLUS PROJECT ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS....... 39
TABLE 10: ROADWAY SEGMENT ADTwlTH PROJECT ALTERNATIVE......................................................... 41
TABLE 11: SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVE FREEWAY ANALYSIS ..................................................... 43.
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP.. .................................................. ......... ........ ....... ..... .... ................ ......... .... ........ 6
FIGURE 2: PROPOSED SITE PLAN ..... .............................. ............. ...... .... ........... ............... ............. ............ 7
FIGURE 3: EXISTING LANE GEOMETRY... .............. ........ ................ ...... .............. ............... ........... .... ......... 12
FIGURE 4: EXISTING TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES............................................................................... 14
FIGURE 5: BASELINE TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES .............................................................................. 18
FIGURE 6: PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT ... ......... .......... ......... .............. ............ ..... ................ ........ ............ 22
FIGURE 7: BASELINE PLUS PROJECT TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES....................................................... 23
FIGURE 8: BUILDOUT TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES ............................................................................. 28
FIGURE 9: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ON TASSAJARA ROAD ........................................................... 33
FIGURE 10: PROJECT ALTERNATIVE TRIP ASSIGNMENT ........................................................................... 37
FIGURE 11: BASELINE PLUS PROJECT ALTERNATIVE TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES................................ 38
FIGURE 12: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ON TASSAJARA ROAD WITH PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ............. 42
LIST OF APPENDICES
ApPENDIX A - LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY
ApPENDIX B - LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS: EXISTING CONDITIONS
ApPENDIX C - LIST OF ApPROVED, PENDING PROJECTS AND BUILDOUT PROJECTS, LANE GEOMETRY AND
CONTROL ASSUMPTIONS, AND TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES
ApPENDIX D - LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS: BASELINE CONDITIONS
ApPENDIX E - LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS: BASELINE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
ApPENDIX F - LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS: BASELINE PLUS PROJECT ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS
ApPENDIX G - LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS: BUILDOUT CONDITIONS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ __.... Kimley-Horn
~ ~ and Associates, Inc.
Introduction and Summary
1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
This report presents the results of Kimley-Horn's traffic impact study of the proposed Casamira Valley
development to be located on the Moller Property, a vacant parcel to the east of Tassajara Road and
north of the future Fallon Crossings site. The proposed Project would include a total of 179 single-
family homes and 16 duplex units. Figure 1 shows the study area, and Figure 2 shows the proposed
Project site plan.
Analysis of an alternative site plan and land use (the "Project alternative") is also included in this
report. The Project alternative would include 326 attached town homes to be built on the Project site.
The purpose of this traffic study is to evaluate the proposed Project with respect to the potential traffic
impacts, short-term and long-term roadway and circulation needs, potential mitigation measures, and
any critical traffic issues that should be addressed in the on-going planning process. Nine existing
and five future intersections near the proposed Project were identified as locations that may
potentially be impacted by the development. Arterial roadway segments and freeway segments were
also analyzed for potential impacts.
The intersection and roadway operating conditions were evaluated under the following six scenarios:
1. Existing Conditions
2. Baseline Conditions
3. Baseline Plus Project Conditions
4. Buildout Conditions (Year 2025)
5. Baseline Plus Project Alternative Conditions
6. Buildout With Project Alternative Conditions
This traffic study will be used as a background document to identify impacts and mitigation measures
related to environmental review of the Casamira Valley Project under CEOA. The study will also be
used to evaluate the proposed circulation and access for the Project under the design and
improvement standards and policies in the City's general plan, specific plan, and subdivision and
zoning ordinances. Pursuant to this evaluation, the study recommends measures that are not
required as CEQA mitigations, but will improve the Project's circulation and access and assure
compliance with applicable design and operation standards and policies.
A residential development Project, Fallon Crossings, is proposed on the Mission Peak property
located adjacent to the south of the Casamira Valley Project. A traffic study for the Fallon Crossings
Project was completed in September 2005 (T JKM Transportation Consultants. "A Traffic Study for the
Proposed Fallon Crossings Development." September 28, 2005). This document ("Fallon Crossings
report") served as the base for this Casamira Valley traffic study. Much of the analyses for Existing
and Buildout Conditions were taken directly from the Fallon Crossings report per the City's request.
Other analysis and recommendations were taken from this report as noted.
1.2 Summary
The proposed Project is expected to generate 141 AM peak-hour trips and 189 PM peak-hour trips,
while the proposed Project alternative of 326 attached townhomes is expected to generate 143 AM
peak-hour trips and 170 PM peak-hour trips. Neither proposed land use for the Project is expected to
generate more AM or PM peak-hour trips than designated by the City's General Plan; therefore, no
additional traffic impact analysis of the Project is required by the Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency (ACCMA) to satisfy the Land Use Analysis Program of the Alameda County
Congestion Management Program (CMP).
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 1
~__.... Kimley-Hom
~ ~ and Associates, Inc.
Introduction and Summary
Currently, all existing study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service. They are all
expected to continue to operate acceptably under Baseline, Baseline Plus Project, and Baseline Plus
Project Alternative Conditions.
Under Buildout Conditions and Buildout With Project Alternative Conditions, 12 of the 14 study
intersections are expected to operate acceptably during the peak hours. The intersections of
Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard and Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps are expected to
operate unacceptably during the PM peak hour.
Cumulative Impacts and Mitiaations
Required mitigation measures for Buildout and Buildout With Project Alternative Conditions, as
included in the Fallon Crossings report, are described below. All references to the "Project" include
the original proposed Project and the Project alternative. No additional mitigations are required as
part of the analysis for the Casamira Valley Project.
1. The Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection will operate at LOS E during the PM peak
hour under Buildout Conditions (including the Project). This LOS represents a significant
cumulative impact.
Mitigation Measure 1. Improvements at the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road
intersection are included in the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program. The
Project is required to make its fair share payment of impact fees for these
improvements.
The Project developer shall advance to the City applicable monies for acquisition of
right-of-way and construction of the improvements assumed in this study for the
intersection of Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road. The amount of money advanced to
the City shall be based on the developer's fair share of the deficit (spread over those
Projects that are required to make up the deficit) between funds available to the City
from Category 2 Eastern Dublin TIF funds and the estimated cost of acquiring the
right-of-way and constructing the improvements. The City will provide credit for
Category 2 Eastern Dublin TIF to the developer for any advance of monies made for
the improvements planned for the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection.
Additional improvements to improve the LOS at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard
intersection to an acceptable level (LOS D or better) under Buildout Conditions would require
adding a fourth northbound left-turn lane on Dougherty Road. Allowing four lanes of traffic to
perform a left-turn movement simultaneously would raise major concerns regarding the safety
of such an operation. Moreover, additional improvements to reduce traffic impacts at this
intersection are not feasible given the physical constraints at the intersection. On a periodic
basis, the City should monitor the operations of Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, as well as
other intersections at the 1-580 interchanges, during the PM peak hour. Level of service
analysis for this intersection should be updated as forecasted peak hour volumes become
available.
Therefore, the impact at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection under Buildout
Conditions remains a significant cumulative impact.
2. The Santa Rita/I-58D Eastbound Ramps intersection will operate at LOS E during the PM
peak hour under Buildout Conditions (including the Project). This LOS represents a
significant cumulative impact.
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11111"'1_-~ Kmey-Hom
-.......J Lj and Associates, Inc.
Introduction and Summary
Adding a third left turn lane for the eastbound off-ramp approach at the intersection of Santa
Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps is expected to improve the intersection level of service to
LOS D during the PM peak hour under Buildout Conditions.
Mitigation Measure 2. The Project developer shall contribute a pro-rata share of the
cost to improve the intersection of Santa Rita Roadll-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp-Pimlico
Drive to include a third left-turn lane for the eastbound off-ramp approach at this
intersection and other downstream improvements including modifications to the
striping on the northbound lanes of the Tassajara Roadll-580 overpass to accept traffic
from the third left-turn lane and maintain three northbound through lanes at the
Tassajara Roadll-580 Westbound Ramps intersection.
The current Eastern Dublin TIF program does not include this improvement; however, the
program will be amended in 2006 to include this improvement. With this improvement, the
impaCt at the Santa Rita/I-580 Eastbound Ramps intersection under Buildout Conditions will
be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
3. With the proposed Project traffic added to Year 2030 No Project mainline freeway volumes,
projected LOS on 1-580 and 1-680 would remain unchanged. However, with a projected LOS
F on various segments of 1-580 and 1-680, Project trips would be adding to an already
deficient condition. These specific segments would not meet the ACCMA monitoring
standard of LOS E during the AM or PM peak hour. This is considered a significant
cumulative impact.
Although efficiency improvements (such as HOV Lanes) and expanded public transportation
could be added in the 1-580 corridor, little or no additional freeway capacity for single-
occupant vehicles is planned. Actions to encourage alternative travel modes include
advocating HOV lanes on 1-580, extending BART to Livermore, implementing the 1-580 Smart
Corridor approach (including adaptive signal timing, transit priority systems, incident
management, and ramp metering), and supporting other major investments in transit. In
addition, the City of Dublin plans to construct the Dublin Boulevard extension to North
Canyons Parkway in Livermore as a six-lane parallel arterial that will provide additional lane
capacity along the 1-580 corridor.
Mitigation Measure 3. The Project is required to pay the Tri-Valley Transportation
Development (TVTD) Fee for its proportionate share of 1-580 and 1-680 improvements,
including HOV lanes, auxiliary lanes, and interchange improvements. The Project will
also pay its proportionate share toward public transportation improvements (e.g., West
Dublin BART Station and Express Bus Service from Livermore to East Dublin BART
Station) by payment of the TVTD Fee.
Even though the above improvements will ameliorate traffic conditions on 1-580 and 1-680 in
the Tri-Valley, they will not mitigate the contribution of projected traffic demand from the
Project on these freeways to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the impact on the
freeway system of 1-580 and 1-680 in the Project area remains a significant, unavoidable
cumulative impact, and no additional impact beyond the analyses of the Eastern Dublin EIR
or subsequent supplemental EIRs is identified. .
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 3
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~-_~ I<irney;.Hom
~ ~ and Associates, Inc.
Introduction and Summary
Recommended Proiect Improvements
The following sections present measures that are not required as CEQA mitigations, but will improve
the Project's circulation and access and assure compliance with applicable City design and operation
standards and policies.
Off-Site Project Improvements
1. Based on traffic safety considerations, traffic signals should be installed to control traffic at
the two intersections providing access to and from the Project site.
2. Under Baseline Plus Project Conditions, for each northbound approach to intersections of
Tassajara Road/North Project Access Street and Tassajara Road/South Project Access
Street, one through lane and one exclusive 150-foot right-turn lane with a 90-foot taper
should be provided for Project traffic entering the site. For each southbound approach, one
through lane and an exclusive 150-foot left-turn lane with a 90-foot taper should be provided
for Project traffic entering the site. Each westbound approach should have an exclusive left-
turn lane and an exclusive 150-foot right-turn lane with a 90-foot taper for Project traffic
exiting the site. Each intersection should include a protected southbound left-turn phase.
3. The traffic signals at the two Project access intersections should be coordinated to optimize
traffic flow in the Project area. If possible, these intersections should be coordinated with the
future intersection of Tassajara Road/Fallon Road.
4. According to the site plan, the two Project access intersections are approximately 625 feet
apart, shorter than the minimum 750-foot spacing between signalized intersections desired
by the City. The proposed spacing of these intersections should be increased closer to 750
feet if topographical restrictions permit.
5. The projected average daily traffic (ADT) for the segment of Tassajara Road between Fallon
Road and the County Limit is 13,760 vehicles per day (vpd) and 13,860 vpd under Baseline
Plus Project Conditions and Baseline Plus Project Alternative Conditions, respectively.
These volumes approach the 15,000 vpd maximum threshold standard for two-lane
roadways. Because the Casamira Valley Project is directly adjacent to this roadway segment
and will contribute to the projected ADT on this segment, the Casamira Valley Project should
construct this widening.
6. The projected ADT for the segment of Tassajara Road between Northern Access for Dublin
Ranch West and Fallon Road is 14,610 vpd and 14,690 vpd under Baseline Plus Project
Conditions and Baseline Plus Project Alternative Conditions, respectively. These volumes
approach the 15,000 vpd maximum threshold standard for two-lane roadways. The Fallon
Crossings report recommended that the Fallon Crossings developers widen this roadway
segment from two lanes to four lanes. Because the Casamira Valley Project will contribute to
the projected ADT on this segment, the Casamira Valley Project should. construct this
widening in the event that this Project or Project Alternative is developed prior to the Fallon
Crossings Project.
7. The projected ADT for the segment of Tassajara Road between North Dublin Ranch Drive
and Northern Access for Dublin Ranch West is 18,630 vpd under Baseline Conditions. The
projected ADT is 20,100 vpd and 20,180 vpd under Baseline Plus Project Conditions and
Baseline Plus Project Alternative Conditions, respectively. These volumes exceed the
15,000 vpd maximum threshold standard for two-lane roadways. The Dublin Ranch West
report recommended that the Dublin Ranch West developers widen this roadway segment
from two lanes to four lanes. Because the Casamira Valley Project will contribute to the
projected ADT on this segment, the Casamira Valley Project should construct this widening in
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~__~ Kmey-Hom
~ ~ and Associates, Inc.
Introduction and Summary
the event that this Project or Project Alternative is developed prior to the Dublin Ranch West
Project.
On-Site Project Improvements
1. If bicycle lanes are placed on streets, chokers should be designed to allow bicyclists to pass
unencumbered. Signage reading "Driveways Ahead" may be posted in advance of houses to
alert drivers of driveways to serve as another means to help reduce vehicle speeds and
increase safety.
2. If speeding is observed along the Project access roads, additional traffic calming measures to
the chokers could help maintain appropriate speeds. Narrowing the travel lanes to 11 feet
could help reduce travel speeds.
3. Seventeen homes (Lots 1-17) will front North Project Access Street before the first connector
street between North Project Access Street and South Project Access Street. Seven homes
(Lots 18-24) will front South Project Access Street before this. first connector street. These
homes will be situated on horizontal and vertical curves that may reduce stopping sight
distance to driveways. Minimum sight distances and other roadway geometry issues should
be provided based on the City's design standards and verified during the review process.
4. The minimum distance between all driveways should be 20 feet to allow for one parking
space.
The annexation request for the proposed Project includes the Moller property and additional property
adjacent to the west (Tipper and Vargas properties). The Dublin Travel Demand Model (DTDM) used
to estimate traffic Conditions in the study area under Year 2025 Buildout Conditions included trips
generated by the Tipper and Vargas properties in accordance with the City of Dublin General Plan.
As such, traffic impacts associated with the annexation Project included future development of all
three properties that will be subject to the annexation (Moller, Tipper, and Vargas properties).
Therefore, no additional traffic impacts or mitigations are required for the annexation Project beyond
those described in this study for the Casamira Valley Project.
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 5
PROJECT
~SITE
.<t/
#'9-
:7
" /
1~~~.'o"
......~....
--..
00''''' -
..f-"'Y - 7
"/
/
I
GLeASON OR
fll
~
:r
g
o
o
FIGURE 1
City of Dublin
Casamira Valley - Moller Property Development
VICINITY MAP
I
\
~
31
J
--I
I
--..."
"
------
)
LEGEND
. EXISTING INTERSECTION
o FUTURE INTERSECTION
EXISTING ROAD
FUTURE ROAD
i!
i
----........-
July 17, 2006
~
N
Not to Scale
~=~="""m
-------------------
-----------------~~
1:",(,<:#fili
,., CoS QUt'-'\'f
(.O"'~~,.t-'f.O'" L
MISSIoN rEAK HOMES, IN<:
VARGAS
fREDRICH
~
J '(,
,,\ r
. \v/' Source: Ruggeri, Jenson, Azar & Associates, "Preliminary Site Plan. Casamira Valley", September 20,2005
City of Dublin
Casamira Valley - Moller Property Development
PROPOSED SITE PLAN July 17,2006
~
N
Not to Scale
FIGURE 2
~=~=..-
~__... Kimlay-Horn
~ ~ and Associates, Inc.
Intersection Analysis Methodology
2 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
2.1 Study Intersections and Scenarios
The following nine existing and five future intersections were identified as locations that may
potentially be impacted by the proposed Project:
1. Dougherty Road 1 Dublin Boulevard
2. Hacienda Drive 11-580 Eastbound Ramps
3. Hacienda Drive 11-580 Westbound Ramps
4. Hacienda Drive 1 Dublin Boulevard
5. Santa Rita Road 11-580 Eastbound Ramps-Pimlico Drive
6. Tassajara Road 11-580 Westbound Ramps
7. Tassajara Road 1 Dublin Boulevard
8. Tassajara Road 1 Fallon Road (Future Intersection)
9. Fallon Road 1 Dublin Boulevard (Future Intersection)
10. EI Charro Road 11-580 Eastbound Ramps
11. Fallon Road 11-580 Westbound Ramps
12. Fallon Road 1 Street "E" (Future Intersection)
13. Tassajara Road 1 North Project Access (Future Intersection)
14. Tassajara Road 1 South Project Access (Future Intersection)
The study intersections listed above were analyzed for the AM and PM peak periods for the following
four general scenarios:
. Existing Conditions - This scenario evaluates existing (April 2005) traffic volumes and
roadway conditions based on traffic counts, field sUNeys, and analysis extracted directly
from the Fallon Crossings traffic study.
. Baseline Conditions - This scenario uses existing land use conditions plus future traffic
from approved and pending Projects in Dublin, Pleasanton, and Dougherty Valley.
Approved Projects are developments that are under construction, built but not fully
occupied, or not built but have final site development review (or equivalent) approval.
Baseline Conditions for the proposed Project were developed by subtracting trips
generated by the Casamira Valley Project from the Baseline Plus Project Conditions as
presented in the Fallon Crossings traffic study, using the trip distribution and assignment
applied in that study.
. Baseline Plus Project Conditions - This scenario adds trips generated by the proposed
Casamira Valley to Baseline Conditions.
. Year 2025 Buildout Conditions - This scenario uses the traffic volume forecasts
obtained from the (DTDM) for Year 2025. Year 2025 Buildout With Project Conditions
model includes all of the approved, pending, future build out (including "general plan")
Projects, and the proposed Casamira Valley Project. For freeways, this scenario uses
Year 2030 forecasts derived from DTDM forecasts for Year 2025, as Caltrans currently
utilizes Year 2030 as the horizon year for analysis of freeway operations. Buildout
Conditions were taken directly from the Fallon Crossings traffic study.
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11II"'1_- ~ Kimley-Hom
~ ~ and AssocialBs, Inc.
Intersection Analysis Methodology
2.2 level of Service Analysis Methodology
Sionalized Intersections
Level of service (LOS) is a measure of the quality of the overall operating characteristics of an
intersection, street, or highway. It is defined in terms of volume-to-capacity 01IC) ratios, which can be
correlated to travel time, traffic conflicts and interruptions, freedom to maneuver, driving convenience
and comfort, and operating costs. Level of service is dependent upon traffic volume and composition
of traffic.
LOS qualifies operating conditions at intersections ranging from LOS A (free-flow condition) to LOS F
(highly congested condition). The LOS calculations utilize Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)
methodology adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) for signalized
intersections.
Unsicmalized Intersections
The evaluation of unsignalized intersections applied the operations method of the 2000 Highway
Capacity Manual. For two-way stop-controlled intersections the average control delay for the worst
approach is reported. As for signalized intersections, LOS ranges from LOS A (free-flow condition) to
LOS F (highly congested condition).
Appendix A presents methodologies used in the LOS analysis for signalized and unsignalized
intersections.
2.3 Significant Impact Criteria
The following significant impact criteria were taken from the Fallon Crossings report.
Intersections
An impact would be significant if an intersection previously mitigated to an acceptable level would
now exceed acceptable levels. In addition, an impact would be significant if a new intersection is
identified as exceeding acceptable levels and if such intersection was not previously identified in the
Eastern Dublin EIR as a study intersection. The General Plan standard requires that the City strive
for LOS D at intersections (General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highways Guiding Policy F).
Routes of ReQional Sianificance
With respect to routes of regional significance, an impact would be significant if such routes would fail
to comply with the applicable standard of the General Plan. The General Plan requires the City to
make a good faith effort to maintain LOS D on arterial segments of, and at the intersections of, routes
of regional significance (Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road, Tassajara Road and San Ramon Road)
or implement transportation improvements or other measures to improve the level of service. If such
improvements are not possible or sufficient, and the Tri-Valley Transportation Council cannot resolve
the matter, the City may modify the level of service standard assuming other jurisdictions are not
physically impacted (General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highways Guiding Policy E).
The maximum ADT threshold standards of the General Plan are used to determine the through lane
requirements for two-lane roadways (15,000 vpd), four-lane roadways (30,000 vpd), six-lane
roadways (50,000 vpd), and eight-lane roadways (70,000 vpd).
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 9
~-_~ Kimley-Horn
~ ~ and Associates, Inc..
Intersection Analysis Methodology
Freewav Seoments
The LOS for a freeway segment is based on peak hour traffic volumes in terms of number of
passenger cars per hour. Similar to intersection operation, the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual ranks
volume-to-capacity ratios for freeway segment operation ranging from LOS A (free-flow condition) to
LOS F (highly congested condition). The standard for freeway impacts is based upon the Alameda
County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) monitoring standards and is established at LOS
E, which represents "at capacity" operation.
Public Transit
Public transit impacts would be significant if the demand for public transit service would be increased
above that which could be accommodated by local transit operators or agencies.
Traffic Safety
CEQA allows for consideration of increased hazards on roadway facilities as part of the basis for
identifying standards of significance. A significant traffic safety impact would include a design feature,
such as a sharp curve or dangerous intersection, which would not be consistent with City of Dublin
engineering design standards or standards published by other traffic engineering professional
organizations.
Casamira ValLey Residential DeveLopment
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1"1__~ Kimley-Hom
~ ~ and Associates, Inc.
Existing Conditions
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Roadway Network
Because the Fallon Crossings Project is adjacent to the proposed Casamira Valley Project, lane
geometry, traffic counts, and intersection analysis were taken directly from the Fallon Crossings
report.
The description below of important roadways serving the Project site was taken from the Fallon
Crossings report.
Interstate 580 is an eight-lane east-west freeway that connects Dublin with local cities such as
Livermore and Pleasanton as well as regional origins and destinations such as Oakland, Hayward
and Tracy. In the vicinity of the proposed Project, 1-580 carries between 184,000 and 198,000 vpd
(according to Caltrans' 2003 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways) with interchanges at
Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road, Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road and Fallon
Road/EI Charro Road.
Interstate 680 is a six-lane north-south freeway through Alameda and Contra Costa Counties serving
such communities as Dublin, Pleasanton, and San Ramon. The new southbound 1-680 two-lane
f1yover connecting to eastbound 1-580 was completed and opened to traffic in 2002. A direct one-lane
connector ramp also exists connecting northbound 1-680 to eastbound 1-580.
Dublin Boulevard is an east-west, major arterial in the City of Dublin. Dublin Boulevard, west of
Dougherty Road, is a four to six lane divided road fronted largely by retail and commercial uses.
Between Dougherty Road and Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard is a six-lane divided arterial fronted
primarily by residential, commercial and vacant lands. Dublin Boulevard extends east of Tassajara
Road to Keegan Street as a four-to-five lane roadway fronted by new residential development.
Tassajara Road connects with Santa Rita Road at 1-580 to the south and continues north to the Town
of Danville. It is four lanes wide between 1-580 and North Dublin Ranch Road. North of the Contra
Costa County line, it is named Camino Tassajara. Camino Tassajara is used primarily for local traffic
in the Tassajara Valley, with some through traffic.
Santa Rita Road is a six-lane divided urban arterial from the 1-580 interchange south to Valley
Avenue. It serves the east side of Pleasanton, including the Hacienda Business Park, and provides
access to the downtown Pleasanton area.
Central Parkway is a two-to-three lane east-west collector that extends from Arnold Road to Keegan
Street (east of Tassajara Road). An extension of Central Parkway east of Fallon Road is being
planned as part of the Eastern Dublin Properties Project.
Hacienda Drive is an arterial designed to provide access to 1-580. North of 1-580, Hacienda Drive is a
three-to-six-Iane arterial running in the north-south direction from Gleason Drive southerly to 1-580. It
is primarily fronted by commercial, office and residential uses. South of 1-580, Hacienda Drive is a
six-lane divided road, a major arterial in the City of Pleasanton.
Figure 3 illustrates the existing lane geometry and intersection control at the nine existing study
intersections.
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 11
~
N
Not to Scale
2 3 4 -L 5 1Il 6
L Free ~ L LOt. ~ L
-illll Jill lL L Jlllll Jill L L
~ jilt ~ ~ ~ Jill ~
-1 ::) 1I1( tt( ::) :0 tt(
- II t t-- - III t t (( FRE~ 1I1~
~ -
Ol~ 1Il ~ -
'" Ol=:\ 1Il
lL lL '"
lL
7 8 9 10 11 12
JJlIlIl -L L
- ~ -i ..T
,-
FUTURE INTERSECTION FUTURE INTERSECTION FUTURE INTERSECTION
=0 11111 ( --1-1- t(
Ol~ \, i
13 14
~SITE
,p./
....
\ ,/
'1"~0J,."o
"
FUTURE INTERSECTION
FUTURE INTERSECTION
~_.. -
~'~ (
/ \
il
"J
i---
/
LEGEND
. EXISTING INTERSECTION
o FUTURE INTERSECTION
EXISTING ROAD
FUTURE ROAD
o TRAFFIC SIGNAL
... STOP SIGN
OL OVERLAP PHASING
FREE FREE RIGHT TURN
City of Dublin
FIGURE 3 Casamira Valley - Moller Property Development
EXISTING LANE GEOMETRY
~=~=-m
July 17, 2006
-------------------
I-
I-
I-
I
I-
I
I
I
I;
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I.
I
11I"1-_ r-. Kimley-Hom
IIIII....J U and Associates, Inc.
Existing Conditions
3.2 Existing Transit Service
The description below of existing transit service in the Project area was taken from the Fallon
Crossings report.
Altamont Commuter Express (ACE): The Altamont Commuter Express operates three trains per day
between Stockton and San Jose. The trains provide westbound service in the morning and eastbound
service in the evening. The trains have Tri-Valley stations at Vasco Road in Livermore and near the
downtowns of Livermore and Pleasanton, the latter of which is most likely to serve Dublin commuters.
The ACE train was not in operation at the time the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan
Amendment were approved and the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified.
Livermore - Amador Valley Transit Authority (LA VT A - Wheels): The Livermore-Amador Valley
Transit Authority provides bus service to the communities of Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore.
Several bus lines currently provide service to Eastern Dublin, including lines 12, 12X, 10A, 1A, 1B,
20X and the ACE connector. Lines operate on approximately 30-minute headways. It is expected
that these lines would be expanded further as additional homes and businesses are constructed in
the Eastern Dublin area. There is a Wheels bus connection between each ACE train and the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station with intermediate stops. Fixed route transit service, Direct Access
Responsive Transit (DART), is also available in the Dublin area.
BART: The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District operates trains between the Dublin-Pleasanton
station near Hacienda Drive and the Oakland-San Francisco area. BART runs at 15- to 20-minute
headways between 4:00 AM and 12:00 AM on weekdays. Saturday service is available every 20
minutes between 6:00 AM and 12:45 AM. Service is also available on Sunday from 8:00 AM to 12:45
AM with 20-minute headways. The Dublin-Pleasanton station is accessible by private auto, taxi cabs,
buses, and private shuttles as well as by pedestrians and bicyclists. The parking lot has a capacity of
approximately 1,680 parking stalls on the north side of 1-580 (Le., Dublin side), in addition to more
parking stalls on the south side of 1-580 (Le., Pleasanton side).
3.3 level of Service Analysis (Existing Conditions)
The existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volume counts were conducted at the nine existing study
intersections in April 2005. Figure 4 shows the current peak hour turning movement volumes at the
study intersections.
Table 1 summarizes the results of the signalized and unsignalized intersection level of service
analyses for existing conditions. Detailed calculations are contained in Appendix B. Currently, all
nine existing study intersections operate at acceptable service levels during the peak hours.
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 13
~
N
Not to Scale
FIGURE 4
~~~![
iii ~ ~
Jll
""~ --.J
329(625)_
,191'''',
2J!H
Jit
"15",--1
62(901_
23116211,
..!J ,,~
L272lU91 i"i
-399(541) Jl
,'lOllOij
2J [~
Jf
W"'I
!! iii l[
L218""1 o:l~l'l
,"'1'''1 J Il
il(
~ i ~
1; ! ~
S.tS(51J
1,210(397),
1 (
~ ~
13 ~
I(
~ ~
~ ~
10113531--1
262(441)-
"'I"",
~ ..
it
"~I--1
4(11)_
"1<01,
~H~
~~~ Ji l
,101~1)
il(
~ a [
~ iH
"'1'''1--1
1'4(157)_
38.("'"
L'I"
--42((51
, "'fl",
~ FUTURE W"ERSE< "'"
l[
f
,.!jFUTURE INTERSECT""
a
f
!1l!! !
j f
I(
'" ..
~ ~
!.!J FUTURE INTE SECTION
l[
!!
I
it(
~i~
j;l ;:- ~
~ ;oj
1
![
i!!
1
g:
!l!
City of Dublin
Casamira Valley. Moller Property Development
EXISTING PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES July 17, 2006
- - --
~ ~.~ SITE
~}3
~. . ....-
~\14 """~
" )'
',-(~~,,_
"
~~~ -(
/ \
~
j
-7
LleIl35~
,"'(I1~
.!.Ju:
~!2
JI
L'92f32"
,,,,(un
tr
If
~;!
tr
~~
i! l!
BJ FUTURE INT RSECTION
LSO'1ll
-IO~
,"151
11
'" ~
:3 ..
~ FUTURE INTE~ ECTION
l[
S!
t
I
g
~
t
I[
i!!
.
o
LEGEND
EXISTING INTERSECTION
FUTURE INTERSECTION
EXISTING ROAD
FUTURE ROAD
AM PEAK HOUR VOLUME
PM PEAK HOUR VOLUME
xx
(XX)
~ t
/ ~
. I 1 \
Source: T JKM Transportation Consultants, . A Traffic Study for the Proposed Fallon Crossings Development", September 28,2005.
-------
~=~=-.
--------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~_~ KimIey-Hom
~ _ ~ and Associates, Inc.
Existing Conditions
Table 1: Intersection Levels of Service - Existin Conditions
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
Signalized Intersections
1 Dougherty RoadlDublin Boulevard 0.60 A 0.77 C
2 Hacienda Drivell-580 Eastbound Ramps 0.53 A 0.42 A
3 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound 0.33 A 0.33 A
Ram s
4 Hacienda DrivelDublin Boulevard 0.24 A 0.50 A
5 Santa Rita/I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp- 0.37 A 0.45 A
Pimlico Drive
6 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound 0.38 A 0.36 A
Ram s
7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.35 A 0.41 A
8 Tassajara Road/Fallon Road (Future N/A N/A N/A N/A
Intersection)
9 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard (Future N/A N/A N/A N/A
Intersection)
12 Fallon Road/Street "E" (Future N/A N/A N/A N/A
Intersection
13 Tassajara Road/North Project Access N/A N/A N/A N/A
(Future Intersection)
14 Tassajara Road/South Project Access N/A N/A N/A N/A
(Future Intersection)
Unsignalized Intersections
EI Charro Roadll-580 Eastbound 00-
ram
11 Fallon Roadll-580 Westbound Off-ramp 9.6 A 9.2 A
Source: T JKM Transportation Consultants. "A Traffic Study for the Proposed Fallon Crossings Development' September 28.2005.
10
9.1
A
19.7
C
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
PagelS
~__~ KimIey-Hom
IIII.J ~ and Associates, Inc.
Baseline Conditions
4 BASELINE CONDITIONS
Most of the discussion of the Baseline Conditions in the following sections was taken directly from the
Fallon Crossings study.
4.1 Introduction
Baseline Conditions for the proposed Project were developed by subtracting trips generated by the
Casamira Valley Project from the Baseline Plus Project Conditions as presented in the Fallon
Crossings traffic study. The trip distribution and assignment assumptions applied in the Fallon
Crossings report were used in this analysis.
Baseline Conditions are Existing Conditions with the addition of traffic from approved and pending
Projects in Dublin, Pleasanton, and Dougherty Valley. Approved Projects in Dublin are developments
that are under construction, built but not fully occupied, or not built but have final site development
review (SDR) approval. City of Dublin staff provided a list of approved and pending Projects within
their jurisdiction. The City of Pleasanton and Contra Costa County were contacted in May 2005 to
ascertain approved and pending Projects, both north and south of the City of Dublin that potentially
could impact the study intersections. Tables C1 and C2 of Appendix C list approved and pending
Projects in Dublin, respectively. Table C4 of Appendix C lists approved and pending Projects in
Pleasanton and Dougherty Valley.
4.2 Trip Generation
Trip generation is defined as the number of "vehicle trips" produced by a particular land use or
Project. A trip is defined as a one-direction vehicle movement. The total number of trips generated
by each land use includes the inbound and outbound trips.
The trip rates are obtained from the standard reference Trip Generation, 7th Edition, published by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Trips rates were also obtained from previous traffic study
reports of corresponding Projects. Tables C1 and C2 of Appendix C summarize the trip generation
assumptions for the approved and pending Projects in Dublin, respectively. The approved Projects
identified in Table C1 are expected to generate a total of approximately 79,118 additional daily trips,
with 7,206 trips occurring during the AM peak hour, and 7,968 trips occurring during the PM peak
hour. Subtracting the number of trips associated with the Casamira Valley (Moller Property) Project,
the pending Projects identified in Table C2 are expected to generate a total of approximately 31,634
additional daily trips, with 2,586 trips occurring during the AM peak hour, and 2,766 trips occurring
during the PM peak hour.
4.3 Trip Distribution and Assignment
Trip distribution is the process of determining what proportions of vehicle trips would travel between
the Project site and various destinations within a study area. Trip assignment is the process of
determining the various paths vehicles would take from the Project site to each destination. Trip
distribution assumptions were taken from the Fallon Crossings traffic study. They were developed
based on information from previous traffic studies of approved Projects, knowledge of the area,
consultation with City staff and results from the new DTDM. Trips from approved Projects and
pending Projects were added to the existing volumes to forecast the turning volumes under Baseline
(Existing + Approved + Pending) Conditions. The traffic volumes at the study intersections for this
scenario take into account future traffic (approved plus pending) to and from Pleasanton and
Dougherty Valley.
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~-_n Kimley-Hom
~ U and Associales, Inc.
Baseline Conditions
Figure 5 shows the forecasted turning movement volumes at the study intersections under Baseline
Conditions. Figure C1 of Appendix C illustrates lane geometry and intersection control assumptions
for Baseline Conditions. Appendix C contains Baseline Conditions turning movement volumes for
each study intersection.
4.4 Planned Roadway Improvements
For this scenario, three of the future intersections (Tassajara Road/Fallon Road, Fallon Road/Dublin
Boulevard, Fallon Road/Street "En) are assumed to be in place and signalized as part of other
development improvements expected in the area. The northeasterly leg of the Tassajara RoadlFallon
Road intersection will be constructed as part of the Fallon Crossings development. The Fallon
Road/Street "En intersection will be constructed as part of Phase 4 of the Silveria Ranch
development. The interim geometries for the Tassajara Road/Fallon Road, Fallon Road/Dublin
Boulevard, and Fallon Road/Street "En under the Baseline Conditions are shown in Figure C1 in
Appendix C.
Under Baseline Conditions, the intersections of EI Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps and Fallon
Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps will be widened and signalized as part of the Phase I Fallon Road
Interchange Improvement Project.
The intersection of Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road would consist of the following lane
configurations based on the improvements planned by the City of Dublin for this intersection:
. Northbound Dougherty Road approach would have three left-turn lanes, three through lanes,
and two right-turn lanes.
. Southbound Dougherty Road approach would have two left-turn lanes, three through lanes
and one shared through/right-turn lane.
. Eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach would include two left-tum lanes, three through lanes
and two right-turn lanes.
. Westbound Dublin Boulevard approach would have three left-turn lanes, three through lanes
and one right-turn lane.
These improvements are included in the City's 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and are
expected to be implemented by the time the proposed Fallon Crossings Project is fully developed.
The current CIP Project to install these improvements at Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road is
funded by Project developers who are required to pay their pro-rata share of the cost to construct
these improvements through payment of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee.
The extension of Fallon Road north to Tassajara Road will include two lanes of traffic for the interim
(Eastern Dublin TIF improvement).
~.^
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 17
~
N
Not to Scale
FIGURE 5
-.. -
l'i~" 2 3 ~~ 4 ~! i' 5 il 6 d
L'''I'''' .,1< L"II3131 Lt. 1"'1 i::' ~ L",{3Sll L59t<4S3)
:c..... Ie. ".. t: ~ lO'll:l !;ill
1: l'l 51 -8S7tW'f ii~ Jil -ll1(7JO) J1l )1
Jll ,''''I''~ J1 Jj ,""13$'1 r49(t241 ,'1$1"" ,"'~"I
,l6rM1-.J 'I l( "'O!l"II-.J I ( l( f8S(418'-.J 'I l( '''I''')-.J l( t(
642(1.015)_ ~H H !! 545(114)_ ~H tI4(I$1)- i!! ~~
38215711, 1....1...), 431 13l9J , 4291'''1, ~& "'-
:; ci 2ft, e _ ! ~
~ !il ~ ! N ~!!! ~ ! lii
7 "'~ 9 FUTURE INTERSEClION 10 ~iif 11 H 12 FUTURE INT RSECTION
""'Ii L27I"1 iiIm: L"'I"') ill Ii
~!'! 0 E/;:- U LlIl361
Jll -255(121) Jf Jl JI ___10 It) Jl
,31t(l1l~ _'18(52)
,19(4
IO'I"~-.J 'I l( 331'~-.J 'I I lO'I/36)-.J t( I ( /~l-.J
180(102)_ ~n: ~~ '101_ !li .t{U6)_
3291.,31, 201(110), 66(55), i'~
~ e ~ Bl J! =~ ::: Ii
" ~ -
13 FUTURE INTE SECTION
'"
E L.(O)
"..-- i!i
,4>P I ,'101
, /
'i(~~.._ t , (
i i~
~ 0
LEGEND
. EXISTING INTERSECTION
o FUTURE INTERSECTION
EXISTING ROAD
FUTURE ROAD
XX AM PEAK HOUR VOLUME
(XX) PM PEAK HOUR VOLUME
\
Source: T JKM Transportation Consultants, It A Traffic Study for the Proposed Fallon Crossings Development", September 28,2005.
City of Dublin
Casmira Valley - Moller Property Development
BASELINE (EX.+APP.+PEND.) PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS
July 17, 2006 .
~=~=...
-
-
- -
-
- --
----..
- --
I
I--
I
I
I
I
I
I'":
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~__~ Kimley-Hom
~ ~ and Associates, Inc.
Baseline Conditions
4.5 level of Service Analysis (Baseline Conditions)
Table 2 summarizes the results of the signalized intersection level of service analyses for Baseline
Conditions using the ICU methodology adopted by the CCTA. Detailed calculations are contained in
Appendix D.
Table 2: Intersection Levels of Service - Baseline Conditions
1 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.64 B 0.73 C
2 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Ramps 0.67 B 0.61 B
3 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps 0.61 B 0.50 A
4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard 0.50 A 0.70 B
5 Santa Rita/I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp- 0.70 B 0.70 B
Pimlico Drive
6 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps 0.62 B 0.73 C
7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.71 C 0.74 C
8 Tassajara Road/Fallon Road 0.62 B 0.47 A
9 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.44 A 0.42 A
10 EI Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps 0.07 A 0.10 A
11 Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps 0.22 A 0.37 A
12 Fallon Road/Street "E" 0.09 A 0.14 A
13 Tassajara Road/North Project Access n/a n/a n1a n/a
14 Tassajara Road/South Project Access n/a n/a n/a n/a
All of the study intersections are expected to continue to operate at an acceptable service level under
Baseline Conditions.
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 19
J
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
Baseline Plus Project Conditions
1
J
5 BASELINE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
J
]
Most of the discussion of the Baseline Plus Project Conditions in the following sections was taken
directly from the Fallon Crossings study. New onsite and offsite Project improvements and circulation
recommendations were developed for the proposed Project.
5.1 Introduction
This scenario adds trips generated by proposed Casamira Valley development to conditions in the
Baseline Conditions. The proposed Project will include 179 single-family homes and 16 duplex units.
Access to the proposed Project will be provided at North Access Road and South Access Road.
These two roads will form two full-access intersections with Tassajara Road. See Figure 2.
.11
I
J
J
]
J
J
J
5.2 Project Trip Generation
Trip Generation, 1h Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), was used to
estimate the number of trips generated by the proposed Project. Summarized in Table 3, the Project
will generate 141 AM peak hour trips and 189 PM peak hour trips.
Single-Family 179 9.57 1,713 0.19 0.56 34 100 134 0.65 0.36 114 67 181
Homes
Residential
Townhouse! 16 5.86 94 0.07 0.37 6 7 0.35 0.17 5 3 8
Condominium
TOTAL 1,807 TOTAL 35 106 141 TOTAL 119 70 189
Source: Trip Generation, lilt Edition, by ITE (Land Use Codes 210 & 230)
C1
I
J
J
J
1
I
1
L
1f
I J
The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and is not
expected to generate more AM or PM peak hour trips than anticipated in the City's General Plan;
therefore, no additional traffic impact analysis of the Project is required by the Alameda County
Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) to satisfy the Land Use Analysis Program of the Alameda
County Congestion Management Program (CMP).
5.3 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
Trip distribution and assignment assumptions for the proposed Project were taken from the Fallon
Crossings report and developed based on existing travel patterns, knowledge of the study area, input
from City staff, and results from the new Dublin Travel Demand Model. Trip distribution and
assignment assumptions used in Baseline Plus Project Conditions are shown in detail in Figure 6.
Twenty percent of all Project trips were assumed to be local within the study area; therefore, they
were assigned to study area intersections as appropriate. Appendix C contains Baseline Plus Project
Conditions turning movement volumes for each study intersection.
5.4 level of Service Analysis (Baseline Plus Project Conditions)
Figure 7 shows the forecasted turning movement volumes at the study intersections under Baseline
Plus Project Conditions. Table 4 summarizes the results of the intersection level of service analysis.
Detailed calculations are contained in Appendix E.
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~__.,. KimIey-Hom
~ ~ and Associates, Inc.
Baseline Plus Project Conditions
The lane geometry and planned roadway improvements for this scenario would be the same as those
described in the previous chapter for Baseline Conditions. The lane geometry assumptions and
intersection control at the study intersections are provided in Figure C1 of Appendix C.
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 21
2 3 4 6 6 ,,,it
fi c '"'E cc
L'lll ~ r !:;l!l
l 1 1 _'4(9) )1 )1 L.t..,
-lt~ ,'II)
2(8)_ I I 5 {15}- ( 91""---' I I
~ fi " ~ ,.
g-
7 9 FUTURE IIITERSECTOl 10 11 12 FUTURE INT RSECTIOO
jf '" fiE;: '"
l Ji L'I'1 -'('1)
11"---' I 1 I f
1('), t)19}-
~ !O: ~
13 FUTURE INTE SECTlOO ECTlON
~ ~ @i: L'(4) ft L'(21
"'..-- NOTE: 20% of residential trips 1 l ,nt"} ,60(10)
,,.s;"
, /' are assumed to be travelling
N ';('~ll.tlb) to and from locations within
"-,,- East Dublin ~r f(
Not to Scale !~
_ N
~-'" -
~'~ (
/ \
II
-_ J
i' -7
16%
LEGEND
. EXISTING INTERSECTION
o FUTURE INTERSECTION
EXISTING ROAD
FUTURE ROAD
XX AM PEAK HOUR VOLUME
(XX) PM PEAK HOUR VOLUME
"-- - -
---........
~
FIGURE 6
City of Dublin
Casamira Valley - Moller Property Development
PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT
July 17, 2006
~=~:-s.:..
-------------------
-
.. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
fi~ ~ 2 ~~ 3 ~[ 4 ~! !!
;; "I iii L'''I'521 5 E; L3041(313)
_S64{M7) 13~ Jl ~ ~ ~
Jll ,'''1>4'1 )1 ,"f'A{3S11 Jll
116(22J)~ 'I I( 1.1015 {981,--1 I( I( I"~")~
tl.f4(t,MJ)_ [ ~ ~ l[ ~~ 550(92'9)_
"Z~lIl, I....,,,,,, eC 432''''',
c - ~!
~ ~ i ! :;;
7 ~! ~ 9 FUTURE INTERSECTIOO 10 ~s
-. Q. L"I"I d
l.i::! 5: ;l; -
_255(121) J1 n :l
JI l ,"1("'" J 1
''''(fMI~ 'I I ( 331,ij-.J 'I I 1O.~,,)-.J
1&)(102)_ ~!H ~ [ .I~-
m''''I, ~ e ~ ,or I"'), 8l ~ .71"',
. ~ -
~ ~/"
."'"
\ ,7
';(~~~
N "
Not to Scale
..;;'~ -/
/ ,
QI
)
-7
-
- -
-
-
-
5 ~~ ~ $ ~~
LUIlS'1 "'lll iii LlItllOij H L'''I46ij
-101(739) )ll J1
1'51(125) ,"0111>) ,'62~"1
'I I( '''I''')~ If I(
!:H 1t4(151)_ ~~
"'I'M), d- el-
;i ! ~ 3& ~~
11 n 12 FUTURE INT RSECTlON
L"'(346) \l ~ LIl,,,)
!U Jl
JI -"f'JI
,Ur>! -m;t&')
I( I( '''I~
~~ ~Ii UI2M'~
!! !';
13 FUTURE INTE SECTION ECTlON
~'" L,(" L,("
it ,311"1 ,",<0)
I( I(
n ~l[
e.~
e~ 5i
il
LEGEND
. EXISTING INTERSECTION
o FUTURE INTERSECTION
EXISTING ROAD
FUTURE ROAD
XX AM PEAK HOUR VOLUME
(XX) PM PEAK HOUR VOLUME
\
Source: T JKM Transportation Consultants, "A Traffic Study for the Proposed Fallon Crossings Development", September 28,2005.
City of Dublin
FIGURE 7 Casamira Valley - Moller Property Development
BASELINE + PROJECT PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES
July 17, 2006
~=~=-.
-
-
11IIIII"'1_- ~ Kimley-Hom
~ ~ and Associates, Inc.
Baseline Plus Project Conditions
Table 4: Intersection Levels of Service - Baseline Plus Pro.ect Conditions
1 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.64 B 0.74 C
2 Hacienda Drive/l-580 Eastbound Ramps 0.67 B 0.61 B
3 Hacienda Drivell-580 Westbound Ramps 0.61 B 0.50 A
4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard 0.50 A 0.70 B
5 Santa Rita/l-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp- 0.70 B 0.71 C
Pimlico Drive
6 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps 0.62 B 0.75 C
7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.71 C 0.76 C
8 Tassajara Road/Fallon Road 0.67 B 0.50 A
9 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.44 A 0.42 A
10 EI Charro Road/l-580 Eastbound Ramps 0.07 A 0.10 A
11 Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps 0.22 A 0.37 A
12 Fallon Road/Street "En 0.09 A 0.14 A
13 T assajara Road/North Project Access 0.56 A 0.65 B
14 Tassajara Road/South Project Access 0.59 A 0.68 B
Under the Baseline Plus Project Conditions, all study intersections are expected to operate at
acceptable service levels. Traffic generated by the Project results in very small changes to V/C ratios
and no changes in LOS at the study intersections. No potentially significant impacts are identified for
this scenario.
5.5 Recommended Off-Site Project Improvements
The following Project specific off-site improvements are recommended to improve access and
operations related to proposed circulation features of the Project:
1. Based on traffic safety considerations, traffic signals should be installed to control traffic at
the two intersections providing access to and from the Project site.
2. Under Baseline Plus Project Conditions, for each northbound approach to intersections of
Tassajara Road/North Project Access Street and Tassajara Road/South Project Access
Street, one through lane and one exclusive 150-foot right-turn lane with a gO-foot taper
should be provided for Project traffic entering the site. For each southbound approach, one
through lane and an exclusive 150-foot left-turn lane with a gO-foot taper should be provided
for Project traffic entering the site. Each westbound approach should have an exclusive left-
turn lane and an exclusive 150-foot right-turn lane with a gO-foot taper for Project traffic
exiting the site. Each intersection should include a protected southbound left-turn phase.
3. The traffic signals at the two Project access intersections should be coordinated to optimize
traffic flow in the Project area. If possible, these intersections should be coordinated with the
future intersection of Tassajara Road/Fallon Road.
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1'-
t
I
I
I
I
I
I:'"
I'
'.
,-
I'
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~__~ Kmey-Hom
IIII....J ~ and Associales, Inc.
Baseline Plus Project Conditions
4. According to the site plan, the two Project access intersections are approximately 625 feet
apart, shorter than the minimum 750-foot spacing between signalized intersections desired
by the City. The proposed spacing of these intersections should be increased closer to 750
feet if topographical restrictions permit.
5.6 Site Access, Parking, and Circulation
The proposed site plan was supplied by the City and was used in the site access, parking, and
circulation evaluations (Ruggeri, Jensen, Azar & Associates. "Preliminary Site Plan - Casamira
Valley." September 20, 2005). As shown on Figure 2, Project access will be at two driveways on
Tassajara Road. Based on review of the Project design from the proposed site plan, no significant
Project impacts are expected in terms of site access and circulation. The following are design
recommendations to improve site access, parking, and circulation for the Project area.
Both North Project Access Street and South Project Access Street run roughly east-west and form
tee-intersections to the west with Tassajara Road. Based on the proposed site plan, both streets are
approximately 32 feet wide with one travel lane in each direction. Although the streets are not
completely straight and level, they may induce speeding due to their width and the large distance
between Tassajara Road and the majority of housing lots. Installing traffic calming devices in
accordance with the City's standards would be appropriate in controlling travel speeds.
According to the site plan, mid-block curb extensions ("chokers") are proposed in advance of all
houses in both directions of travel. The travel way is reduced to approximately 24 feet through the
chokers, which is sufficient width to accommodate emergency vehicles. If bicycle lanes are placed on
streets, chokers should be designed to allow bicyclists to pass unencumbered. Signage reading
"Driveways Ahead" may be posted in advance of houses to alert drivers of driveways and to serve as
another means to help reduce vehicle speeds and increase safety.
Assuming 12 feet each for two travel lanes on the 32-foot wide access roads, one 8-foot parking lane
can be accommodated along one side of each street; however, parking would be desirable only
adjacent to parcel driveways. Along the stretches of road where parking is not provided, the wide
roadway could induce speeding. An alternative lane configuration would be 12 feet each for two
travel lanes with 4-foot bicycle lanes on each side; however, grades greater than 10 percent would
likely discourage most riders from using provided bicycle lanes.
If speeding is observed along the Project access roads, additional traffic calming measures with the
chokers could help maintain appropriate speeds. Narrowing the travel lanes to 11 feet could help
reduce travel speeds.
Seventeen homes (Lots 1-17) will front North Project Access Street before the first connector street
between North Project Access Street and South Project Access Street. Seven homes (Lots 18-24)
will front South Project Access Street before this first connector street. These homes will be situated
on horizontal and vertical curves that may reduce stopping sight distance to driveways. Minimum
sight distances and other roadway geometry issues should be provided based on the City's design
standards and verified during the review process.
According to the site plan, roads providing access to Lots 37-186 on the eastern side of the Project
site will widen to approximately 36 feet. This width is sufficient to accommodate emergency vehicle
access. If 8-foot parking lanes are provided on both sides of the streets, the remaining 20 feet of
travel way should be sufficient to allow opposing vehicles to pass, given the expected low volumes on
the streets.
The minimum distance between all driveways should be 20 feet to allow for one parking space.
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 25
~__~ Kin1ey-Hom
-.......J ~ and Associates, Inc.
Buildout Conditions
6 BUILDOUT CONDITIONS
This scenario adds traffic from buildout Projects in Dublin, Pleasanton and Dougherty Valley, to the
Baseline Plus Project Conditions. Buildout Conditions are based on local general plans and
expected to be in place in Year 2025. Most of the discussion and conditions were taken from the
Fallon Crossings traffic study.
6.1 Introduction
City staff provided a list of buildout Projects as shown in Table C3 of Appendix C. AIl of these land
uses are included in the new DTDM. The DTDM was used to forecast traffic volumes under Buildout
Conditions (Year 2025).
6.2 Buildout Roadway Improvements
Additional roadway improvements beyond those discussed previously in this report are planned within
the study area and are assumed in the Buildout Conditions analysis. They include the following:
Dublin Bou/evardlTassajara Road Capacity Improvements - Addition of two westbound left-turn
lanes, one through lane and one right-turn lane; two northbound through lanes; one eastbound
through lane; and one southbound left-turn lane. Some of these improvements have been
constructed, but not open to traffic (Eastern Dublin TIF improvement).
Scarlett Drive Extension - Extension of Scarlett Drive from Dublin Boulevard north to Dougherty Road
and associated intersection improvements at Dublin Boulevard/Scarlett Drive and Dougherty
Road/Scarlett Drive (Eastern Dublin TIF improvement).
Dublin Bou/evard/Hacienda Drive Capacity Improvements - Addition of one westbound right-turn lane
and conversion of a northbound right-turn lane to a third through lane (Eastern Dublin T1F
improvement).
Hacienda Drive/I-S8D Westbound Off-ramp Capacity Improvements - Widening of the northbound
Hacienda overpass to four lanes to accommodate an exclusive lane leading to the 1-580 westbound
loop on-ramp. Addition of one shared right/left-turn lane on the off-ramp approach (Eastern Dublin
T/F improvement).
Hacienda Drive//-58D Eastbound off-ramp capacity improvement - Addition of one shared right/left-
turn lane on the off-ramp approach (Eastern Dublin TIF improvement).
Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road Capacity Improvement - Addition of ultimate improvements as
identified on pages 158, 159 and 167 of the Transit Center Draft EIR and page 3.6-17 of the East
Dublin Properties Draft Supplemental EIR. Both EIRs were certified in connection with related Project
approvals. These improvements are expected to occur with the full development of the Transit
Center Project (Eastern Dublin T1F Improvement).
Under this scenario, Dublin Boulevard (six lanes) is assumed to be extended to North Canyons
Parkway in Livermore, and Central Parkway (two or four lanes) is assumed to be extended to east of
Fallon Road. Phase II Fallon Road interchange improvements are also assumed to be in place for
Buildout Conditions.
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ -_r1I Kimley-Hom
~ ~ and Associates, Inc.
Buildout Conditions
Proiect Access Intersections
Under Buildout Conditions, each Project access intersection with Tassajara Road will have the
following lane configurations:
. Northbound approach: three through lanes and one right-turn lane.
. Southbound approach: one left-turn lane and three through lanes.
. Westbound approach: one left-turn lane and one right-turn lane.
6.3 level of Service Analysis (Buildout Conditions)
Figure 8 shows the forecasted tuming movement volumes for Buildout Conditions. Table 5
summarizes the results of the LOS analysis. The lane geometry assumptions and intersection control
at the study intersections under Buildout Conditions are provided in Figure C2 of Appendix C. The
detailed LOS calculations are contained in Appendix G.
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 27
'" 2 ~ 3 H 4 ~~ ~ 5 ~ 6 is:
-.... L30llij LU3lslIJ L",l"l h~ L,cI1(SI'J) Le02(515)
Ii! ~" 6~ ."
~~ !Hi ~ w. ~ If" 'i !~
---t.&51 (1.711) - ~ _t.671ltffl
Jjl ,"'Q'~ JI Jl ,"'''1,,292) JI l ,'91Q"1 Jll ,"'tIn, JI ,'16r.A31
"'tID)~ I I r l,.ul164S1~ I ( I( 2011346)~ I l( 60111.OS1)~ l( l(
1.162(1.4551_ ~!H Iii" Nli[ 83S11.<<4)~ ~ ~ g 135(19)_ i~ H
"'r.<I', . "- " -.
~ ~ ~ l!i6135ij, "ill "'" ZU(32Ot, a S ~ "''''1, "" "it
~<n !J ;; ~~ ~ .
.. :0
7 Iii 9 FUTURE INTERSECTION 10 !~ 11 ~! 12 FUTURE INT RSECTIOO
~:; <c lr ~ ~ L"'I!1l' L "1 (l.ott) ! !
Ol~ g !j !j at'! L191'11
Jll _',.c49{Mt) J I Jl -01>1 Jl
JI l ,"'IVnij ,3111"'> _602(1,3111
12'~~ I I ( "I""'~ Il( t,13014871~ l( I ( '(")~
29&(1130)_ ~H 450(1,<<61_ ~~i 0(0)_ H ~g '.1I1(964)_
216Q<5I, 218(1011, IS Co ';;' 617161ij, " III
m ~ L1 ~ ;:\ ~ em
~ . ~ -
13 FUTURE INTE SECTIOO ECTION
~ L'I') L'(ij
~ '"
",/ ee
.~ Il ,)71") ,"'I,,!
\ ,/
',,,,~~~
N ....- t( I r
Not to Scale H ~~
,,~ "0
!I ~ ~
::!
'------ ..~
--...
LEGEND
. EXISTING INTERSECTION
o FUTURE INTERSECTION
EXISTING ROAD
FUTURE ROAD
XX AM PEAK HOUR VOLUME
(XX) PM PEAK HOUR VOLUME
t
\
Source: T JKM Transportation Consultants, "A Traffic Study for the Proposed Fallon Crossings Development", September 28, 2005.
City of Dublin
FIGURE 8 Casamira Valley - Moller Property Development
YEAR 2025 BUILDOUT TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES
July 17, 2006
~=~:'I.:.m
- --
-
-
- -
- ..
- -
-
- -
-
- - --
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
JIIIII"'1-_11n1 Kimley-Hom
~ ~ and Associates, Inc.
Buildout Conditions
Table 5: Intersection Levels of Service - Buildout Conditions
1 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.77 C 0.93 E
2 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Ramps 0.81 D 0.60 A
3 Hacienda Drivell-580 Westbound Ramps 0.79 C 0.65 B
4 Hacienda DrivelDublin Boulevard 0.86 D 0.84 D
Santa Rita/I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp- 0.81 D 0.95 E
5 Pimlico Drive
- With third eastbound left-turn lane 0.75 C 0.84 D
6 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps 0.71 C 0.71 C
7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.89 D 0.80 C
8 Tassajara Road/Fallon RoadlProject Access 0.50 A 0.82 D
9 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.76 C 0.89 D
10 EI Charro Roadll-580 Eastbound Ramps 0.59 A 0.49 A
11 Fallon Roadll-580 Westbound Ramps 0.64 B 0.66 B
12 Fallon Road/Street "E" 0.42 A 0.40 A
13 Tassajara Road/North Project Access 0.62 B 0.58 A
14 Tassajara Road/South Project Access 0.64 B 0.59 B
Source: T JKM Transportation Consultants. 'A Traffic Study for the Proposed Fallon Crossings Development' September 28, 2005 for Intersection ID 1-12.
Under the Buildout Conditions, operations at the two Project access intersections are expected to be
acceptable. The intersections of Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard and Santa Rita Road/I-580
Eastbound Ramps-Pimlico Drive are expected to operate unacceptably at LOS E during the PM peak
hour, as described below.
Cumulative Imoact 1
The Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS E (v/e = 0.93) during the
PM peak hour under Buildout Conditions (including the Project). This LOS represents a significant
cumulative impact.
Mitiqation Measure 1
Improvements at the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection are included in
the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program. The Project is required to make
its fair share payment of impact fees for these improvements.
The Project developer shall advance to the City applicable monies for acquisition of
right-of-way and construction of the improvements assumed in this study for the
intersection of Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road: The amount of money advanced to
the City shall be based on the developer's fair share of the deficit (spread over those
Projects that are required to make up the deficit) between funds available to the City
from Category 2 Eastern Dublin TIF funds and the estimated cost of acquiring the
right-of-way and constructing the improvements. The City will provide credit for
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 29
11""1-_ ~ Kimley-Hom
IIIII...J ~ and Associates, Inc.
Buildout Conditions
Category 2 Eastern Dublin TIF to the developer for any advance of monies made for
the improvements planned for the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection.
Additional improvements to improve the LOS at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection to
an acceptable level (LOS D or better) under Buildout Conditions would require adding a fourth
northbound left-turn lane on Dougherty Road. Allowing four lanes of traffic to perform a left-turn
movement simultaneously would raise major concerns regarding the safety of such an operation.
Moreover, additional improvements to reduce traffic impacts at this intersection are not feasible given
the physical constraints at the intersection. On a periodic basis, the City should monitor the
operations of Dougherty RoadlDublin Boulevard, as well as other intersections at the 1-580
interchanges, during the PM peak hour. Level of service analysis for this intersection should be
updated as forecasted peak hour volumes become available.
Therefore, the impact at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection under Buildout Conditions
remains a significant cumulative impact.
Cumulative Impact 2
The Santa Ritall-580 Eastbound Ramps intersection would operate at LOS E (V/C = 0.95) during the
PM peak hour under Buildout Conditions (including the Project). This LOS represents a significant
cumulative impact.
Widening the eastbound off-ramp approach to include three left turn lanes, one through lane. and one
free right turn lane at the intersection of Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramps-Pimlico Drive is
expected to improve the intersection level of service to LOS D during the PM peak hour.
Mitiaation Measure 2
The Project developer shall contribute a pro-rata share of the cost to improve the
intersection of Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp-Pimlico Drive to include a
third left-turn lane for the eastbound off-ramp approach at this intersection and other
downstream improvements including modifications to the striping on the northbound
lanes of the Tassajara Road/I-580 overpass to accept traffic from the third left-turn lane
and maintain three northbound through lanes at the Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound
Ramps intersection.
The current Eastern Dublin TIF program does not include this improvement; however. the program
will be amended in 2006 to include this improvement. With this improvement, the impact at the Santa
Ritall-580 Eastbound Ramps intersection under Buildout Conditions will be reduced to a less-than-
significant level.
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~-_ r1I KimIey-Hom
~ ~ and Associates, Inc.
Roadway Segment Analysis
7 ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS
Roadway segment analysis was conducted to determine the number of through lanes that would be
needed to have various roadway segments operate at acceptable levels of service for all study
scenarios. Existing ADT and Buildout ADT were obtained from the Fallon Crossings report.
In general, ADT volumes for existing and future scenarios were estimated by assuming that the PM
peak hour volumes were equivalent to 10 percent of daily volumes. The daily trips from the proposed
Project are based on the appropriate ITE daily trip rate. Table 6 presents the ADT on Tassajara
Road (where the majority of the Project trips are expected to travel) under Existing, Baseline,
Baseline Plus Project, and Buildout Conditions. Figure 9 also presents the same data in graphed
formal
1. Northbound Tassajara Road
between Interstate-580 and Dublin 11,920 21,700 22,260 30,300
Boulevard
2. Tassajara Road between Dublin 18,260 33,900 34,880 48,800
Boulevard and Gleason Drive
3. Tassajara Road between Gleason 14,540 30,760 32,230 40,450
Drive and North Dublin Ranch Drive
4. Tassajara Road between North 6,8501
Dublin Ranch Drive and Northern 18,630 20,100 32,650
Access for Dublin Ranch West
5. Tassajara Road between Northern
Access for Dublin Ranch West and 6,850 13,140 14,610 27,060
Fallon Road
6. Tassajara Road between Fallon 6,850 12,030 13,760 26,430
Road and County Limit
Notes: From machine counts taken in May 2005.
Recommended Off-Site Proiect Improvements
1. The projected ADT for the segment of Tassajara Road between Fallon Road and the County
Limit is 13,760 vpd under Baseline Plus Project Conditions. This volume approaches the
15,000 vpd maximum threshold standard for two-lane roadways. Because the Casamira
Valley Project is located directly adjacent to this roadway segment and will contribute to the
projected ADT on this segment, the Casamira Valley Project should construct this widening.
2. The projected ADT for the segment of Tassajara Road between Northern Access for Dublin
Ranch West and Fallon Road is 14,610 vpd under Baseline Plus Project Conditions. This
volume approaches the 15,000 vpd maximum threshold standard for two-lane roadways.
The Fallon Crossings report recommended that the Fallon Crossings developers widen this
roadway segment from two lanes to four lanes. Because the Casamira Valley Project will
contribute to the projected ADT on this segment, the Casamira Valley Project should
construct this widening in the event that this Project is developed prior to the Fallon
Crossings Project.
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page31
~__.,. Kimley-Hom
IIII.J ~ and Associates, Inc.
Roadway Segment Analysis
3. The projected ADT for the segment of Tassajara Road between North Dublin Ranch Drive
and Northern Access for Dublin Ranch West is 18,630 vpd under Baseline Conditions and
20,100 vpd under Baseline Plus Project Conditions. These volumes exceed the 15,000 vpd
maximum threshold standard for two-lane roadways. The Dublin Ranch West report
recommended that the Dublin Ranch West developers widen this roadway segment from two
lanes to four lanes. Because the Casamira Valley Project will contribute to the projected ADT
on this segment, the Casamira Valley Project should construct this widening in the event that
this Project is developed prior to the Dublin Ranch West Project.
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- -
Segment 1
Segment 2
Segment 3
Segment 4
Segment 5
Segment 6
~
~
x
"
g
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
- -
- --
-
NB Tassajara Road between
1-580 and Dublin Blvd.
Tassajara Road between Dublin
Blvd. and Gleason Dr.
Tassajara Road between Gleason
Dr. and N. Dublin Ranch Dr.
Tassajara Road between N. Dublin
Ranch Dr. and Northem Access
for Dublin Ranch West
Tassajara Road between
Northern Access for Dublin
Ranch West and Fallon Rd.
Tassajara Road between Fallon
Rd. and County Limit
~
Q
S
0(
-
-
Segment 5
6,850
13,140 ~1/
"'..
14,610 \\ 14
27,060 \ ~
Segment 6
----
./ ........ 6,850
LEGEND
. EXISTING INTERSECTION
o FUTURE INTERSECTION
EXISTING ROAD
FUTURE ROAD
12,030
13,760
26,430
",:-
~~'7
~'7
'- /
'- ,../ ",,< Segment4
1Z"~IO,,~
_ _ '~'--.. 6,850
........
ADT (Vehicles per Day)
Existing
Baseline
Baseline + Project
B i1dout
Segment 3
14,540
30,760
32,230
40,450
18,630
20,100
32,650
<p'~ - 7
~~y
"/
/ I
I \
~\
0(
~)
GLEASON m
------I
Q
g
I
------ -,
"
---------
'.....-
/ " Segment 2
Segment 1 /' 18,260
--
11,920 33,900
21,700 34,880 ~
22,260 48,800
30,300 N
Not to Scale
Source: T JKM Tra sportatlon Consultants, "A Traffic Study for the Proposed Fallon Crossings Development", September 28, 2005.
City of Dublin
FIGURE 9 Casamira Valley - Moller Property Development
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ON TASSAJARA ROAD
~=~::J::.-
July 17, 2006
~__n Kimley-Hom
~ U and Associa1es, Inc.
Freeway Analysis
8 FREEWAY ANALYSIS
Buildout volumes with the proposed Project were taken directly from the Fallon Crossings report.
Trips generated by the Casamira Valley Project were subtracted from these buildout volumes to
determine freeway volumes without the proposed Project.
Evaluation of freeway levels of service is a different process than intersection levels of service. Level
of service for freeways is based upon peak hour traffic volumes (number of passenger cars per hour).
In practice as in theory, volume, density and speed are directly correlated, and the analyst can
calculate anyone of these factors knowing the other two. Traffic flow is used as the basis for freeway
levels of service and for calculating the impacts of the Project on 1-580 and 1-680 operations in 2030.
Based on Caltrans guidelines, Year 2030 is used for this freeway analysis under future traffic
conditions.
The forecasts for Year 2030 conditions were derived by applying a straight-line increase of 10 percent
to the forecasted volumes for the Year 2025 conditions. The 10 percent increase is based on an
assumed growth rate of two percent per year for a five-year period. This figure was derived by
examining both past and projected growth rates along the 1-580 corridor. For the period 1994 to 2004
annual traffic increases on 1-580 at the Project site were 2.47 percent, based on annual count
information available from Caltrans. There is a 2.13 percent annual growth rate in the 1-580 corridor
between 2003 (measured counts) and 2025 (CCTA model). Two percent was selected for the next
five years (2025 to 2030) based on the premises that the rate of growth is slightly declining and the 1-
580 corridor is experiencing increasing levels of congestion.
The Project trips were added to the forecasted volumes to estimate the Year 2030 Plus Project
volumes. Table 7 summarizes the forecasted volumes and expected levels of service for two
scenarios in 2030: conditions without the Project and conditions with the Project.
Traffic from development in Eastern Dublin was identified as a significant unavoidable cumulative
impact on Interstate-580 in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impacts 3.3/E and 3.3/B).
Even without the proposed Project, the study mainline segments along 1-580 and 1-680 in the vicinity
of the Project site would operate unacceptably under Year 2030 conditions. The addition of the
Project trips to these freeway segments would be considered a significant unavoidable cumulative
impact.
The Project is required to pay for its proportionate share of impacts to 1-580 and 1-680, by payment of
TVfD Fees to construct planned freeway improvements, including HOV lanes, auxiliary lanes, and
interchange improvements. The Project will also pay for its proportionate share toward public
transportation improvements to help reduce traffic on the freeways and other roadways in the Tri-
Valley Area, by payment of the TVfD Fee; two of the improvements to be funded by the TVfD Fees
are the West Dublin BART Station and the Express Bus Service from Livermore to the East Dublin
BART station.
The Project's contribution of additional traffic to local freeways would be consistent with what was
originally analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, since the number of trips that would be generated from
the proposed development is consistent with the approved General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan. No additional impact beyond the analyses of the Eastern Dublin EIR or subsequent
supplemental EIRs is identified.
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~__... Kimley-Hom
~ ~ and Associates, Inc.
Freeway Analysis
1-580, 1-680 to Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road
Eastbound 9,200 6,608 D 6,776 D 6,617 6,806 D
Westbound 11,500 7,861 D 8,427 D 7,888 8,445 D
1-580, Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road to Hacienda Drive
Eastbound 14,800 11,423 D 11,181 D 11,432 D
Westbound 10,200 10,513 F 10,780 F 10,540 F
1-580, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road
Eastbound 11,500 9,501 D 11,490 F
Westbound 10,200 11,324 F 10,420 F
1-580, Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road to Fallon Road/EI Charro Road
Eastbound 10,200 8,323 D 10,252 F F
Westbound 10,200 8,953 D 8,102 D D
1-580, Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard
Eastbound 10,200 7,979 D 10,588 F
Westbound 10,200 8,698 D 7,778 D
1-680, Alcosta Boulevard to 1-580
Northbound 9,200 D 7,774 D
Southbound 9,200 F 8,927 E
1-680, 1-580 to Stoneridge Drive
Northbound 6,900 6,007 D 6,971 F 6,009 D 6,975 F
Southbound 7,900 7,370 E 6,958 E 7,374 E 6,960 E
Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Chapter 23, Exhibit23.2, LOS Criteria for Basic Freeway Segments
Maximum Service Flow Rate for freeway segments=2,300 vehicles/hr/lane, aux.=Auxiliary Lane
If number of lanes on freeway segment= N+aux., capacity of segment=(N*2300+1 000) vehicleslhr
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 35
~=~ ~~:nia1eS, Inc. Baseline Plus Project Alternative Conditions
9 BASELINE PLUS PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Developers of the Casamira Valley Residential Project submitted a request to the City of Dublin to
study an alternative site plan and land use (the "Project alternative"). The Project alternative would
include 326 attached town homes to be built on the Project site. The City has requested that Kimley-
Horn identify impacts to transportation and recommend Project improvements for the proposed
Project alternative.
9.1 Introduction
This scenario adds trips generated by the proposed Casamira Valley Project alternative to conditions
in the Baseline Conditions presented in Chapter 4.
9.2 Project Trip Generation
Trip Generation, -jh Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), was used to
estimate the number of trips generated by the proposed Project alternative. Summarized in Table 8,
the Project alternative will generate 143 AM peak hour trips and 170 PM peak hour trips. By
comparison, the original proposed Project will generate 141 AM peak hour trips and 189 PM peak
hour trips.
Residential
Condominium! 326 5.86 1,910 0.07 0.37 24 119 143 0.35 0.17 114 56 170
Townhouse
Source: Trip Generation, 7th Edition, by ITE (Land Use Code 230)
The proposed Project alternative is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
and is not expected to generate more AM or PM peak hour trips than anticipated in the City's General
Plan; therefore, no additional traffic impact analysis of the Project alternative is required by the
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) to satisfy the Land Use Analysis
Program of the Alameda County Congestion Management Program (CMP).
9.3 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
Trip distribution and assignment assumptions for the Project alternative are based on those
presented in Chapter 5. Trip distribution and assignment assumptions used in Baseline Plus Project
Alternative Conditions are shown in detail in Figure 10. Appendix C contains turning movement
volumes under Baseline Plus Project Alternative Conditions for each study intersection.
9.4 Level of Service Analysis (Baseline Plus Project Alternative Conditions)
Figure 11 shows the forecasted turning movement volumes at the study intersections under the
Baseline Plus Project Alternative Conditions. Table 9 summarizes the results of the intersection level
of service analysis. Detailed calculations are contained in Appendix F.
The lane geometry and planned roadway improvements for this scenario would be the same as those
described for Baseline Conditions. The lane geometry assumptions and intersection control at the
study intersections are provided in Figure C1 of Appendix C.
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------------------
2 3 4 5 6 ~er
6:"-
E L'I'I N c ~!:!" :.;~ L'I141
l 1 _t5(1) Jl Jl
-11'1 ,'111
I I 3(15)- ( 1(J1J.-1 t ~
2(&)-
~ E E f>
;;-
7 8 URE INTERSEC1"t(J4 9 FUTURE INTERSECJ1Qj 10 11
E ~ '" Ji !
J I 1 Llill -3(16)
'1'1.-1 I I I
11'1, \5.(1)-
g !I g;; !'!
13 FUTURE INTE SECTlON ECTlON
~ ~ L'(ij L.(1)
~ NOTE: 20% of residential trips I L ,"In) ,"1321
are assumed to be travelling
to and from locations within
N East Dublin 1( t(
Not to Scale ~~ H
11
11
~
City of Dublin
FIGURE 10 Casamira Valley - Moller Property Development
PROJECT ALTERNATIVE TRIP ASSIGNMENT
LEGEND
. EXISTING INTERSECTION
o FUTURE INTERSECTION
EXISTING ROAD
FUTURE ROAD
xx AM PEAK HOUR VOLUME
(XX) PM PEAK HOUR VOLUME
\
~=~="m
July 17, 2006
~~ ~ 2 3 ~~ 4 g:! if 5 dFJ 6 ~!
;; ~ ~ L",(,,~ ~~ m ~ L)41(313) Luus,) "iil ii L>69~$'1 :;!!!l L'941151J
_8SS(Mfij JI ~ t ~ Jfl Jf
jll jl ) l -OO'P"1
,"'("'1 ,BOIJ(351) ,'51(125) ,'~(175) ,"'("~
t16{123'.-1 'II( 1.,tl6(t61'--.J I ( I ( 16'1'''1.-1 'I I ( 'os (M51.-1 l( Ir
6.4(1.~~I_ H H s.t8(929)_ ~n: ".(157)_ ~!l
"'1'"1, ~H "'1'11), ,Ii:
""'1'''', c- "'~"l, c~ dl::
;! ~ ~ ! N ~!l ~ ! ~ S V
'"
7 ~~ I'i 9 FUTURE INTERSEC!1OO 10 11 H 12 FUTURE INT RSECTlON
L"I"I i[~ ~!l L123(3(6) !'! !!:
~ ~ ~ l:; - u Jl LI1I"1
_255(1211 :;;i;j jj jl -t'~
jl l ,"'1""1 jl ,n~ -121(68)
1,"1""'.-1 'I I r 33(49).-1 'I I '''('''1.-1 I( I ( '~I.-1
180(1021_ ~ ~ ~ 0(01_
'''1'''1, "'(I1~, ~~ "1"1, H ~ft t"(rn) _
" c ~
. ~ - m ~ l!! I;;
13 FUTURE INTE SECTION ECTlON
~ ~ L.P1 L'I'I
~--- ill~
.'" II ,--"(2q ,"~
\ /'
'1'1'~4o"
N -""- Ir I (
Not to Scale U \H
t;!
"'~ *
it
vt-,,>Ji'~-I
"/
/ \
111
~
--7
--..'-------.... .~
LEGEND
. EXISTING INTERSECTION
o FUTURE INTERSECTION
EXISTING ROAD
FUTURE ROAD
XX AM PEAK HOUR VOLUME
(XX) PM PEAK HOUR VOLUME
\
\
Source: T JKM Transportation Consultants, "A Traffic Study for the Proposed Fallon CrOSSings Development", September 28,2005.
City of Dublin
FIGURE 11 Casamira Valley. Moller Property Development
BASELINE + PROJECT ALTERNATIVE PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES
July 17, 2006
~=~=-m
- --
-
- --
-
-
-
-
- --
- -
- --
I
I
I-
I'
I
I
I
I'.
I
I'
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~=~ ~~':~s, Inc. Baseline Plus Project Alternative Conditions
Table 9: Intersection Levels of Service - Baseline Plus Pro"ect Alternative Conditions
1 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard 0,64 B 0,74 C
2 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Ramps 0.67 B 0,61 B
3 Hacienda Drivell-580 Westbound Ramps 0.61 B 0.50 A
4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard 0,50 A 0.70 B
5 Santa Rita/I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp- 0.70 B 0.71 C
Pimlico Drive
6 Tassajara Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps 0.62 B 0.74 C
7 T assajara Road/Dublin Boulevard 0,72 C 0.76 C
8 Tassajara Road/Fallon Road 0.68 B 0.49 A
9 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.44 A 0.42 A
10 EI Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps 0.07 A 0,10 A
11 Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps 0.22 A 0.37 A
12 Fallon Road/Street"E" 0.09 A 0,14 A
13 Tassajara Road/North Project Access 0,56 A 0,64 B
14 Tassajara Road/South Project Access 0,60 A 0,68 B
Under the Baseline Plus Project Alternative Conditions, all study intersections are expected to
operate at acceptable service levels, Traffic generated by the Project alternative results in very small
changes to VIC ratios from Baseline Conditions and no changes in LOS at the study intersections.
The Project alternative results in changes to VIC ratios of no greater than 0.01 when compared to
results under Baseline Plus Project Conditions, No potentially significant impacts are identified for
this scenario.
9.5 Recommended Off-Site Project Improvements
Because intersection LOS results are nearly identical with the proposed Project and with the Project
alternative, the same off-site improvements presented in Chapter 5 are recommended for the
Baseline Plus Project Alternative Conditions,
9.6 Site Access, Parking, and Circulation
From discussions with City staff, no specific site plan has been developed for the Project alternative,
However, the two roads providing access to the site will remain the same, and no significant changes
to the on-site circulation are expected; therefore, the same improvements to site access, parking, and
circulation presented in Chapter 5 are recommended for the Baseline Plus Project Alternative
Conditions,
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 39
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
JIIIIII"1_" KimIey-Hom
IIIII.....J _ U and Associates, Inc.
Buildout With Project Alternative Conditions
10 BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS
This scenario adds traffic from buildout Projects in Dublin, Pleasanton and Dougherty Valley, to the
Baseline Plus Project Alternative Conditions. Buildout With Project Alternative Conditions are based
on local general plans and expected to be in place in Year 2025.
10.1 Introduction
City staff provided a list of buildout Projects as shown in Table C3 of Appendix C. All of these land
uses are included in the new DTDM. The DTDM was used to forecast traffic volumes under Buildout
Conditions (Year 2025), which included more conservative trip generation assumptions for the Moller
property than the proposed Project alternative.
10.2 Buildout Roadway Improvements
The same additional roadway improvements presented in Chapter 6 are assumed for the Buildout
With Project Alternative Conditions.
10.3 Level of Service Analysis (Buildout With Project Alternative Conditions)
The proposed Project alternative will generate 143 AM peak hour trips and 170 PM peak hour trips.
By comparison, the original proposed Project will generate 141 AM peak hour trips and 189 PM peak
hour trips. Because the Project alternative will generate nearly the same number of trips as the
original proposed Project, the LOS analysis results presented in Chapter 6 are applicable to Buildout
With Project Alternative Conditions.
The proposed Project alternative is expected to have the same impacts to intersections as the original
proposed Project; therefore, the mitigation measures discussed in Chapter 6 are recommended under
Buildout With Project Alternative Conditions,
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~-_n Kimley-Hom
~ U and Associates, Inc.
Roadway Segment Analysis
. With Project Alternative
11 ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS WITH PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Roadway segment analysis was conducted for Baseline Plus Project Alternative and Buildout With
Project Alternative Conditions following the same methodology in Chapter 7, Table 10 presents the
ADT on Tassajara Road (where the majority of the Project trips are expected to travel) under Existing,
Baseline, Baseline Plus Project, and Buildout Conditions. Figure 12 also presents the same data in
graphed fonnat.
Table 10: Roadwa S ment ADT with Pro.eet Alternative
1. Northbound Tassajara Road
between Interstate-580 and Dublin 11,920 21,700 22,290 30,330
Boulevard
2, Tassajara Road between Dublin 18,260 33,900 34,940 48,860
Boulevard and Gleason Drive
3. Tassajara Road between Gleason 14,540 30,760 32,310 40,530
Drive and North Dublin Ranch Drive
4. Tassajara Road between North 6,8501
Dublin Ranch Drive and Northern 18,630 20,180 32,730
Access for Dublin Ranch West
5, Tassajara Road between Northern
Access for Dublin Ranch West and 6,850 13,140 14,690 27,140
Fallon Road
6. Tassajara Road between Fallon 6,850 12,030 13,860 26,530
Road and County Limit
Notes: From machine counts taken in May 2005,
The Project alternative will add more vehicles onto each study roadway segment than the original
proposed Project, based on the daily trip generation rates,
Recommended Off-Site Proiect Imorovements
Because the Project alternative will not result in a significant change in ADT from the original
proposed Project, the same off-site improvements presented in Chapter 7 are recommended for the
Project alternative scenario,
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 1006
Page 41
Segment 1
Segment 2
Segment 3
Segment 4
Segment 5
Segment 6
lil
;
"
:>
o
o
NB Tassajara Road between
1-580 and Dublin Blvd.
Tassajara Road between Dublin
Blvd, and Gleason Dr,
Tassajara Road between Gleason
Dr. and N, Dublin Ranch Dr,
Tassajara Road between N. Dublin
Ranch Dr. and Northern Access
for Dublin Ranch West
Tassajara Road between
Northern Access for Dublin
Ranch West and Fallon Rd,
Tassajara Road between Fallon
Rd, and County Umit
GLEASON OR
lil
9
o
~
<(
Segment 5
6,850
13,140 ~131
c>'"
14,690 \\14
27,140 \ ~
Segment 6
---
./' '- 6,850
LEGEND
. EXISTING INTERSECTION
o FUTURE INTERSECTION
EXISTING ROAD
FUTURE ROAD
12,030
13,860
26,530
..;./"
4t/",~7
.,'9'
, /
',../, Segment 4
12"~~lil/o
_ _ 2.'-_... 6,850
-- -...
ADT (Vehicles per Day)
Existing
Baseline
Baseline + Project Alternative
Build t With Project Alternative
Segment 3
14,540
30,760
32,310
40,530
18,630
20,180
32,730
<f>'~ - 7
~~~y
"/
/
/
I
\
~I
5)
J
----,
I
Ii
I
......
"
---------
.....-
/ 5
Segment 1 /' ,p
-- ~~.
11,920 .,1.
21,700
22,290
30,330
" Segment 2
18,260
33,900
34,940
48,860
~
N
Not to Scale
Source: T JKM Tra sportatlon Consultants, "A Traffic Study for the Proposed Fallon Crossings Development", September 28, 2005.
City of Dublin
FIGURE 12 Casamira Valley - Moller Property Development
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) WITH PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
- --
July 17, 2006
~=~="m
-
-
--..,
- -
-
-
- --
- -
- -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~-_1InI KimIey-Hom
~ ~ and Associales, Inc.
Freeway Analysis with Project Alternative
12 FREEWAY ANALYSIS WITH PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Freeway segment analysis was conducted with the Project alternative following the same
methodology in Chapter 8, Table 11 summarizes the forecasted volumes and expected levels of
service for two scenarios in 2030: without the Project alternative and with the Project alternative.
0
0
0
F
F
F
F
0
F
0
0
E
6,971 F 6,975 F
E
Traffic from development in Eastern Dublin was identified as a significant unavoidable cumulative
impact on Interstate-S80 in the Eastern Dublin ErR (Impacts 3.3/E and 3.3/8),
Even without the proposed Project alternative, the study mainline segments along 1-580 and 1-680 in
the vicinity of the Project site would operate unacceptably under Year 2030 conditions, The addition
of the alternative Project trips to these freeway segments would be considered a significant
unavoidable cumulative impact.
The alternative Project is required to pay for its proportionate share of impacts to 1-580 and 1-680, by
payment of TVTD Fees to construct planned freeway improvements, including HOV lanes, auxiliary
lanes, and interchange improvements, The alternative Project will also pay for its proportionate share
toward public transportation improvements to help reduce traffic on the freeways and other roadways
in the Tri-Valley Area, by payment of the TVTD Fee; two of the improvements to be funded by the
Casamira vaUey Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 43
~-_1nI Kimley-Hom
~ ~ and Associa1es, Inc.
Freeway Analysis with Project Alternative
TVTD Fees are the West Dublin BART Station and the Express Bus Service from Livermore to the
East Dublin BART station.
The alternative Project's contribution of additional traffic to local freeways would be consistent with
what was originally analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, since the number of trips that would be
generated from the proposed development is consistent with the approved General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, No additional impact beyond the analyses of the Eastern Dublin EIR or
subsequent supplemental EIRs is identified.
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 44
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~-_n Kirnley-Hom
IIIII..J U and Associates, Inc.
Conclusions
13 CONCLUSIONS
The following points summarize the traffic impacts outlined above resulting from the proposed
Casamira Valley development:
. The proposed Project is expected to generate 141 AM peak-hour trips and 189 PM peak-hour
trips.
. Because the Project is consistent with the City of Dublin General Plan, it is not expected to
generate more AM or PM peak hour trips than the City's General Plan. As a result, no
additional traffic impact analysis of the Project is required by the Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency (ACCMA) to satisfy the Land Use Analysis Program of the Alameda
County Congestion Management Program (CMP),
. Currently, all existing study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service.
. All study intersections are expected to continue to operate acceptably under Baseline
Conditions.
. All study intersections are expected to operate acceptably under Baseline Plus Project
Conditions,
. Under Buildout Conditions, the intersections of Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard and Santa
Rita Road/I-S80 Eastbound Off-Ramp are expected to operate unacceptably during the PM
peak hour, as described below.
. The proposed Project alternative is expected to generate 143 AM peak-hour trips and 170
PM peak-hour trips. The Project alternative is expected to have the same impacts to
intersections, roadway segments, and freeway segments as the original proposed Project.
No additional traffic impact analysis of the Project alternative is required by ACCMA.
Cumulative Imoacts and Mitiaations
Required mitigation measures for Buildout and Buildout With Project Alternative Conditions, as
included in the Fallon Crossings report, are described below. All references to the "Project" include
the original proposed Project and the Project alternative, No additional mitigations are required as
part of the analysis for the Casamira Valley Project.
1. The Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS E (V/C = 0.93)
during the PM peak hour under Buildout Conditions (including the Project), This LOS
represents a significant cumulative impact.
Mitigation Measure 1. Improvements at the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road
intersection are included in the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program. The
Project is required to make its fair share payment of impact fees for these
improvements.
The Project developer shall advance to the City applicable monies for acquisition of
right-of-way and construction of the improvements assumed in this study for the
intersection of Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road. The amount of money advanced to
the City shall be based on the developer's fair share of the deficit (spread over those
Projects that are required to make up the deficit) between funds available to the City
from Category 2 Eastern Dublin TIF funds and the estimated cost of acquiring the
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 45
~-_r1I Kimley-Hom
~ ~ and Associates, Inc.
Conclusions
right-of-way and constructing the improvements. The City will provide credit for
Category 2 Eastern Dublin TIF to the developer for any advance of monies made for
the improvements planned for the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection.
Additional improvements to improve the LOS at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard
intersection to an acceptable level (LOS D or better) under Buildout Conditions would require
adding a fourth northbound left turn lane on Dougherty Road. Allowing four lanes of traffic to
perform a left turn movement simultaneously would raise major concerns regarding the safety
of such an operation. Moreover, additional improvements to reduce traffic impacts at this
intersection are not feasible given the physical constraints at the intersection. On a periodic
basis, the City should monitor the operations of Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, as well as
other intersections at the 1-580 interchanges, during the PM peak hour. Level of service
analysis for this intersection should be updated as forecasted peak hour volumes become
available.
Therefore, the impact at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection under Buildout
Conditions remains a significant cumulative impact.
2. The Santa Ritall-580 Eastbound Ramps intersection would operate at LOS E 01/C = 0.95)
during the PM peak hour under Buildout Conditions (including the Project), This LOS
represents a significant cumulative impact.
Adding a third left turn lane for the eastbound off-ramp approach at the intersection of Santa
Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps is expected to improve the intersection level of service to
LOS D during the PM peak hour under Buildout Conditions.
Mitigation Measure 2. The Project developer shall contribute a pro-rata share of the
cost to improve the intersection of Santa Rita Roadll-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp-Pimlico
Drive to include a third left-turn lane for the eastbound off-ramp approach at this
intersection and other downstream improvements including modifications to the
striping on the northbound lanes of the Tassajara Road/I-580 overpass to accept traffic
from the third left-turn lane and maintain three northbound through lanes at the
Tassajara Roadll-580 Westbound Ramps intersection.
The current Eastern Dublin TIF program does not include this improvement; however, the
program will be amended in 2006 to include this improvement. With this improvement, the
impact at the Santa Rita/I-580 Eastbound Ramps intersection under Buildout Conditions will
be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
3, With the proposed Project traffic added to Year 2030 No Project mainline freeway volumes,
projected LOS on 1-580 and 1-680 would remain unchanged, However, with a projected LOS
F on various segments of 1-580 and 1-680, Project trips would be adding to an already
deficient condition. These specific segments would not meet the ACCMA monitoring
standard of LOS E during the AM or PM peak hour. This is considered a significant
cumulative impact.
Although efficiency improvements (such as HOV Lanes) and expanded pUblic transportation
could be added in the 1-580 corridor, little or no additional freeway capacity for single-
occupant vehicles is planned, Actions to encourage alternative travel modes include
advocating HOV lanes on 1-580, extending BART to Livermore, implementing the 1-580 Smart
Corridor approach (including adaptive signal timing, transit priority systems, incident
management, and ramp metering), and supporting other major investments in transit. In
addition, the City of Dublin plans to construct the Dublin Boulevard extension to North
Canyons Parkway in Livermore as a six-lane parallel arterial that will provide additional lane
capacity along the 1-580 corridor.
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 46
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1IIIIII""'l__" Kimley-Hom
~ U and Associates, Inc.
Conclusions
Mitigation Measure 3. The Project is required to pay the Tri-Valley Transportation
Development (TVTD) Fee for its proportionate share of 1-580 and 1-680 improvements,
including HOV lanes, auxiliary lanes, and interchange improvements. The Project will
also pay its proportionate share toward public transportation improvements (e.g., West
Dublin BART Station and Express Bus Service from Livermore to East Dublin BART
Station) by payment of the TVTD Fee.
Even though the above improvements will ameliorate traffic conditions on 1-580 and 1-680 in
the Tri-Valley, they will not mitigate the contribution of projected traffic demand from the
Project on these freeways to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the impact on the
freeway system of 1-580 and 1-680 in the Project area remains a significant, unavoidable
cumulative impact, and no additional impact beyond the analyses of the Eastern Dublin EIR
or subsequent supplemental EIRs is identified.
Recommended Proiect Improvements
The following sections present measures that are not required as CEQA mitigations, but will improve
the Project's circulation and access and assure compliance with applicable City design and operation
standards and policies. '
Off-Site Project Improvements
1, Based on traffic safety considerations, traffic signals should be installed to control traffic at
the two intersections providing access to and from the Project site.
2. Under Baseline Plus Project Conditions, for each northbound approach to intersections of
Tassajara Road/North Project Access Street and Tassajara Road/South Project Access
Street, one through lane and one exclusive 150-foot right-turn lane with a gO-foot taper
should be provided for Project traffic entering the site. For each southbound approach, one
through lane and an exclusive 150-foot left-turn lane with a gO-foot taper should be provided
for Project traffic entering the site. Each westbound approach should have an exclusive left-
turn lane and an exclusive 150-foot right-turn lane with a gO-foot taper for Project traffic
exiting the site, Each intersection should be controlled with a protected southbound left-turn
phase,
3, The traffic signals at the two Project access intersections should be coordinated to optimize
traffic flow in the Project area. If possible, these intersections should be coordinated with the
future intersection of Tassajara Road/Fallon Road.
4, According to the site plan, the two Project access intersections are approximately 625 feet
apart, shorter than the minimum 750-foot spacing between signalized intersections desired
by the City, The proposed spacing of these intersections should be increased closer to 750
feet if topographical restrictions permit.
5, The projected average daily traffic (ADT) for the segment of Tassajara Road between Fallon
Road and the County Limit is 13,760 vehicles per day (vpd) and 13,860 vpd under Baseline
Plus Project Conditions and Baseline Plus Project Alternative Conditions, respectively,
These volumes approach the 15,000 vpd maximum threshold standard for two-lane
roadways, Because the Casamira Valley Project is directly adjacent to this roadway segment
and will contribute to the projected ADT on this segment, the Casamira Valley Project should
construct this widening,
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 47
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Final Traffic Report
July 17, 2006
Page 48
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
......-J__ n KimIey-Hom
~ U and Associates, Inc.
Conclusions
6. The projected ADT for the segment of Tassajara Road between Northern Access for Dublin
Ranch West and Fallon Road is 14,610 vpd and 14,690 vpd under Baseline Plus Project
Conditions and Baseline Plus Project Alternative Conditions, respectively. These volumes
approach the 15,000 vpd maximum threshold standard for two-lane roadways, The Fallon
Crossings report recommended that the Fallon Crossings developers widen this roadway
segment from two lanes to four lanes, Because the Casamira Valley Project will contribute to
the projected ADT on this segment, the Casamira Valley Project should construct this
widening in the event that this Project or Project Alternative is developed prior to the Fallon
Crossings Project.
7, The projected ADT for the segment of Tassajara Road between North Dublin Ranch Drive
and Northern Access for Dublin Ranch West is 18,630 vpd under Baseline Conditions. The
projected ADT is 20,100 vpd and 20,180 vpd under Baseline Plus Project Conditions and
Baseline Plus Project Alternative Conditions, respectively. These volumes exceed the
15,000 vpd maximum threshold standard for two-lane roadways. The Dublin Ranch West
report recommended that the Dublin Ranch West developers widen this roadway segment
from two lanes to four lanes. Because the Casamira Valley Project will contribute to the
projected ADT on this segment, the Casamira Valley Project should construct this widening in
the event that this Project or Project Alternative is developed prior to the Dublin Ranch West
Project.
On-Site Project Improvements
1. If bicycle lanes are placed on streets, chokers should be designed to allow bicyclists to pass
unencumbered. Signage reading "Driveways Ahead" may be posted in advance of houses to
alert drivers of driveways to serve as another means to help reduce vehicle speeds and
increase safety,
2. If speeding is observed along the Project access roads, additional traffic calming measures to
the chokers could help maintain appropriate speeds. Narrowing the travel lanes to 11 feet
could help reduce travel speeds.
3, Seventeen homes (Lots 1-17) will front North Project Access Street before the first connector
street between North Project Access Street and South Project Access Street. Seven homes
(Lots 18-24) will front South Project Access Street before this first connector street. These
homes will be situated on horizontal and vertical curves that may reduce stopping sight
distance to driveways, Minimum sight distances and other roadway geometry issues should
be provided based on the City's design standards and verified during the review process.
4, The minimum distance between all driveways should be 20 feet to allow for one parking
space.
The annexation request for the proposed Project includes the Moller property and additional property
adjacent to the west (Tipper and Vargas properties), The Dublin Travel Demand Model used to
estimate traffic conditions in the study area under Year 2025 Buildout Conditions included trips
generated by the Tipper and Vargas properties in accordance with the City of Dublin General Plan.
As such, traffic impacts associated with the annexation Project included future development of all
three properties that will be subject to the annexation (Moller, Tipper, and Vargas properties).
Therefore, no additional traffic impacts or mitigations are required for the annexation Project beyond
those described in this study for the Casamira Valley Project.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ -.,.. Kimley-Hom
~_~ and Associates, Inc.
ApPENDIX A - LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY
SOURCE: T JKM TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS. "A TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THE
PROPOSED FALLON CROSSINGS DEVELOPMENT." SEPTEMBER 28, 2005.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
'. )
Ir
'" j
DESCRIPTION OF INTERSEC'I10N CAPACITY ANALYSIS
CCTA SIGNAUZED METHODOLOGY ,
11
".i. ~
I'~
....;, ;
I;
ri i
I;
'r." j
I~
I.... j
I;
~ ,
'" ~ .
I,
'~, j
I,
" ,
, .i
I,
..
~ j;
I
0.
l. ;
1-
'\;
I
a
.....J
I
"I
\....i
-
\.J
,
L.J
,
l.J
Background
The cerA intersection capacity, ~sis methodology is described in.detail in the Technical
Procedures Manual of the CerA, lanuary, 1991'. It is identical to the Orcul1a' 212 Planning ,
methodology ,except that the lane capacity has been increased from 1S00 vph to between 16S0 to
1800 vph based on .'saturation flow measurements taken at four intersections in Contra Costa
CountY. (See folloWing Table 9 from the Technical Procedures Manual)
on average, sataration flow rates for left-turn. lanes were wer ten percent lower than for through
laneS. However, insufficient data was collected to provide statistical accuracy foz: the averages.
Thus, saturation flow rates for through lanes are equ8J. to those for turn lanes.
1bis methodology dete1'Il$es the critical movement for each phase of traffic. It then sums the
critical vohune-to-capacity ratio by phase to determine the intersection volum~to-capacity ratio.
Circular 212, on the other hand, sums the critical movement'volumes themselves and. compares
them, to the total capacity of the intersection to detem1ine, in effect, the volume-to-capacity ratio
of the intersection as a whole.
Level of Service
The volume-to-capacity iatio is related ,to level of service (LOS). The following level of service
for'Sig11Ali7.ed Intersections depicts the relationship between the volt1,JiJ.~to-capacity ratio and level
of service. An intersection operating at capacity would operate at LOS E. Level of Service F is
not possible for existing conQitioDS, but can be forecasted for future conditions when volume
projections exceed existing capacities:
Input Data
The intemection capacity ,work sheets use a code to identify clifferem lane configUrations. This
nomenclature is described on the following Description of Lane Configurations. Right tum on
red adjustments are aCcounted for. as wen as unequal distribution of turn volumes in double turn
lanes. For more infonnation, see 'Circular 212 and the ccr A Technical Procedures Manual.
VOLUME TO MAXIMUM SUM OF CRITICAL VOLUMES
LOS CAPACITY RATIO 2-Phase ' 3-Phase 4+-Phase
A ~ 0~60 1,080 1,030 990
B 0.61 - 0.70 1,260 1,200 1,160
C 0.71 - 0.80 1,440 1,380 1,320
D 0.81 - 0.90 1,620 1,550 1,490
E 0.91 - 1.00 1,800 1,720 1,650
F ----------Not Applicable------
LEVEL OF SERVICE RANGES
Source: Contra Costa County Growth Management Program, Technical Procedures, Table 9.
cctavc.app
DESCRIPTION OF LANE CONFIGURATION FORMAT
The number 'or lanes and the use of the lanes is denoted with a special nomenclature described below: '
Lane Nomenclature
X. Y , ,Where X Denotes the total number of lanes available for 'a particulsr movement.
Y Denotes how the lanes are used. '
"
When Y Is . . . . . . The following applles:
I'~
0 ' 1.0 Jl. , A lane used eXClusively for a particular movement '(i.e. exclusive left-turn lane)
- 1.DT
II 1.0 L . '
~
I'~ A lane which is shared. that is, either of two differentmov(ments can be made
. ,
1 UR from a particular lane (i.e. a lane which is shared by through and ~ght-t1ml
..:- 2.1 T
. 1.0 L traffic).
II
I:~
2 *-,ii~ Denotes two or more through lanes in which two ~es are shared, one with
I : 1.1 L left-turil traffic, the other with right-turn tIaffic.
3 Denotes an expressway through,mQvement.
I'~
" '
4 . "- 1.4 R. Denotes a right-tmn movement from a wide outside lane where Ijght-tuin .
. I;' -,--' ~~,~ vehicles can bypass through traffic shariilg the 1ane to make a right-turn on red.
I:~
1.5 R. Denotes a: right-turn movement from an exclusive right-turn lane ,with a
5 ' 3::- ,2.0 T
" 1.0 L right-turn arrow and prohibition on the conflicting U-turn movement.
II
I:~ Denotes a right-turn movement from a shared lane with a right-turn mow and
6 ...UR.
~- . 3.1 T
- 1.0 L prohibition on the confiicitng U-turn movement.
II ,
7,8,9 Denotes a tuming movement which haia separate lane to turn into. as shown
below:
It:f J-;- 1.1 R. Turn lane which is shared with,a through lane or left-turn lane and under signal
17 2.1 T control, and. which has its ov.'l1lane to turn into. There must be at least two
,t:t 1,' L through lanes.
It:t~ Exclusive turn lane which is under signal control, and which has its own lane
UR
8 ~ 2.0T
It:t 1.0 L to turn into. "
't:tl~_ ~: Exclusive turn lane not under signal control and which has an exclusive lane to
9 turn into, often referred to as a "free" turn. Since the volumes in this lane do not
1.0 L conflict with other Intersection movements, the V/C ratio of the free right-tum
In movement is not included in the sum of critical V IC ratios.
1
"1
1
,
OhJ
- }
I
I
. 1
I
I'
<0. j
I'
< )
I
, 1
I
-. i
I
. }
I
, ,
I
. }
-
I
. ,
I
, J
I
. J
I
. J
I-
I
I
II
PART A. TWO-WAY STOP-CONTROLLED INTeRSECTIONS
I. INTRODUCTION'; PART A
In this section a methOdology for analyzing capacity and level of service of two-way
stop-controlled (l'WSC) intersections is presented.
II. METHODOLOGY,- PART A
Capacity analysis at TWSC intersections depends on a clear description and
understanding of the interaction of drivers on the minor or stop-controlled approach with
drivers on the major street Both gap acceptance and empirical models have been
developed to describe this interaction. Procedures described in this chapter rely on a gap
acceptance model developed and refined in Gennany (1). The concepts from this model
are described in Chapter 10. Exhibit 17-1 illustrates input to and the basic computation
order of the method described in this chapter.
LEVEL-OF-5ERViCE CRITERIA
Level of service (LOS) for a TWSC intersection is determined by the computed or
measUred control delay and is defined for each minor movement. LOS is not defined for
the intersection as a whole. LOS criteria are given in Exhibit 17-2.
, Both theoretical and empirical
approaches have been used
roamveatamethodorogy
LOS is not defined for the
overall intersection
Highway Capacity Manua/2000
The LOS criteria for TWSC intersections are somewhat different from the criteria
used in Chapter 1'6 for signalized intersections primarily because different transportation
facilities create different driver perceptions. The expectation is that a signalized '
intersection is designed to carry higher traffic volumes and experience greater delay than
an un signalized intersection.
LOS thresholds differ ;rom
those for signalized
intersections to reflect
different driver expectations
Highway Capacity Manual 2000
Chapter 17. Unsignalized Intersections
Methodology. TWSC Intersections
-'
EXHIBIT 17-1. TWSC UNSIGNAlIZED INTERSECTION METHODOLOGY
Input'
- Geometric data
- Hourly turning mowment volumes
- Heavy vehicle percentages
- Pedestrian data
- Upstream sl nal data
- Camp-ute flow rate
- Identify conflicting traffic
flow
Compute potential capacity
Compute pap times
- Critical gap times
- Follow-up times
,Adjust potential capacity and compute movement capacity
- Impedance effects .
- Shared-lane operation
- Effects of upstream signals
- Two-stage gap acceptance process
- Flared minor-street approaches
Compute queue lengths
Compute control delays
Determine levels of service
EXHIBIT 17-2. LEVEl-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA FOR TWSC INTERSECTIONS
Level of Service
A
B
C
o
E
F
Average Control Delay (s/veh)
0-10
> 10-15
> 15-25
> 25-35
> 35-50
> 50
17-2
I
11
,
. t
, 11
.. ~
. }
11
11
, ;
11
, j
'II
~ . ~
11.
,''1 .
11
"-"1
. J
11
.1
'I
. i
.J I
~I
: J
I
~ J
I
, j
I
. J
I
. J
I
I
. J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~-~ KimIey-Horn
~_~ and Associates, Inc.
ApPENDIX B - LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS:
EXISTING CONDITIONS
SOURCE: TJKM TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS. "A TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THE
PROPOSED FALLON CROSSINGS DEVELOPMENT," SEPTEMBER 28, 2005.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- -
- -
-
".-..~"-'-t.,.-..W;'.... .............~ '~' ,~
,
-
--
-
"l!!I!It
," .~...
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
:::::===================================================================
Condition: Existing Conditions AM Peak
05/04/05
===~=================================~=:::==============================
INTERSECTION
Count Qate
1 Dougherty Rd./Dublin 8l yd.
Time
,City ,of Dublin
Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD
RIGHT TilRU lEFT
29 1197 450
I I I
<--- v --->
1.1 3.1' 2.0
I Split? N
1.0 --- 272 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
2.0<--- 399 THRU Dublin Blvd.
8-PHASE SIGNAL
I
lEFT 42 --- 1.0
THRU 329 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF lANES)
RIGHT 319 --- 1.5
I
v
N
W + E
S
2.0 2.1 1.1 2.0 --- 170 lEFT
<--- ^ ---> I
591 6!9 l13 v
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Dougherty Rd.
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOVEMENT
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED
VOLUME VOlUME* CAPACITY
CRITICAL
, VIC
VIC
RATIO
- -
- --
- --
- -
t...' "
..
, "
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
=================_~__ :.:. y 1 _=::::======::====______~
Condition: Existing Conditions PM Peak 05/04/05
=----~-=================:::========---=--=========== - -~.. ~
INTERSECTION 1 Dougherty Rd./Dublin Blvd. City of DUblin
Count Date Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD
RIGHT THRU lEFT
58 587 376
I I I
<--- v --->
1.1 3.1 2.0
8-PHASE SIGNAL
^
^
lEFT
I
82 _u 1.0
I Split? N
1.0 --- 339 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
2.0<--- 541 THRU Dublin Blvd.
THRU 625 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF lANES)
RIGHT 433 --- 1.5
I
v
2.0 2.1 1.1 2.0 --- 267 LEFT
<--- ^ ---> I
691 9!7 !w v
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
N
W + E
S
STREET NAME: Dougherty Rd.
==============--=======~:======----===----~=-------- --- ~--
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED VIC CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOlUME* CAPACITY RATIO VIe
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NB RIGHT (R) 313 313 1650 0.1897 N8 RIGHT (R) 299 299 1650 0.1812
THRU (T) 609 609 3300 0.1845 THRU (n 917 917 3300 0.2779
lEFT(L) 59', 594 3000 0.1980 0.1980 lEFT (l) 696 696 3000 0.2320
T + R 922 3300 0.2794 T + R 1216 3300 0.3685 0.3685
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
S8 RIGHT (R) 29 29 1650 0.0176 S8 RIGHT (R) 58 58 1650 0.0352
THRU (T) 1197 1197 4950 0.2418 THRU (n 587 587 4950 0.1186
lEFT (l) 450 450 3000 0.1500 lEFT (l) 376 376 3000 0.1253 0.1253
T + R 1226 4950 0.2477 0.2477 T + R 645 4950 0.1303
-.---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
EB ,RIGHT (R) 319 o * 1650 0.0000 E8 RIGHT (R) , 433 50 * 1650 0.0303
THRU (n 329 329 3300 0.0997 0.0997 THRU (n 625 625 3300 0.1894 0.1894
lEFT (l) 42 42 1650 0.0255 LEFT (l) 82 ,82 1650 0.0497
YB RIGHT (R)
THRU (n
lEFT ell
272
399
170
0.0567
25 *
399
170
1650
3300
3000
0.0152
0.1209
0.0567
========================================================================
TOTAL VOlUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION lEVEL OF SERVICE:
0.60
A
======================~=================================================
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON REO
INT=EXISTING.INT,VOl=EXIST.AMV,CAP=...lOSCAP.TAB
------------------------.-----------------------------------------------
\18 RIGHT (R)
THRU (n
LEFT (L)
339
541
267
132 *
541
267
1650
3300,
3000
0.0800
0.1639
0.0890
0.0890
:======-~-=======:=======:======~&~ -============
~======
TOTAL VOlUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION lEVEL OF SERVICE:'
0.77
C
=====--===-----==--=== -====--========---
-_.:..:.:-
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=EXISTING.INT,VOl=EXIST.PMV,CAP=...lOSCAP.TAB
.----
---'
. ~...... ~.:..,.-'-\ ~..olll
~......, -= -==r ~~' ~~~'.""~..",:'~,',::::~:.~-::.~:,~:;:,,"".==-'";:--J_.....,,='tt,t.....
. ~~-.,":~,~~, _ -:~.:;:;:;;,,~:-::,' ~:'----:--- __:=~- ...'=:.z:=
".,..... ,...-....
~
..... .,.. l
1'. i'
: '~~
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
========================================================================
I NTERSECTI ON
Count Date.
Condition: Existing Conditions AM Peak
05/04/05
========================================================================
2 Hacienda Dr./I-580 EB Ramps City of Dublin
Time Peak Hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCTA METHOD
LEFT 545
RIGHT TilRU LEFT
99 882 0
I I I
<--- v --->
2.0 1.9 3.0 0.0
2-PHASE SIGNAL
I Split? N
0.0 --- 0 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 EB Ramps
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES)
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
================================================================- ~==
Condition: Existing Conditions PM Peak 05/04/05
=================~============-----======================--=----=---- -
INTERSECTION 2 Hacienda Dr./I-580 .EB Ramps City of Dublin '
Count Date Time Peak Hour
-------------------------------------------------..---------------------
CCTA METHOD
RIGHT THRU LEFT
311 629 , 0
I I I
<--- v _eo>
1.9 3.0 0.0
2-PHASE SIGNAL
^
^
, LEFT
I
579 _n 2.0
I Split? N
0.0 --- 0 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 EB Ramps
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES)
RIGHT 1210 n_ 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 -o. 0 LEFT RIGHT 397 --- 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 u_ 0 LEFT
I <--- ^ ---> I I <--- ^ ---> I
v ! J8 ~58 v v 1 12!1 197 v
N SIG WARRANTS: N SIG WARRANTS:
W + E, Urb=Y, Rur=Y " + E Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr. STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr.
MOVEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRITICAL
VIC
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED
VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY
VIC
RATIO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NB RIGHT (R) 158 158 1800 0.0878 NB RIGHT (R.> 497 497 1800 0.2761
THRU (T) 428 428 5400 0.0793 THRU (n 1291 1291 5400 0.2391 0.2391
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB RIGHT (R) 99 99 1800 0.0550 SB RIGHT (R) 311 311 1800 0.1728
THRU (T) 882 882 5400 0.1633 0.1633 THRU (n 629 629 5400 0.1165
EB RIGHT (R)
LEFT (L)
--------------------~---------------------------------------------------
0.3697
1210
545
1210
545
3273
3273
0.3697
0.1665
----------------------------------~-----~-------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
0.53
A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------~-----------------------------------
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=EXISTING.INT,VOL=EXIST.AMV,CAP=...lOSCAP.TAB
-- -.-
':. .". .' > ';. ~
_.. .;.........~... .
-
-
-
-
-
-
===-"'--=================---====__A~-====- ......_-=-~
MOVEMENT
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED
VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY
CRITICAL
V/C
V/C
RATIO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------______4__________________________________
EB RIGHT (R)
LEFT (l)
397
579
397
579
3273
3273
0.1213
0.1769
0.1769
--------._-----------------------------------~._------------------------
,======----========----========----=============----
TOTAL VOLUME~TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
0.42
,A
========--=======================--=========--===========
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=EXISTING.INT,VOL=EXIST.PMV,CAP=...LOSCAP.TAB
-;
-:
-j
.:
..
..
-
-
-'
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~""."-'''1II!I!I!lIlIlI ~ ~ ~ l~' 1't'r"'..~.\'L .;.;.0>"",1- 1"'.- II... u," L " L L' t....- ,. 4- L. ......' ,-
LOS,Software by TJKM Transportation consultants
========================================================================
Condition: Existing Conditions AM Peak 06/15/05
INTERSECTION
Count Date
========================================================================
CCTA METHOD
LEFT 0
3 Hacienda Dr./I-5aO WB Ramps City of Dublin
Time Peak Hour
^
RIGHT THRU LEFT
443 340 0
I I I
.0(--- v --->
0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES)
RIGHT
2-PHASE SIGNAL
I Split? N
2.0 --- 228' RIGHT
STREET NAME:
O.O<-~- 0 THRU 1-580 WB Ramps
N
W + E
S
o --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 _u 550 LEFT
I <--- ^ u_> I
v ! 5t L3 v
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr.
MOVEMENT
, '
========================================================================
CRITICAL
VIC
NB RIGHT (R)
THRU (n
SB RIGHT (R)
THRU (n
WB RIGHT (R)
LEFT (L)
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED
VOLUME' VOLUME* CAPACITY
343
594
343
594
VIC
RATIO
1800
3600
0.1906
0.1650
0.1650
443
340
443
340
1800
5400
0.2461
0.0630
228
550
228
550
3273
, 3273
0.0697
0.1680
0.1680
========================================================================
0.33
A
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
========================================================================
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=EXISTING.INT,VOL:EXIST.AMV,CAP=...LOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation ConsUltants ./'
====-=============== ---- -=====================-===-- -----
Condition: Existing Conditions PM Peak 06/15/05
I NTERSECTl ON
Count Date
========-==========:=======================-;=:=:::=-~~----
3 Hacienda Dr./I-580 WB Ramps City of Dublin
Time Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD
RIGHT THRU LEFT
607 594 0
I I I
<--- v --->
1.9 3.0 0.0
^
LEFT
I
o --- 0.0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES)
RIGHT
2-PHASE SIGNAL
^
I Split? N
2.0 --- 204 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 WB Ramps
N
W + E
S'
o --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9
I <--- ^ --->
v ! 8!9 '170
~EFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr.
======::==================~---~ ---
2.0 --- 276 LEFT
I
v
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
~ =
MOVEMENT
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED
VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY
CRITICAL
VIC
VIC
RAnO
NB RIGHT (R)
THRU (n
870
899
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0_2497
870
899
1800
3600
0.4833
0.2497
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S8 RIGHT (R)' 607 607 1800 0.3372
THRU (n 594 594 5400 0.1100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WB RIGHT (R) 204 204 . 3273 0.0623
==__:;~~=~:~======~~~=======_~6-==~=~-~~~-===-~:~~~ ~ 0.0843
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
0.33
A
================================~======- -
____ ' l ~I
1"1"'"
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON REO'
INT=EXISTING.INT,YOL=EXIST.PMV,CAP=...LOSCAP.TAB
-- _._,-~ ._... ----.... ~.." ...
~.....
~~1~~.~..~ .::::z~:...~:~.EJEr~'<.. . '1
.,
.- r~nt'"
-',...... ."'-"--r-::~
~
---:
...............
...
.
-
-
I ==='i
-
~..,a;:,.~-:vr.~~...~.,._
;:.
. .. _. -. .-~ -. .--.
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
========================================================================
Condition: EXisting Conditions AM Peak 05/04/05
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
================================&_---=================-
: --:-
Condition: Existing Cond~tions PM Peak
05/04/05
=======================================~====================~===========
===========================================--===========
I NTERSECTI ON
Count Date
4 Hacienda Dr./Dublin Blvd.
Time
City of Dublin
Peak Hour
INTERSECTION
Count Date
4 Hacienda Dr./Dublin Blvd.
Time
City of Dublin
Peak Hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCTA METHOD
RIGHT THRU LEFT
63 335 23
I I I
<--- v --->
1.0 3.0 2.0
8-PHASE SIGNAL
CCTA METHOD
RIGHT THRU LEFT
287 888 55
I I I
<--- V --->
1.0 3.0 2.0
8-PHASE SIGNAL
^
^
I
107 --- 2.0
ISplit?N
1.1 --- 9 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
3.1<--- 333 THRU Dublin Blvd.
I
353 u_ 2.0
I Split? N
1.1 --- 150 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
3.1<~-' 388 THRU Dublin Blvd.
2.0 --- 91 LEFT
I
v
LEFT
LEFT
THRU 262 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES)
THRU 447 __a> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES)
RIGHT 247 --~ 2.5 3.0 2.0 2.0
I <--~ ^ --->
v 381 315 161
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr.
RIGHT 332 --- 2.5
I
v
3.0. 2.0. 2.0 2.0 --- 107 LEFT
<--- ^ ---> I
2J 3t L4 v
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
N
W + E
S
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
N
W + E
S
SIG "ARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr.
===========================================================~============
===================================================-----=------
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED
VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY
VIC . CRITICAL
RATIO VIC
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED
VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY
V/C
RATIO
MOVEMENT
CRITICAL
VIC
MOVEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NB RIGHT (R) 164 105 * 30.00 0.0350 NB RIGHT (R) 361 311 * 3000 0.1037
THRU (T) 356 356 3300. 0.10.79 THRU (1) 335 335 3300. 0.1015 '
LEFT (L) 287 287 4304 0.0667 0.0667 LEFT (L) 386 386 4304 0.0897 0.0897
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB RIGHT (R) 63 4 * 1650 0.0024 SB' RIGHT (R) 287 93 * 1650 0.0564
THRU (T) . 335 335 4950 0..0677 0.0677 THRU (T) 888 888 4950 0.1794 0.1794
LEFT (l) 23 23 3000 0.0077 LEFT (L) 55 55 3000 0.0183
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------..----------------------
EB RIGHT (R)
THRU (T)
LEFT (L)
332
262
107
132 *
262
107
300.0
4950
3000
0.0440.
0.0529
0.0357
EB RIGHT (R)
THRU (1)
LEFT (L)
247
447
353
o *
447
353
3000
4950
3000
0-.0000
0.0903
0.1177
0.0357
0..1177
---------------------~--------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------.----------------------------
WB RIGHT (R) ,9 9 1650. 0.0055 \oIB RIGHT (R) 150. 150 1650 0.0909
THRU (n 333 333 4950 0.0673 THRU (n 388 388 .4950 0.0784
LEFT (L) 107 107 3000 0.0357 0.0'691 LEFT (L) 91 91 3000 0.0303
T + R 342 4950 0.0691 T +,R 538 4950 0..1087
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ================--==============----===============
------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- -
0.1087
0.50
A
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
0.24
A
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
=================================::;::=====::.=:=======-~===-~
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=EXISTING.INT,VOL=EXIST.AMV,CAP=...LOSCAP.TAB
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=EXISTING.INT,VOL=EXIST.PMV,CAP=...LOSCAP.TAB
..;. .' .. .. ,-. .. '- - -j .'
....-
- - --
-
-
-
-
-
- -
.......-"~....._'
""'" ~
- --
~ r~~~ n:.J.:j,~
~'" '\: J::
- -
L':"~ 'u~~:f;~~:
-
k '.' ~ _ L.,....:..~'" ....
......
.'
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants.
===:=:=::=============~~================================================
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
08/11/05
~os So!!ware by TJ~ Trans~~~tion c~u~!~nts____ __
-=====--==========--=====---------~-----=---=-----_::---~-
Condition: Existing Conditions PM Peak
08/11/05
I NTERSECTI ON
Count Date
Condition: Exisitng Conditions AM Peak'
I NTERSECTI ON
Count 'Date
========:&:=====~___~_============~=====-=--====~~====- _~L~
5 Santa Rita Rd./I-580 EB Ramps City of Dublin
Time Peak Hour
======================================================================~=
CCTA METHOD
LEFT
I
379 --- 2.0
5 Santa Rita Rd./I-580 EB Ramps City of Dublin
Time Peak Hour
RIGHT THRU LEfT
242 751 183
I I I
<--. V --->
1.9 2.0 1.0
7-PHASE SIGNAL
CCTA METHOD
^
I Spl it? N
2.5 --- 369 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 EB Ramps
LEFT
I
163 u_ 2.0
-
^
RIGHT THRU lEFT
479 787 239
,I I I
<--- ,v ---,>
1.9 2.01.0
7-PHASE SIGNAL
^
I Spljt? N
2.5 --- 355 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 EB Ramps
THRU 157,---> 1.0 (NO. OF lANES)
THRU 114 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF lANES)
RIGHT 386 --- 1.9 0.0 4.1 1.1 ' 2.0 --- 136 LEFT RIGHT 428 --- 1.9 0.0 4.1 1.1 2.0 --- 175 LEFT
I <--- ^ -.-> I I <--- ^ __A> I
v ! Js 174 v v ! J5 161 v
N SIG WARRANTS: N SIG WARRANTS:
W + E Urb=Y, Rur=Y W + E Urb:=Y, Ru....V
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N S lEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Santa Rita Rd.
STREET NAME: Santa Rita Rd.
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED
VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY
CRITICAL
VIC
==================--===--=====:;;;;;----========--
~..
MOVEMENT
=================================================~=====================
. '
VIC
RATIO
NB RIGHT (R)
THRU (1)
T + R
~
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED VIC CRITICAL
MO~MENT ,VOLUME.' VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO VIe
------------------------------------------------------------------------
74
755
74
755
829
0.1256
NB RIGHT (R)
THRU (n
T + R
161
845
0.0976
0.1280
0.1524
161
845
1006
1650
6600
6600
0.1524
0.0448
0.1144
0.1256
1650
6600
6600
--~-------------------------~------------------------~------------------
58 RIGHT (R) 242 242 1650 0.1467 SB RIGHT (R) 479 479 1650 0.2903
THRU (1) 751 751 3300 0.2276 THRU (n 787 787 3300 0.2385
lEFT (L) 183 183 1650 0.1109 0.1109 lEFT (l) 239 239 1650 0.1448 0.1448
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
EB RIGHT (R) 386 386 1650 0.2339 EB RIGHT (R) 428 428 1650 0.2594
THRU (1) 114 114 1650 0.0691 THRU (n 157 157 1650 0.0952, 0.0952
lEFT (L) 379 379 3000 0.1263 0.1263 lEFT (l) 163 163 3000 0.9543
WB RIGHT (R)
LEFT (L)
369
136
0.0120
WB RIGHT (R)
lEFT (l)
--------------------------------------.....-----------------------------
0.0000
, 0.0583
36 *
136
3000
3000
0.0120
0.0453
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.37
A
===========================-------=============~=======
355
175
o *
175
3000
3000
0.0583
0.45
A
===========--===========================-- --=----
TOTAL VOlUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
TOTAL VOlUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION lEVEL OF SERVICE:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=EXISTING.lNT,VOL=EXIST.AMV,CAP=...lOSCAP.TAB
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=EXISTING~INT,VOl=EXIST.PMV,CAP=...lOSCAP.TAB
~
~___ ~~~,~~'-'~~=:',-,-::';~~=:~.~:5--,.,::...-=.": ....,._~--=w..~---=r..._- =":~--'~'-';.=-C::J:-::~"" ~i
,..-.-..-.......
J.
P-". -'~--::_,._~
~~~-~~~:~~~:_~~-~~~~=;~~~~~~~~~~!~~=~~~~~l~~~;~=========================
---------------- --
I NTERSECTI ON
Count Date
Condition: EXisting Conditions AM Peak 05/04/05
======================================================================::
6 tassajara Rd./I-580 we Ramps City of DubLin
Time Peak Hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCTA METHOD
LEFT 0
RIGHT THRU LEFT
632 652 0
I I I
<--- v --->
0.0 1.9 3.0 0.0
2-PHASE SIGNAL
^
I SpL i t? N
2.0 --- 392 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
0.0<--- 0 THRU' 1-580 we Ramps
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES)
RIGHT
N
W + E
S
o --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 --- 578 LEFT
I <--- ^ ---> I
v 1 7t t23 v
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N
STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd.
MOVEMENT
, .
====================================================::==================
CRITICAL
VIC
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED
VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY
VIC
RATIO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NB RIGHT (R)
THRU (T)
723
746
723
746
1800
3600
0.4017
0.2072
0.2072
---------------------------------------------------------------~--------
0.3511
0."1207
SB RIGHT (R)
THRU (T)
632
652
632
652
1800
5400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.1766
we RIGHT < (R)
LEFT (L)
392
578
392
578
3273
3273
0.1198
0.1.766
==~====================================================================
0.38
A
TOTAL VOlUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
================================~=======================================
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=EXISTING.INT,VOl=EXIST.AMV,CAP=...LOSCAP.TAB
~.,....
.. "- ".. ...". '- '~;.;.t:-. .
LOS Software bY'TJKM Transportation Consultants
======================================~~====----~ ~
Condition: EXisting Conditions PM Peak 05/04/05
==================================----~--::======= - ---~
I NTERSECTI ON
Count Date
6 Tassajara Rd./I-580 US Ramp$ City of Dublin
Time, Peak Hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCTA METHOD
RIGHT THRU LEFT
367 967 0
I I I
<--- v --->
1.9 3.0 0.0
I Split? N
2.0 --- 328 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 WB Ramps
-----------
2-PHASE SIGNAL
^
^
LEFT
I
o --- 0.0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES)
RIGHT
N
W+E
S
o --- 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 _u 447 LEFT
I <--- ^ ---> I
v j 81, . J52 v
SIG WARRANTS:
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N Urb=Y. Rur=Y
STREET NAME: Tassejara Rd.
=============--=============_::!!!:== 2:===__::=--____-======~
MOVEMENT
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED
VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY
CRITICAL
VIe
--
vIe
RATIO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NB 'RIGHT (R)
THRU {n
552
821
552
821
1800
3600
0.3067
0.2281
0.2281
-----~------------------------------------------------------------------
SB 'RIGHT (R)
THRU {n
367
961
367
967
1800 0.2039
5400 ,0.1791
------------------------------------------------------------------------
us RIGHT (R) 328 328 3273 0.1002
LEFT (l) 447 447 3273 0.1366 0.1366
==============~-=======-;i:======:~==_.;:==__ ___ ====_.!>..
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.36
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
-
==========================-==============--"""'-~
* ADJUSTED FOR Rl GHT TURN ON RED
INT=eXISTING.INT,VOl=EXIST.PMV,CAP=...LOSCAP_TAB
..
... -
-.. _.
...
,'.' '~";-""~'" -
-, -
-,
- -'..:
-
- --
~
...."C...
-
-
- -
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-"""'..~
"".. _ ~~"" '~., --r ~' ~ ---'J' .----.. &--..
....... ..1
-
-
- --
1l. . .,
. .. .
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
===:=================~=======================================~===-======
Condition: Existing Conditions AM Peak 05/04/05
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants "
.......==-=-==== -_.~_._--- --~~=====--========= -
Condition: Existing Conditions PM Peak
05/04105
I NTERSECTl ON
Count Date
====================~~~~=========================================:=======
I NTERSECTl ON
Count Date
====================~=========================--=======-
City of Dublin
Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD
LEFT
I
44 --- 2.0
7 Ta~sajara Rd./Dublin Blvd.
, Time
RIGHT THRU LEFT
144 986 6
I I I
<--- v __a>
2.0 4.0 1.0
THRU 62 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES)
City of Dublin
Peak Hour
8-PHASE SIGNAL
CCTA METHOD
I Split? N
1.1 --- 5 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
2.1<--- 42 THRU Dublin Blvd.
LEFT
I
534 _u , 2.0
7 Tassajara Rd./Dublin Blvd.
Time
^
RIGHT,THRU LEFT
102 486 5
I I I
<--- v __a>
2.0 4.0 1.0
..
8-PHASE SIGNAL
^
I Spl it? N
1.1 --- 5 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
2.1<--- 45 THRU Dublin Blvd.
RIGHT 237 --- 2.5 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 u_ 168 LEFT RIGHT 627 --- 2.5 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 --- 143 LEFT
I <--- ^ __a> I I <--- ^ __a> I
v 321 317 195 v v 451 J4 '142 v
N SIG WARRANTS: N SIG WARRANTS:
W + E Urb=Y, Rur=Y W + E Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME:' Tassajara Rd. STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd.
THRU 90 __a> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES)
MOVEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIC CRITICAL
RATIO VIC
================================------==========-----~~
CRITICAL
VIC
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED
VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY
NB RIGHT (R)
THRU (T)
LEFT (L)
S8 RIGHT (R)
THRU (T)
LEFT (L)
EB RIGHT (R)
THRU (T)
LEFT (L)
\oIB RIGHT (R)
THRU (T)
LEFT (L)
T + R
95
387
328
144
986
,.6
237
62
41.
5
42
168
o *
387
. 328
120 *
986
6
8 *
62
44
5
42
168
47
1650
3300
4304
3000
6600
1650
3000
3300
3000
1650
3300
1650
3300
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED
MOVEMENT ,VOLUME VOLUME*, CAPACITY
VIC
RATIO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.0000
0.1173
0.0762 ,0.0762
NB. RIGHT (R)
THRU (n
LEFT (L)
0.0400
0.1494
0.0036
0.1494
SB RIGHT (R)
THRU (T)
LEFT (L)
42
694
456
o *
694
456
1650
3300
4304
3000
6600
1650
0.0000
0.2103 -
0.1059
0.2103
0.0000
0.0736
0.0030
0.0030
102
486
5
o *
486
5
0.0027
0.0188
0.0147
0.0188
, ,
------------------------------------------------------------------~-----
EB RIGHT (R) 627 309 * 3000 0.1030
THRU (n 90 90 3300 0.0273
LEFT (L) 534 534 3000 0.1780 0.1780
-----------------------------~------------------------------------------
\oIB RIGHT (R) 5 5 1650 0.0030
THRU (T) 45 45 3300 0.0136
lEFT (L) 143 143 1650 0.0867
T + R 50 ' 3300 ' 0.0152 0.0152
0.0030
0.0127
0.1018
0.0142
0.1018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--~---------------------------------------------------------------------
0.35
A
=====TO~;~-;6~~-To-cAPAciT;=RATio;-=========-------
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
0.41
A
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
--
==================== ----- - - ---============-----
===--====~============~==================================================
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=EXISTING.INT,VOl~EXIST.AMV,CAP=...LOSCAP.TAB
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=EXISTING.INT,VOL=EXIST.PMV.CAP=...LOSCAP.TAB
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
nNO-WAYSTOPCONTROLSUMMARY
General Information Site Information
10. EI Charro/l-580 IEB =-
~nalvst IArun Intersection
IlAaencv/Co. TJKM RamDs
urisdiction Citv,of Dublin
Date Performed 5/412005 nalysis Year 2005 -
Analysis Time Period AM Peak Project 10 157-189 -
EastlWest Street: 1-580 IEB Ramos North/South Street: lEI Charro
Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 -
Vehicle Volumes and Adiustments
Malor Street Northbound Southbound .
Movement. 1 2 3 4, 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 36 14 39 6 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 .
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 40 15 43 6 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0
Configuration T R LT
Upstream Sianal 0 0 i
Minor Street, Westbound Eastboun d I
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R I
lVolume 0 0 0 47 4 50 I
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 52 4 55 I
P~rcent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 I
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N 'I
Storage 0 0 I
RT Channelized 0 0,
Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1
Configuration LT R
Delav. Queue Lenath and Level of Service
Approach N8 S8 Westbound Eastbound
, Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LT R
Iv (vph) 43 56 55
C (m) (vph) 1563 825 1083
vlc 0,03 0.07 0.05
95% queue length 0,08 0.22 0.16
Control Delay 7.4 9.7 8.5
LOS A A A
Approach Delay - - 9.1
Approach LOS - - A
Copyright @ 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1 .'
file://C: \Docwnents%20and%20Settings\agajendran. T JKM\Local %20SettinQs\ Temn \II? kQh
"/4/2005 .1
~O.WAYSTOPCONTROLSUMMARY
General Information Site Information
LAnalvst Arun Intersection 10. EI Charroll-580 EB
RamDs
U\aencv/Co. TJKM urisdlction City of Dublin
Date Performed 5/412005 nalysis.y ear '005
Analvsls Time Period PM Peak Project 10 157.189
EastlWest Street: 1-580 IEB RamDs North/South Street: lEI Charra ,
Intersection Orientation: North-South StudY Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
, Malor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3, 4 5 6
L T R L T R
, Volume 0 12 15 575 8 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Houriv Flow Rate, HFR 0 13 16 638 8 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles ,0 - - 0 - -
Median Type Undivided.
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0
Configuration T R LT
Uostream Sianal 0 ()
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Wolume 0 0 0 5 11 40
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 ' 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 5 12 44
Percent HeavY Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
. Flared Approach N N'
Storage 0' 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1
Configuration LT R
Delav. Queue Length and Level of Service
I\pproach NB S8 Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 , 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LT R
v (vph) 638 17 44
C (rn) (vph) , 1597 99 1080
vIe 0.40 0.17 0.04
95% queue length 1.96 0.59 0.13
Control Delay 8.7 48.8 8.5
LOS A E A
Approach Delay - - 19.7
APproach LOS - - C
I Two-Way Stop Control
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Copyright C 2000 University of Florida; All Rights Reserved
"'1'\ 11"'\^1"'l' II.
"...,.,.,.,"', ".... ,,^~^^I"C ..'
Page 1 of2
Version 4.1
~l
: J
: 1
~ 1
: ]
: ]
J
l]
J
]
J
J
J
J
J
J
j
f 1
u
J
1
;]
;I
IJ
n
~ j
n
T 1
. .
q
~ J
Il
~ J
~ 1
- 1
'; j
: -I
q
.; j
, J
,
; 1
, i
.j, J
~
L 1
,j j
Two-Way Stop Control'
Page 1 of2 I
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY It
General Information Site Information I
IAnalyst Arun Intersection 11. Fal/onA-580 WB
RamDs
lAaency/Co. TJKM Ilurisdiction City of Dublin
Date Performed 5/4/2005 nalysis Year 2005
IAnalysis Time Period AM Peak Project 10 157-189 I
EastlWest Street: '-580 we RamDs North/South Street: Fal/on
I ntersection Orientation: North-South StudY Period (hrs): 0.25
r-Jehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Malor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
!Volume 86 9 0 0 11 98
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 95 10 0 0 12 108
Percent HeavY Vehicles 0 - - 0 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes ,0 1 0 0 1 0
, Configuration LT TR
Upstream Sianal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 28 10 50 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 31 11 55 0 0 0
Percent HeawVehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 "
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0 -.
Lanes 0 1 1 0 0 0
;
Configuration LT R
Delay. Queue Lenath and Level of Service .~.
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 "
Lane Configuration Lf LT R
v (vph) 95 42 55
C (m) (vph) 1480 644 1077 "
vlc 0,06 0.07 0.05
95% queue length 0.21 0.21 0,16 !
Control Delay 7,6 11.0 8.5
LOS A B A ,
[Approach Delay 9,6 "
- -
!Approach LOS - - A
Copyright ~ 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved version.\:
I
- . - - ..-. -.....- ,.. 1 f'T"\lTT" 1"\ T . .1n/"f\C"'..u.:___\'T'___\n'"l1. A '"l .-;: ILinO
I
.J
I
.J
I
j
I
J
I^
J
I
..1
.J
I'
~
I
r
,
t
Two-Way Stop Control
Page lof2
~O-WAYSTOPCONTROLSUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analyst Arun Intersection 11. Fal/on/l-580 WB
lRamDs
A.aencv/Co. TJKM 'urisdlction City of Dublin
Date Performed 5/4/2005 '^nalvsls Year 2005
Analvsis Time Period PM Peak Prolect 10 157-189
EastlWest Street 1-580 WB RamDs North/South Street: Fallon
Intersection Orientation: North-South StudY Period (hrS): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
MaJor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 12 10 0 0 594 69
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0..90. 0..90 0..90. 0.90. 0..90. 0.90
Hourlv Flow Rate, HFR 13 11' a a 660. 76
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0. - - a - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized a a
Lanes a 1 a a 1 a
Confiauration LT TR
Upstream SiQnal a a
Minor Street Westbound ' Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
lVolume 5 a 33 a a ,a
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0..90. 0..90. 0..90. 0..90. 0..90. 0..90.
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 a 36 a a a
Percent Heavv Vehicles 0. a a a a a
Percent Grade (%) a a
Flared Approach N I N
Storage a a
RT Channelized a 0.
Lanes 0. 1 1 a a a
Config u ration LT R
Delav. Queue Lenath and Level of Service
A.pproach NB, 5B Westbound I Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LT R
v (vph) 13 5 36
C (m) (vph) . 879 384 1076
vie 0..0.1 0..0.1 0..0.3
95% queue length 0..0.5 0..0.4 0..10.
Control Delay 9.2 14.5 8.5
LOS A B A
IApproach Delay - - 9.2
IApproach LOS - -- A
Copyright C 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1
....__...... ..... 4.... ,___ ..-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~-r1I Kimley-Hom
~-~ and Associates, Inc.
ApPENDIX C - LIST OF ApPROVED, PENDING PROJECTS,
AND BUILDOUT PROJECTS, LANE GEOMETRY AND CONTROL
ASSUMPTIONS, AND TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
-
t
~'.'l
.;
. i
11
l'i
~..'.C.""i
',-:0,:1
" "i
old
11';
t',." j
Ic~
.l:]
I"
Li
I......
. i
LJ
If
L
If.""..
I .
r :
I
....".,>
It
LJ
I!
L
Ii
I
I,
TABLE C1: APPROVED PROJECTS IN DUBLIN (As of December 2005)
TraffIX ITE % Unoccupied Rates Total Trips % Pass-By Net New Trips
Zone Development Name Land Use Code Size 1 Occupied Size Units AM PM Saturday Dailv AM PM Saturday Dally Traffic' AM PM Saturday Dally
In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out AM PM Sat In Out In Out In Out In Out
113 Black Mountain Sil1!lle Family Residential a 210 7 29% 5 d,u, 0,19 0,56 0,65 0,36 0,51 0.43 4,79 4,79 1 3 3 2 3 2 24 24 1 3 3 2 3 2 24 24
114 Braddock and Logan: EDPO Sinale Family Residential 0 210 1078 0% 1078 d,u, 0,18 0,53 0,54 0,31 0,48 0.41 4,29 4,29 191 573 585 329 522 444 4620 4620 191 573 585 329 522 444 4620 4620
4 Chacon Dental Office 3 720 5,00 0% 5,00 ksf 1,94 0,49 0,99 2,67 2,07 1,56 18,07 18,07 10 2 5 13 10 8 90 90 10 2 5 13 10 8 90 90
29 Dublin Ranch A 18-Hole Goff Course 430 18 100% 0 holes 1.75 0.47 1,21 1,53 2,25 2,34 17,87 17,87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
42 Dublin Ranch A-1 Sil1!lle Family Residential · 210 110 67% 36 d,u. 0,20 0,59 0,68 0,38 0,53 0.45 5,14 5,14 6 19 22 12 17 15 167 167 6 19 22 12 17 15 167 167
43 Dublin Ranch A-2 Sil1!lle Family Residential · 210 51 63% 19 d,u, 0,22 0,66 0,73 0.41 0,60 0,51 5.47 5.47 4 11 13 7 10 9 94 94 4 11 13 7 10 9 94 94
44 Dublin Ranch A-3 Single Family Residential · 210 83 31% 57 d,u, 0,20 0,61 0,70 0,39 0,55 0,47 5,26 5,26 10 31 36 20 28 24 270 270 10 31 36 20 28 24 270 270
45 Dublin Ranch A-4 Sil1!lle Family Residential 0 210 55 24% 42 d,u, 0,22 0,65 0,73 0.41 0,59 0,50 5.44 5,44 8 25 28 16 22 19 206 206 8 25 28 16 22 19 206 206
46 Dublin Ranch A-5 Sinale Family Residential · 210 62 47% 33 d,u. 0,21 0.64 0,72 0.41 0,57 0.49 5,39 5,39 6 19 21 12 17 15 160 160 6 19 21 12 17 15 160 160
1001 Fairway Parcell B H1-H2 Senior Apartment 2. 253 325 0% 325 d,u, 0,12 0,26 0,28 0,16 0,15 0,15 1.74 1,74 39 85 91 52 49 49 566 566 39 85 91 52 49 49 566 56€
1002 Fairway Parcel 2 B Hl-H2 Familv Apartment "" 220 304 0% 304 d,u, 0,08 0.43 0,42 0.20 0,26 0,26 3,32 3,32 24 131 128 61 79 79 1008 1008 24 131 128 61 79 79 1008 1008
1003 Fairway Parcel 3 B Hl-H2 Condo 25 220 304 0% 304 d.u, 0,08 0.43 0.42 0,20 0,26 0,26 3,32 3,32 24 131 128 61 79 79 1008 1008 24 131 128 61 79 79 1008 1008
38 Dublin Ranch G Cottaaes MH-l 230 200 68% 64 d,u, 0,07 0.37 0,36 0,18 0,25 0,22 2,93 2.93 4 21 21 10 14 13 169 169 4 21 21 10 14 13 169 169
38 Dublin Ranch G Courtyards MH-2 230 281 48% 146 d,u, 0,07 0,37 0,36 0,18 0,25 0,22 2,93 2,93 9 49 47 24 33 29 385 385 9 49 47 24 33 29 385 385
38 Dublin Ranch G Villas H-1 230 289 50% 145 d,u, 0,07 0,37 0,36 0,18 0,25 0,22 2,93 2,93 9 48 47 23 33 29 382 382 9 48 47 23 33 29 382 382
38 Dublin Ranch G Terraces H-2 230 626 22% 488 d,u, 0,07 0,37 0,36 0,18 0,25 0,22 2,93 2,93 31 163 158 79 110 97 1287 1287 31 163 158 79 110 97 1287 1287
38 Dublin Ranch G Neighborhood Park NA 5,60 0% 5,60 acres 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 - Dublin Ranch L-6 Sil1!lle Family Residential 0 210 117 69% 36 d,u, 0,20 0,59 0,68 0,38 0.53 0,45 5.12 5,12 6 19 22 12 17 15 166 166 6 19 22 12 17 15 166 166
19 Emerald Glen Pointe Research and Development Center. 760 677.76 55% 304,99 ksf 0,89 0,18 0,14 0,82 0,13 0,11 3,65 3,65 271 56 44 250 40 34 1113 H13 271 56 44 250 40 34 1113 1113
18 Greenbriar Phase 1 Single FamilY Residential · 210 126 94% 8 d,u, 0,19 0,58 0,67 0,38 0,53 0,45 5,09 5.09 2 5 5 3 4 4 41 41 2 5 5 3 4 4 41 41
18 Greenbriar Phase 3 Sinale Famllv Residential · 210 108 0% 108 d,u, 0.20 0,59 0,68 0,38 0,53 0,45 5,15 5,15 21 64 74 41 58 49 556 556 21 64 74 41 58 49 556 556
18 Greenbriar Phase 5 Sil1!lle Family Residential 3 210 1 0% 1 d,u, 0,19 0,56 0,65 0,36 0,51 0.43 4,79 4,79 0 1 1 0 1 0 5 5 0 1 1 0 1 0 5 5
1 Palace Auto Auto Dealershio . 841 11.33 0% 11,33 ksf 1,61 0,60 1,12 1,68 1,51 1,46 18,75 18,75 18 7 13 19 17 17 212 212 34 26 18 7 8 14 13 13 176 176
11 Pinn Brothers (Silveria) Sinale Familv Residential 22 210 79 0% 79 d,u, 0,19 0,56 0,65 0,36 0,51 0.43 4,79 4,79 15 44 51 28 40 34 378 378 15 44 51 28 40 34 378 378
11 Pinn Brothers (Silveria) Cluster Homes 22 210 73 0% 73 d,u, 0,19 0,56 0,65 0,36 0,51 0.43 4,79 4,79 14 41 47 26 37 31 350 350 14 41 47 26 37 31 350 350
11 Pinn Brothers (Silveria) Condominiums 22 230 102 0% 102 d,u, 0,07 0,36 0,36 0,18 0,25 0,22 2,93 2,93 7 37 37 18 26 22 299 299 7 37 37 18 26 22 299 299
121 Senior Center Multi-Family Residential · 220 54 0% 54 d,u, 0,09 0,47 0,60 0,29 0.40 0.40 4,24 4.24 5 25 32 16 22 22 229 229 5 25 32 16 22 22 229 229
109 Valley Center Retail 3.11 814 5,00 0% 5,00 ksf 1.75 1,62 1,11 1.48 2,17 2,01 20,34 20,34 9 8 6 7 11 10 102 102 34 26 9 8 4 5 8 7 85 85
109 Valley Center Office 3 710 3,00 0% 3,00 ksf 1,37 0,19 0.25 1,24 0,22 0,19 5,51 5,51 4 1 1 4 1 1 17 17 4 1 1 4 1 1 17 17
129 Valley Christian Center JrJSr, High School, Administration 3.2 530 200 0% 200 Duolls 0,32 0,14 0,06 0,09 0,09 0,03 0,90 0,90 64 28 12 18 18 6 180 180 64 28 12 18 18 6 180 180
129 Valley Christian Center Senior Center, Counselil1!l (Church) 3,27 560 30,00 0% 30,00 ksf 0,39 0,33 0,36 0.30 2.41 0,85 4,56 4,56 12 10 11 9 72 26 137 137 12 10 11 9 72 26 137 137
129 Valley Christian Center Staff Exoansion 2 NA 10 0% 10 emo, NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 10 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 10
121 Enea Village Parkway Retail 3.11 814 8,53 0% 8,53 ksf 1,75 1,62 1,11 1.48 2,17 2,01 20,34 20,34 15 14 9 13 19 17 173 173 34 26 15 14 5 9 14 12 144 144
121 Enea Village Parkway Office 3 710 5,58 0% 5,58 ksf 1,37 0,19 0,25 1,24 0,22 0,19 5,51 5,51 8 1 1 7 1 1 31 31 8 1 1 7 1 1 31 31
25 Quarry Lane Schoof K_123,26 521 750 0% 750 pupils 0,55 0,37 0.08 0,12 0,09 0,03 0,90 0,90 413 278 60 90 68 23 675 675 413 278 60 90 68 23 675 675
1005 IKEA'S IKEA NA 1,00 0% 1 Location 22:00 24,00 200,0 224,0 733,0 795,0 2759 2759 22 24 200 224 733 795 2759 2759 22 24 128 152 733 795 2759 2759
129 Bancor Pak n Save (Twnhm) Townhouse 13 231 110 0% 110 d,u, 0,17 0,50 0,5 0.4 0.4 0,3 3 3 18 54 52 39 43 36 322 322 18 54 52 39 43 36 322 322
129 Bancor Pak n Save (Aols) Multi-Family Residential'3 220 130 0% 130 d,u, 0,08 0.43 0,4 0,2 0,3 0,3 3 3 11 56 54 27 34 34 431 431 11 56 54 27 34 34 431 431
129 Bancor Proj 8909 San Ramon Townhouse 14 231 55 0% 55 d,u, 0,17 0,50 0.47 0,36 0.39 0,33 2,93 2.93 9 27 26 20 21 18 161 1()1 9 27 26 20 21 18 161 161
125 Hall of Justice Courthouse NA 13 0% 13 rms Rates not applicable, Net new trios obtained from Coun EIR. 582 128 170 540 0 0 2969 2969 582 128 170 540 0 0 2969 2969
15 KolI Dublin Corp Center Ph, 2 Office 6 710 179,85 0% 179,85 ksf 1.46 0,20 0,27 1,30 0,18 0,16 5.79 5,79 262 36 48 233 33 28 1041 1041 262 36 48 233 33 28 1041 1041
32/50 Dublin Ranch BMed Medium-Hiah Residential 6 220 262 0% 262 d,u, 0,08 0.43 0.44 0,21 0,26 0,26 3,39 3,39 19 101 104 50 61 61 799 799 19 101 104 50 61 61 799 799
50 Dublin Ranch BMH Medium-Hiah Residential · 220 172 0% 172 d,u, 0,08 0.43 0,44 0,21 0,26 0,26 3,39 3,39 13 67 67 33 40 40 524 524 13 67 67 33 35 35 524 524
36/37 Dublin Ranch F Medium-High Residential 6 220 630 0% 630 d,u, 0,08 0.42 0,38 0,19 0,26 0,26 3,10 3,10 46 239 217 107 147 147 1760 1760 46 239 217 107 79 79 1760 1760
36/37 Dublin Ranch F Medium-Hiah Residential 6 220 420 0% 420 d,u, 0,08 0.42 0,39 0,19 0,26 0,26 3,16 3,16 31 160 148 73 98 98 1193 1193 31 160 148 73 68 68 1193 1193
26 Dublin Ranch F Middle School 522 1200 0% pupils 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
27 Dublin Ranch F-1 Multi-Family Residential. 220 119 0% 119 d,u, 0,08 0,44 0,47 0,23 0,29 0,29 3,56 3,56 10 52 56 27 34 34 424 424 10 52 56 27 31 31 424 424
28 Dublin Ranch F-2 Sil1!lle Family Residential 6 220 121 0% 121 d,u, 0,19 0,58 0.67 0,38 0,53 0.45 5,10 5,10 21 64 73 41 57 49 55() 556 21 64 73 41 57 49 556 5SE
126 Dublin Ranch West (Wallis) Sinale FamUv Residential 2. 210 75 0% 75 d,u, 0,19 0,56 0,65 0,36 0,51 0.43 4,79 4,79 14 42 49 27 38 32 359 359 14 42 49 27 38 32 359 359
126 Dublin Ranch West (Wallis) Single Family Residential 26 210 557 0% 557 d,u, O,1~ 0,56 0,65 0,36 0,51 0.43 4.79 4,79 106 312 362 201 284 240 2668 2668 106 312 362 201 284 240 2668 2668
126 Dublin Ranch West (Wallis) Mutti-FamilY Residential 26 220 178 0% 178 d,u, 0,08 0.43 0.42 0.20 0,26 0,26 3,32 3.32 14 77 75 36 46 46 591 591 14 77 75 36 46 46 591 591
126 Dublin Ranch West (Wallis) MuJti-Familv'Residential26 220 224 0% 224 d,u, 0.08 0.43 0.42 0,20 0,26 0,26 3,32 3,32 18 96 94 45 58 58 744 744 18 96 94 45 58 58 744 744
4 Dublin Transit Center Abartments'" 220 265 0% 265 d,u, 0,08 0.43 0.42 0,20 0,26 0,26 3,32 3,32 21 114 111 53 69 69 880 880 21 114 111 53 69 69 880 880
4 EAH Transit Center Medium-Hiah Residential 0 220 112 0% 112 d,u, 0,08 0,44 0.47 0,23 0,26 0,26 3,60 3,60 8 45 48 24 26 26 362 362 8 45 48 24 26 26 362 362
4 Avalon Bay Transit Center Medium-High Residential · 220 305 0% 305 d,u, 0,08 0.43 0.40 0,20 0,26 0,26 3,22 3,22 22 117 111 55 71 71 883 883 22 117 111 55 71 71 883 883
4 DR Horton Transit Center Medium-Hiah Residential 6 220 257 0% 257 d.u, 0,08 0.43 0,41 0,20 0,26 0,26 3,26 3,26 19 99 95 47 60 60 754 754 19 99 95 47 60 60 754 754
5 W, Legacy/AMB Office Office 3 710 150,5 0% 150,5 ksf 1.46 0,20 0,27 1,30 0,18 0,16 5,79 5,79 262 36 48 233 33 28 1041 1041 262 36 48 233 33 28 1041 1041
5 W, Legacv/AMB Apartments Medium-High Residential 6 220 304 0% 304 d,u, 0,08 0,43 0.40 0,20 0,26 0,26 3.22 3,22 22 117 110 54 71 71 880 880 22 117 110 54 55 55 880 880
21 Marriot Hotel SiteITrumark Retail,,11 814 45 0% 45 ksf 1,75 1,62 1,11 1.48 2,17 2,01 20,34 20,34 79 73 50 67 98 90 915 915 34 26 79 73 30 47 74 66 759 759
~ Schaefer Ranch Single Family Residential 210 302 0% 302 d,u, 0,18 0,55 0,62 0,35 0,50 0.42 4,74 4,74 55 166 186 105 150 128 1433 1433 55 166 186 105 150 128 1433 1433
Total 2954 4252 4314 3654 3783 3483 39559 39559 2954 4252 4210 3550 3625 3324 39321 39321
Land Use Database_Update _ 060506,x1s
Source: T JKM Transportation Consultants, "A Traffic Study for the Proposed Fallon Crossings Development," September 28,2005, and Updates by City Staff.
Table C1, Approved Projects
\...
-------------------
I
I
If...
!
l
..
11'.""
~,- )
, '
i ;
.'
In
Ii
If..i.
[" :!
F !
1[..'.'.'.'..
l,~,~..;;
P,,"/;
r..:
(;0
II:
I
I
{....o;
Irl
L,
11""
t :'
i
1'.'3....
n
."
i:.'>>
In
[:, i
11>'," "
Ir."':
!
If
L...,;
I~
L
~;j
In.
! 1
Ie "
Ii
Ii
I
TABLE C2: PENDING PROJECTS IN DUBLIN (As of December 2005)
Traffix ITE Rates Total Trips % Pass-By Net New Trips
Zone Development Name Land Use Code Size' Units AM PM Saturday Daily AM PM Saturday Daily Traffic' AM PM Saturday Dally
In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out AM PM Sat In Out In Out In Out In Out
115 Army Residential Multi-Family Residential 220 114 d,u, 0,08 0,44 0,47 0,23 0,29 0,29 3,59 3,59 10 50 54 27 33 33 409 409 10 50 54 27 33 33 409 409
119 Dolan Lumber Auto Dealership (47 Stalls) 3 841 70,00 ksf 1,61 0,60 1,12 1,68 1,51 1.46 18,75 18,75 113 42 78 118 106 102 1313 1313 34 26 113 42 45 85 79 75 1090 1090
36/37 Dublin Ranch F Public/Semi-Public 7,1. 560 37,64 ksf 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
36/37 Dublin Ranch F Single Family Residential (Low) · 210 196 d,u, 0,19 0,56 0,64 0,36 0,51 0.43 4,91 4,91 33 99 113 64 90 76 866 866 33 99 113 64 90 76 866 866
4 Dublin Transit Center BART Parking Structure 30 NA 1680 ' pkg spes No additional trips, Proposed arklnll structure to replace the 1,680 existing surface p; rking lot Sl aces for the BART station, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 GM Auto Mall B Expansion Auto Service · 840 23,15 ksf 1,91 1,03 1,69 1,69 0,79 0,79 16,9 16,9 44 24 39 39 18 18 391 391 62 56 56 23 3 17 17 8 8 160 160
20 GM Auto Mall C Auto Dealership 3 841 53,00 ksf 1,61 0,60 1,12 1,68 1,51 1.46 18,75 18,75 85 32 59 89 80 77 994 994 34 26 85 32 34 64 60 57 825 825
1005 IKEA Hillh Tum-Over Restaurants 832 25,86 ksf 4,82 4.45 6,52 4,34 12,60 7,40 65,17 65,17 125 115 169 112 326 191 1685 1685 43 43 125 115 109 52 215 80 1685 1685
1005 Shopping Center 820 109,36 ksf 0,94 0,60 2,92 3,17 4,40 4,06 33,01 33,01 103 66 320 346 481 444 3610 3610 34 26 103 66 207 233 361 324 3610 3610
128 Casamira Valley (Moller Poperty REMOVED) Single Family Residential. 210 269 d,u, 0,18 0,55 0,62 0,35 0,50 0,43 4,79 4,79 49 148 168 94 135 115 1288 1288
128 Mission Peak Single Family Residential · 210 103 d,u, 0,20 0,60 0,69 0,39 0,54 0,46 . 5,20 5,20 21 62 71 40 56 47 536 536 21 62 71 40 56 47 536 536
113 Schaefer Ranch Retail 3," 814 26,00 ksf 1,75 1,62 1,11 1.48 2,17 2,01 20,34 20,34 48 42 29 38 56 52 529 529 34 26 46 42 18 27 42 38 439 439
121 See's Vacant Lot Retail 3,11 814 7,905 ksf 1,75 1,62 1,11 1,48 2,17 2,01 20,34 20,34 14 13 9 12 17 16 161 161 34 26 14 13 5 8 13 12 134 134
109 Shamrock Ford Site/Circuit City Retail 34 863 30,00 ksf 1,83 1,63 2,21 2,30 4,49 3,98 22,52 22,52 55 49 66 69 135 119 676 676 34 26 55 49 44 46 100 88 561 561
5 West Dublin BART S,P,: Orixllegacy Multi-Family Residential '7 220 210 d,u, Rates not applicable, Net new trips obtained from specific plan studies, 30 155 151 74 127 62 1202 1202
5 West Dublin BART S,P, Business Hotel 17 312 150 rooms Rates not applicable, Net new trips obtained from specifIC plan studies, 46 32 50 33 61 40 491 491
5 West Dublin BART S,P, Quality Restaurant '7 831 7,50 ksf Rates not applicable, Net new trips obtained from specific plan studies. 5 1 37 19 48 33 337 337
5 West Dublin BART S,P, Office 17 710 360,70 ksf Rates not aoolicable, Net new trips obtained from specific Dlan studies, 590 80 110 531 97 80 2365 2365
5 West Dublin BART S,P, BART 23 NA 713,00 spaces Rates not applicable, Net new trips obtained from specific plan studies, 354 92 85 296 35 81 1107 110
Grand Total Total 1653 933 1150 1616 1425 1134 15817 15817
land Use Database_Update_060506,xls
Source: TKJM Transportation Consultants, "A Traffic Study for the Proposed Fallon Crossings Development," September 28, 2005, and Updates by City Staff,
Table C2, Pending
-------------------
I
I
I:
I
IIF......,...
()
f',
~
If
r:- ~
c;,
Ii'''
e;::'
tic,,;
If
C,:
Ii
t.
L
I;
It
L
It
j
t
I['c
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE C3: BUILDOUT PROJECTS IN DUBLIN (As of December 2005)
Traffix ITE Rates Total Trips % Pass-By Net New Trips
Zone Development Name land Use Code Size 1 Units AM PM Saturday Daily AM PM Saturday Daily Traffic2 AM PM Saturday Daily
In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out AM PM Sat In Out In Out In Out In Out
14 15A Corporate Headquarters Building I. 714 433,50 ksf 1,15 0,09 0,12 1,06 0,22 0,19 3,28 3,28 424 33 44 391 81 70 1209 1209 424 33 44 391 81 70 1209 1209
12 16A Corporate Headquarters Building I. 714 428,50 ksf 1,15 0,09 0,12 1,06 0,22 0,19 3,28 3,28 419 33 44 386 80 69 1195 1195 419 33 44 386 80 69 1195 1195
114 Anderson: EDPO Single Family Residential' 210 71 d,u, 0,19 0,55 0,65 0,36 0,51 0.43 4,79 4,79 13 39 46 26 36 31 340 340 13 39 46 26 36 31 340 340
114 Anderson: EDPO Light Industrial 0 110 317,11 ksf 0,81 0,11 0,12 0,86 0,07 0.07 3.49 3.49 257 35 38 273 22 22 1107 1107 257 35 38 273 22 22 1107 110
114 Branauah: EDPO light Industrial 0 110 120,35 ksf 0,81 0,11 0,12 0,86 0,07 0,07 3.49 3.49 97 13 14 104 8 8 420 420 97 13 14 104 8 8 420 420
114 Branaugh: EDPO Single Family Residential 0 210 98 d,u, 0,19 0,55 0,65 0,36 0,51 0,43 4,79 4,79 19 54 64 35 50 42 469 469 19 54 64 35 50 42 469 469
116 EDPO SE and S,Central Light Industrial 0 110 564,22 ksf 0,81 0,11 0,12 0,86 0,07 0,07 3.49 3.49 457 62 68 485 39 39 1969 1969 457 62 68 485 39 39 1969 1969
5 Corrie Site Auto Dealership 0 841 33,90 ksf 1,61 0,60 1,12 1,68 1,51 1,48 18,75 18,75 55 20 38 57 51 49 636 636 34 26 55 20 22 41 38 36 528 528
117 Croak: EDPO Single Family Residential. 210 426 d,u, 0,18 0,54 0,60 0,33 0.49 0,42 4,62 4,62 77 231 254 143 210 179 1966 1966 77 231 254 143 210 179 1966 1966
118 DiManto Multi-Family Residential. 220 540 d,u, 0,08 0,42 0,39 0,19 0.40 0,40 3,12 3,12 43 228 208 103 218 218 1685 1685 43 228 208 103 218 218 1685 1~
120 DiManto Commercial I Retail Commercial · 820 846,46 ksf 0,41 0,26 1,46 1,58 2,15 1,99 15,90 15,90 348 223 1234 1337 1822 1682 13458 13458 34 26 348 223 797 900 1366 1226 11170 11170
121 Downtown Core S,P, Commercial 1 820 237,85 ksf Rates not aoolicable, Net new trios obtained from specific plan studies, 49 67 242 221 320 296 2747 274
121 Downtown Core S,P, Office 1 710 54,72 ksf Rates not aoolicable, Net new trios obtained from specific olan studies, 418 57 77 376 67 57 1675 1675
121 Downtown Core S,P, Multi-Family Residential 11 220 100 d,u, Rates not aoolicable, Net new trips obtained from specific plan studies, 6 30 29 14 16 20 232 232
50 Dublin Ranch B Commercial · 820 163,35 ksf 0,80 0,51 2,55 2,76 3,82 3,53 28,61 28,61 118 75 375 406 562 519 4208 4206 34 26 118 75 242 273 421 378 3491 3491
35 Dublin Ranch C Commercial. 820 375,05 ksf 0,57 0,37 1,92 2,08 2,86 2,64 21,26 21,26 193 123 649 703 965 891 7177 7177 34 26 193 123 419 473 724 650 5957 5957
35 Dublin Ranch C Office · 710 1301,31 ksf 0,97 0,13 0,20 0,98 0,13 0,11 3,66 3,66 1142 156 235 1149 152 129 4285 4285 1142 156 235 1149 152 129 4285 428E
122 Dublin Ranch D Single Family Residential' 210 1 d,u, 0,19 0,55 0,65 0,36 0,51 0.43 4,79 4,79 0 1 1 0 1 0 5 5 0 1 1 0 1 0 5 5
34 Dublin Ranch E Elementary School 7 520 295 pupils 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C
36/37 Dublin Ranch F Neighborhood Park 7 NA 6,70 acres 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
38 Dublin Ranch G PubliclSemi-Public 7,18 560 20.26 ksf 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
107 Dublin Ranch (Town Center VC) G Commercial '.11 814 230,00 ksf 1,75 1,62 1,11 1.48 2,17 2,01 20,34 20,34 403 373 255 340 499 462 4678 4678 34 26 403 373 154 239 374 337 3883 ~
40/41 Dublin Ranch H Commercial. 820 384,44 ksf 0,57 0,36 1,91 2,07 2,83 2,62 21,07 21,07 196 125 660 715 981 905 7292 7292 34 26 196 125 426 481 736 660 6052 6052
40/41 Dublin Ranch H Research and Development Center. 760 860,53 ksf 0,86 0,18 0,14 0,79 0,09 0,07 3,50 3,50 668 137 108 611 70 54 2710 2710 668 137 108 611 70 54 2710 271(
4 Dublin Transit Center Apartments 29 220 823 d,u, 0,08 0.43 0,42 0,20 0,26 0,26 3,32 3,32 49 265 259 123 160 160 2049 2049 49 265 259 123 160 160 2049 2049
4 Dublin Transit Center Corporate Office " 714 2000 ksf 1,37 0,10 0.15 1,24 0,22 0,22 3,86 3,86 2329 170 255 2108 374 374 6562 6562 2329 170 255 2108 374 374 6562 656~
4 Dublin Transit Center Speciality Retail 32 814 70 ksf No additional trips, Retail is considered "ancillary" to the proposed T,C, office space and would not generate extemal trips, 34 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (
125 Govemment Center Office .,20 714 669,77 ksf 1,24 0,09 0,13 1,07 0.21 0,18 3,74 3,74 833 63 88 713 138 118 2505 2505 833 63 88 713 138 118 2505 2505
18 Greenbriar Phase 4 Single Family Residential · 210 164 d,u, 0,19 0,57 0,65 0,37 0,51 0.44 4,98 4,98 31 93 107 60 84 72 817 817 31 93 107 60 84 72 817 817
18 Gygi Single Family Residential' 210 10 d,u, 0,19 0,56 0,65 0,36 0,51 0,43 4.79 4.79 2 6 7 4 5 4 48 48 2 6 7 4 5 4 48 48
132 Herrera "Frederich" Multi-Family Residential. 220 68 d,u, 0,09 0.46 0,55 0,27 0,35 0,35 3,98 3,98 6 31 37 18 24 24 271 271 6 31 37 18 24 24 271 271
132 Herrera "Frederich" Commercial,,11 814 58,81 ksf 1,75 1,62 1,11 1.48 2,17 2,01 20,34 20,34 103 95 65 87 128 118 1196 1196 34 26 103 95 39 61 96 86 993 993
124 Jordan:EDPO Single Family Residential · 210 788 d,u, 0,18 0,53 0,56 0.32 0.49 0.41 4,39 4,39 140 421 441 248 383 326 3463 3463 140 421 441 248 383 326 3463 3463
127 Jordan:EDPO Multi-Family Residential. 220 436 d,u, 0,08 0,42 0,39 0.19 0,23 0,23 3,15 3,15 35 185 171 84 99 99 1374 1374 35 185 171 84 99 99 1374 1374
127 EDPO SE and S,Central Commercial · 820 376,14 ksf 0,57 0,36 1,92 2,08 2,86 2,64 21,24 21,24 215 137 723 783 1074 992 7989 7989 34 26 215 137 467 527 805 723 6631 6631
132 Moura "Tipper" Multi-Family Residential · 220 82 d,u, 0,09 0.45 0,52 0,25 0,32 0,32 3,81 3,81 7 37 42 21 26 26 313 313 7 37 42 21 26 26 313 313
11 Neilsen Single Family Residential' 210 1 d,u, 0,19 0,56 0,65 0,36 0,51 0,43 4,79 4,79 0 1 1 0 1 0 5 5 0 1 1 0 1 0 5 5
102 Raley "Kobold" Multi-Family Residential' 220 20 d,u, 0,08 0,43 0.42 0,20 0,26 0,26 3,32 3,32 2 9 8 4 5 5 66 66 2 9 8 4 5 5 66 66
128 Redaewick Single-Family Residential' 210 67 d,u, 0,19 0,56 0,65 0,36 0,51 0,43 4.79 4,79 13 38 44 24 34 29 321 321 13 38 44 24 34 29 321 321
114 Righetti:EDPO Single Family Residential (low) 3 210 95 d,u, 0,19 0,56 0.65 0,36 0,86 0.43 4,79 4.79 18 53 62 34 82 41 455 455 18 53 62 34 82 41 455 455
114 Righetti: EDPO Light Industrial' 110 255,32 ksf 0,81 0,11 0,12 0,86 0,07 0,07 3,49 3,49 207 28 31 220 18 18 891 891 207 28 31 220 18 18 891 891
114 TMI Chen: EDPO Multi-Family Residential. 220 332 d,u, 0,08 0,43 0,40 0,20 0,28 0,28 3,20 3,20 27 141 133 65 93 93 1062 1062 27 141 133 65 93 93 1062 1062
114 TMI Chen: EDPO Commercial" 820 582,57 ksf 0.48 0,31 1,66 1,79 2,45 2,26 18,17 18,17 279 178 964 1045 1428 1318 10584 10584 34 26 279 178 622 703 1071 961 8785 8785
114 TMI Chen: EDPO Light Industrial' 110 287,09 ksf 0,81 0,11 0,12 0,86 0,07 0,07 3,49 3,49 233 32 34 247 20 20 1002 1002 233 32 34 247 20 20 1002 100
132 Vargas Single Family Residential 0 210 14 d,u, 0,19 0,56 0,65 0,36 0,51 0,43 4,79 4,79 3 8 9 5 7 6 67 67 3 8 9 5 7 6 67 6
132 Vargas Condominium · 230 72 d,u, 0,09 0.46 0,44 0,21 0,47 0,40 3,42 3.42 7 33 31 15 34 29 246 246 7 33 31 15 34 29 246 246
5 West Dublin BART S,P, Commercial 17 820 344,07 ksf Rates not applicable, Net new trips obtained from specific plan studies, 238 171 867 901 1243 1110 10418 10418
Grand Total Total 10179 4310 7287 12909 9831 8845 101439 101439
Land Use Database_Update_060506,xls
Source: TKJM Transportation Consultants, "A Traffic Study for the Proposed Fallon Crossings Development; September 28, 2005, and Updates by City Staff,
Table C3. Buildout
-------------------
Id-
1"'-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table C4: Pleasanton and Dougherty Valley Land Use Assumptions
Future Baseline Traffic Estimates
Trips
Land Use Size Units AM PM Daily
In Out In Out Total
IIMedlC81 CliniC 72 ksf 140 35 74 200 2601
MF Units 21 d.u. 1 9 9 4 139
Office 207 ksf 284 39 52 256 2279
Retirement Home 65 d.u. 5 9 10 5 380
Light Industrial 679 ksf 495 109 129 496 4723
Retail 200 ksf 126 81 360 518 8596
SF Units 178 d.u. 34 100 116 63 1704
lWarehouse 56 ksf 21 4 7 22 278
Pleasanton total* 1106 386 757 1564 20700
Shapell Single Family~ 815 d.u. 20 60 68 39 1014
Shapell Multi-Family33 335 d.u. 4 19 18 9 289
Nvindemere Single Family33 2012 d.u. 49 147 169 95 2503
Nvindemere Condos33 322 d.u. 3 15 15 7 245
lWindemere Apartrnents33 743 d.u. 8 41 40 20 640
Dougherty Valley total 4227 d.u. 50 173 311 170 4691
Grand Total 1156 559 1068 1734 25391
* Pleasanton Baseline Land Use was assumed to be 23 percent of Pleasanton Buildout
Land Use Database_Update_060506,lds
Source: TKJM Transportation Consultants, 'A Traffic Study for the Proposed Fallon Crossings Development: September 28, 2005,
Table C4, Pleasanton-Dougherly
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
12 There is no trip Generation for Saturday from land use 845 thus, this is based on 846 which had similar
AM and PM peak hour trip generation rates.
13 AM, PM and daily trip rates were based on Draft Focused Traffic Analysis for the Proposed Dublin
Village Development, May 30, 2003. Saturday trip rates for Townhouse (use 231) were based on the
ratio of Saturday peak to PM peak for use 230, multiplied by the PM peak rate for use 231. For
Apartment (use 220), average Saturday trip rates were used.
14
AM, PM and daily trip rates were based on Final Focused Traffic Analysis for the Proposed San Ramon
Village Plaza Development, June 10,2003. Saturday trip rates for Townhouse (use 231) were based
on the ratio of Saturday peak to PM peak for use 230, multiplied by the PM peak rate for use 231.
15 Trip generation based on Final Report: IKEA Retail Center Transportation Study, Dublin, California,
August 2003.
16 AM, PM, and daily trip rates are based on Focused Traffic Circulation Analysis for the Proposed Cisco
Systems Projects, City of Dublin, May 21 ,2001. Saturday trip rates are average rates for General
Office Building (use 710) from the ITE Trip Generation, 6th Edition, according to the guiding principles
stated in the Trip Generation Handbook, October 1998.
17
Net new trips for AM, PM, and daily based on Consultant's Report on the Transportation Impact for the
Proposed Village Parkway, Downtown Core, and West BART Station Specific Plans, City of Dublin.
Net new trips were adjusted proportionately in some cases to reflect current projections. Assumed 15%
reduction in office trips due to proximity to the West Dublin BART station. Also assumed 34% pass-by
trips for commercial during the PM peak. Used ratio of Saturday rates to PM rates from ITE Trip
Generation and applied to PM net new trips to determine Saturday net new trips. Residential trips
include a 30% reduction based on proximity to the BART Station as specified in the above report.
Business Hotel and Quality Restaurant trips are based on ITE trip rates for the Orix Development.
18 Public/semi public area is assumed to be a church based on information provided by the City. The
floor/area ratio assumed is 0.15 based on survey of a few churches in Fremont, CA.
19 Only 50% of high school trips will be external trips, the rest will be internal to the development.
,;
20 ITE Trip Generation for Corporate Headquarters Building (714) was used for rates because
government office building (730) only has one observation and corporate headquarters building is a
single tenant office building similar to government office building. Saturday trip rates were based on the
ratio of PM average rate for corporate headquarters building to PM average rate for general office
building, multiplied by the Saturday peak rate for generai office building.
21 PM trip rate is based on Consultant's Report on the Transportation and Parking Impacts for the
Proposed Shamrock Marketplace Shopping Center Expansion, September 8, 2000. AM, Saturday, and
daily trip rates based on ITE Trip Generation 6th ed.
Land Use Database_Update_060506.xls
Source: TKJM Transportation Consultants. "A Traffic Study for the Proposed Fallon Crossings Development." September 28, 2005.
Footnotes
Page 6
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
33 According to the Dougherty Valley General Plan, Specific Plan, and Related Technical Appendices,
June 1992, only 13 percent of the Dougherty Valley traffic will travel through Eastern Dublin area via
Tassajara Road and Dougherty Road, therefore only those trips are reflected in the trip generation
table. Trip rates are based on average rates from the ITE Trip Generation, 6th Edition.
34 Trip rates are based on ITE rates for Electronic Superstore (863). Saturday trip rates were derived by
applying the Saturday/PM peak ratio for Home Improvement Superstore (862) to the PM peak rate for
Electronic Superstore.
Land Use Database_Update_060506,lCIs Footnotes
Source: TKJM Transportation Consultants, "A Traffic Study for the Proposed Fallon Crossings Development." September 28. 2005, Page 8
---~~--~,----~~~----
L 2 3 t: 4 L 5 1Il 6
- Free ~ Lot 1Il L
- It:
-4111 Ll E Jill IL >- JlllLL IL L Jill L
jilt Jill
,- c F F F
'::J =3 III( lll( =3 =3
= iiilll(( ~ - iiitll( FRE~ lll~ lit'
1Il -
ot~ ~ l!! -
~ If IL ot=:\
7 L 8 L 10 11 l!! 12
JJlllll! - - 1Il L
- -
- E If IL L JL L
E Jill Jill , -
-
,- ,- ,
=3 2- =3 III( III(
- - iiill IIrr .-1
- ~ l!! -
OL~ OL~ l!! -
IL IL
13 14
~ 1l1L L lllL L
, ,
N
Not to Scale I It ( IIlr
~"'-
~,-e.- I
/ \
~
-_ J
11 -~
I
INTERSECTIONS 13 & 14: BASELINE + PROJECT SCENARIO
FIGURE C2
i
!
~
City of Dublin
Casamira Valley - Moller Property Development
YEAR 2025 BUILDOUT LANE GEOMETRY
l"<P
,I
\
LEGEND
. EXISTING INTERSECTION
o FUTURE INTERSECTION
EXISTING ROAD
FUTURE ROAD
o TRAFFIC SIGNAL
... STOP SIGN
OL OVERLAP PHASING
FREE FREE RIGHT TURN
"-- - - ,~
---.......... tl<~
July 17, 2006
~=~=-m
- - -, - .. - - - - _. .- .. ...' ..; - - - .. -
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Intersection Turning Movements
Intersection: #2 - Hacienda Dr 11-580 EB
Scenario NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
Existing Volume 428 158 882 99 545 1210
Added ADDroved & Pending Trips 181 53 364 64 561 236
Baseline Plus Project from Fallon Study 609 211 1246 163 1106 1446
Subtracted Moller Trips -1 0 -3 0 0 0
Baseline Volume 608 211 1243 163 1106 1446
Added Casamira Valley Proiect Trios 1 0 2 0 0 0
Baseline Plus Project Volume 609 211 1245 163 1106 1446
Bulldout Volume 1130 959 2696 130 1441 756
Baseline Volume 608 211 1243 163 1106 1446
Added Casamira Valley Proiect Alternative Trips 0 0 2 0 0 0
Baseline Plus Project Alternative Volume 0 608 211 0 1245 163 1106 0 1446 0 0 0
AM Peak Hour Movements
PM Peak Hour Movements
Scenario NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
ExIsting Volume 1291 497 629 311 579 397
Added A roved & Pendin Tri s 376 269 243 108 402 63
Baseline Plus Project from Fallon Study 1667 766 872 419 981 460
Subtracted Moller Tri s -3 0 -2 0 0 0
Baseline Volume 1664 766 870 419 981 460
Added Casamira Valle Pro 'ect Tri s 2 0 1 0 0 0
Baseline Plus Pro ect Volume 1666 766 871 419 981 460
Bulldout Volume 2490 499 2454 130 648 357
1664 766 870 4'9 981 460
2 0 1 0 0 0
0 1666 766 0 871 419 981 0 460 0 0 0
- -
-
- - ... '..' -" - .. -, - '.
..~...--..
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Intersection Turning Movements
Intersection: #4 - Hacienda Dr I Dublin Blvd
Scenario NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
Existing Volume 287 356 164 23 335 63 107 262 332 107 333 9
Added Approved & Pending Trips 54 530 38 1 104 61 78 289 100 45 473 5
Baseline Plus Project from Fallon Study 341 886 202 24 439 124 185 551 432 152 806 14
Subtracted Moller Trips 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 -6 0 -3 -19 0
Baseline Volume 341 886 201 24 439 124 185 545 432 149 787 14
Added Casamira Vallev Project Trips 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 14 0
Baseline Plus Project Volume 341 886 202 24 439 124 185 550 432 151 801 14
Buildout Volume 533 1029 246 38 1616 343 201 635 233 697 1676 123
Baseline Volume 341 886 201 24 439 124 185 545 432 149 787 14
Added Casamira Vallev Project Alternative Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 15 0
Baseline Plus Project Alternative Volume 341 886 201 24 439 124 185 548 432 151 802 14
AM Peak Hour Movements
PM Peak Hour Movements
Scenario NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
Existing Volume 386 335 361 55 888 287 353 447 247 91 388 150
Added A roved & Pendin Tri s 111 136 35 5 441 86 65 489 92 35 354 1
Baseline Plus Project from Fallon Study 497 471 396 60 1329 373 418 936 339 126 742 151
Subtracted Moller Tri s 0 0 -3 0 0 0 0 -22 0 -2 -12 0
Baseline Volume 497 471 393 60 1329 373 418 914 339 124 730 151
Added Casamira Valle Pro "ect Tri s 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 15 0 1 9 0
Baseline Plus Pro ect Volume 497 471 395 60 1329 373 418 929 339 125 739 151
Bulldout Volume 295 902 763 253 547 275 346 1444 320 768 899 52
497 47 393 60 1329 373 18 914 39 124 730 151
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 15 0 1 7 0
497 471 395 60 1329 373 418 929 339 125 737 151
- - -- .. ... -" - .. - ,.. .. ,.. ..\ - .. .. .. -
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Intersection Turning Movements
Intersection: #6 - Tassajara Rd / 1-580 WB
Scenario NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
Existing Volume 746 723 652 632 578 392
Added Aooroved & Pendina Trios 759 48 741 785 84 205
Baseline Plus Project from Fallon Study 1505 771 1393 1417 662 597
Subtracted Moller Trios -18 0 -35 -38 0 -6
Baseline Volume 1487 771 1358 1379 662 591
Added Casamira Valley Proiect Trips 13 0 25 27 0 4
Baseline Plus Project Volume 1500 771 1383 1406 662 595
Bulldout Volume 1743 474 1740 1855 976 802
Baseline Volume 1487 771 1358 1379 662 591
Added Casamira Valley Proiect Alternative Trips 9 0 28 31 0 3
Baseline Plus Project Alternative Volume 0 1496 771 0 1386 1410 0 0 0 662 0 594
AM Peak Hour Movements
PM Peak Hour Movements
Scenario NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
Existing Volume 821 552 967 367 447 328
Added A roved & Pendin Tri s 1354 50 610 499 31 145
Baseline Plus Project from Fallon Study 2175 602 1577 866 478 473
Subtracted Moller Tri s -60 0 -22 -24 0 -20
Baseline Volume 2115 602 1555 842 478 453
Added Casamira Valle Pro "ect Tri s 42 0 16 18 0 14
Baseline Plus Pro ect Volume 2157 602 1571 860 478 467
Bulldout Volume 2455 448 2423 1646 563 575
2115 602 555 842 478 453
41 0 13 15 0 14
0 2156 602 0 1568 857 0 0 0 478 0 467
----~--~~-~~~---~~~
Casamlra Valley Residential Development
Intersection Turning Movements
Intersection: #8 - Tassajara Rd I Fallon Rd
AM Peak Hour Movements
Scenario NBl NBT NBR SBl SBT SBR EBl EBT EBR WBl WBT WBR
Existing Volume 586 266
Added Approved & Pending Trips 83 37 0 2 47 474 340 15 34 2 45 5
Baseline Plus Project from Fallon Study 83 37 0 2 47 1060 606 15 34 2 45 5
Subtracted Moller Trips 0 -7 0 0 -19 -117 -38 0 0 0 0 0
Baseline Volume 83 30 0 2 28 943 568 15 34 2 45 5
Added Casamira Valley Project Trips 0 5 0 0 13 87 27 0 0 0 0 0
Baseline Plus Project Volume 83 35 0 2 41 1030 595 15 34 2 45 5
Bulldout Volume 18 593 11 13 1296 1890 263 29 64 9 56 11
Baseline Volume 83 30 0 2 28 943 568 15 34 2 45 5
Added Casamira Valley Project Alternative Trips 0 3 0 0 15 94 19 0 0 0 0 0
Baseline Plus Project Alternative Volume 83 33 0 2 43 1037 587 15 34 2 45 5
PM Peak Hour Movements
Scenario NBl NBT NBR SBl SBT SBR EBl EBT EBR WBl WBT WBR
Existing Volume 365 672
Added A roved & Pendin Tri s 46 33 2 5 64 437 566 52 151 1 30 3
Baseline Plus Project from Fallon Study 46 33 2 5 64 802 1238 52 151 1 30 3
Subtracted Moller Tri s 0 -24 0 0 -12 -74 -131 0 0 0 0 0
Baseline Volume 46 9 2 5 52 728 1107 52 151 1 30 3
Added Casamira Valle Pro'ect Tri s 0 17 0 0 9 55 92 0 0 0 0 0
Baseline Plus Pro.ect Volume 46 26 2 5 61 783 1199 52 151 1 30 3
Bulldout Volume 64 1257 45 19 915 ' 844 1731 71 67 4 37 9
4 9 2 5 52 2 1107 52 151 1 30 3
0 16 0 0 7 44 89 0 0 0 0 0
46 25 2 5 59 772 1196 52 151 1 30 3
-.. - -- - - -.. - --.. -... - -..~
Casamlra Valley Residential Development
Intersection Turning Movements
Intersection: #10 - EI Charro Rd 11-580 EB
Scenario NBl NBT NBR SBl SBT SBR EBl EBT EBR WBl WBT WBR
Existing Volume 36 14 39 6 47 4 50
Added Aooroved & Pending Trips 55 1 61 299 57 -4 18
Baseline Plus Project from Fallon Study 91 15 67 338 104 0 68
Subtracted Moller Trips -2 0 -6 -6 0 0 -2
Baseline Volume 89 15 61 332 104 0 66
Added Casamira Valley Proiect Trips 2 0 3 2 0 0 1
Baseline Plus Project Volume 91 15 64 334 104 0 67
Bulldout Volume 826 483 831 831 1130 0 677
Baseline Volume 89 15 61 332 104 0 66
Added Casamira Valley Proiect Alternative Trips 1 0 4 5 0 0 1
Baseline Plus Project Alternative Volume 0 90 15 0 65 337 104 0 67 0 0 0
AM Peak Hour Movements
PM Peak Hour Movements
Scenario NBl NBT NBR SBl SBT SBR EBl EBT EBR WBl WBT WBR
Existing Volume 12 15 575 8 5 11 40
Added A roved & Pendin Tri s 76 2 46 158 231 -11 16
Baseline Plus Project from Fallon Study 88 17 54 733 236 0 56
Subtracted Moller Tri s -8 0 -4 -3 0 0 -1
Baseline Volume 80 17 50 730 236 0 55
Added Casamira Valle Pro"ect Tri s 6 0 3 2 0 0 1
Baseline Plus Pro ect Volume 86 17 53 732 236 0 56
Bulldout Volume 1544 923 759 1425 467 0 677
80 17, 50 730 236 0 55
6 0 2 2 0 0 1
0 86 17 0 52 732 236 0 56 0 0 0
-~---~--~-~-------~
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Intersection Turning Movements
Intersection: #12 - Fallon Rd I Street E
Scenario NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
Existing Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0
Added Approved & Pending Trips 37 8 2 88 125 11
Baseline Plus Project from Fallon Study 37 8 2 88 125 11
Subtracted Moller Trips 0 0 0 -19 -7 0
Baseline Volume 37 8 2 69 118 11
Added Casamira Valley Project Trips 0 0 0 13 5 0
Baseline Plus Project Volume 37 8 2 82 123 11
Bulldout Volume 49 11 5 1343 602 19
Baseline Volume 37 8 2 69 118 11
Added Casamira Valley Project Alternative Trips 0 0 0 15 3 0
Baseline Plus Project Alternative Volume 0 0 0 37 0 8 2 84 0 0 121 11
AM Peak Hour Movements
PM Peak Hour Movements
Scenario NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
Existing Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0
Added A roved & Pendin Tri s 22 5 6 238 76 36
Baseline Plus Project from Fallon Study 22 5 6 238 76 36
Subtracted Moller Tri s 0 0 0 -12 -24 0
Baseline Volume 22 5 6 226 52 36
Added Casamira Valle Pro "ect Tri s 0 0 0 9 17 0
Baseline Plus Pro ect Volume 22 5 6 235 69 36
Bulldout Volume 29 8 11 964 1311 51
22 5 6 226 52 36
0 0 0 7 16 0
0 0 0 22 0 5 6 233 0 0 68 36
--------~-~~~--~--~
Casamira Valley Residential Development
Intersection Turning Movements
Intersection: #14 - Tassajara Rd / South Project Access
Scenario NBl NBT NBR SBl SBT SBR EBl EBT EBR WBl WBT WBR
Existing Volume 266 0 0 586
Added Aooroved & Pendina Trios 340 0 0 474
Baseline Plus Project from Fallon Study 606 0 0 1060
Subtracted Moller Trios -45 0 0 -136
Baseline Volume 561 0 0 924
Added Casamira Vallev Project Trips 12 20 1 37 60 3
Baseline Plus Project Volume 573 20 1 961 60 3
Bulldout Volume 847 20 1 3139 60 3
Baseline Volume 561 0 0 924
Added Casamira Valle v Proiect Alternative Trips 8 14 1 42 67 4
Baseline Plus Prolect Alternative Volume 0 569 14 1 966 0 0 0 0 67 0 4
AM Peak Hour Movements
PM Peak Hour Movements
Scenario NBl NBT NBR SBl SBT SBR EBl EBT EBR WBl WBT WBR
ExistIng Volume 672 0 0 365
Added A roved & Pendin Tri s 566 0 0 437
Baseline Plus Project from Fallon Study 1238 0 0 802
Subtracted Moller Tri s -155 0 0 -86
Baseline Volume 1083 0 0 716
Added Casamira Valle Pro "ect Tri s 44 65 4 24 40 2
Baseline Plus Pro ect Volume 1127 65 4 740 40 2
Buildout Volume 2932 65 4 1738 40 2
Baseline Volume 1083 0 0 716
Added Casamira Valle Pro "ect Alternative Tri s 42 63 4 20 32 1
Baseline Plus Pro ect Alternative Volume 0 1125 63 4 736 0 0 0 0 32 0 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~-n Kimley-Hom
~_U and Associates, Inc.
ApPENDIX D - LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS:
BASELINE CONDITIONS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NB CUC=L =0.1722
EB CUC T =0.1297 TOTAL U/C 0.64
SB CUC TR =0.2224 LOS B
UB CUC L =0.1134 S UARRflNT<U. R) Y . Y
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I' '
I
I
I
1'-
I
I-u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~_... Kimley-Hom
-...J _ ~ and AssociaIes, Inc.
ApPENDIX E - LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS:
BASELINE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
I
I"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~-
I-
I"
I'
I
I
1--'
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~_..,. Kimley-Hom
~_U and Associates, Inc.
ApPENDIX F - LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS:
BASELINE PLUS PROJECT ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I'
I'
I-
I'
I
I-
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~_.... Kimlay-Horn
1Ill......I_ ~ and Associates, Inc.
ApPENDIX G - LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS:
BUILDOUT CONDITIONS
SOURCE: TJKM TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS. "A TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THE
Proposed Fallon Crossings Development." September 28,2005,
- -
-
~..~ _,~ .~.~~"""._.. ~,!.\'~~'''''''''~~~~'''''''_'''''J'.''''"'!7#''''''''''_~''-<'''~-'l''""..,.,.~':Jo-~~''''''-''''''''' ~''''7'''-' ....
-
-
-
-
- -
~~:_:~!:~~~:_~~_~:~~_~~~~~~~~:~:~~~_~~~su~:~~:~______________________ __
---------------------------------------==----------------------------=--
INTERSECTION
Count Date
Condition: Buildout Conditions AM Peak
City of Dublin
Peak Hour
06/15/05
========================================================================
CCTA METHOD
lEFT
I
143 --- 2.0
1 Dougherty Rd./Dublin Blvd.
Time
RIGHT THRU LEFT
138 2096 50
I 'II
<--- v --->
1.1 4.1 2.0
8-PHASE SIGNAL
I Split? N
1.0 --- 30 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
3.0<--- 1657 THRU Dublin Blvd.
THRU 1162 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES)
RIGHT 647 --- 2.5
I
v
N
W + E
S
3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 --- '296 LEFT
<--- ^ ---> I
2,112L 174 v
LEFT THRU,RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Dougherty Rd.
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
MOVEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRITICAL
V/C
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED
VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY
V/C
RATIO
-------.---------------------------------------------------------------.
.. -
-
-
- --
-
- -
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
========================================================-----===========
Condition: Buildout Conditions PM Peak 06/15/05
========================================================--- ----========
INTERSECTION
Count Date
1 Dougherty Rd./Dublin Blvd.
. Time '
City of Dublin
Peak Hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCTA METHOD
RIGHT THRU lEFT
134 1315' 43
,I I I
<--- v --->
1.1 4.1 2.0
8-PHASE SIGNAL
^
LEFT
I
263 --- 2.0
I Split? N
1.0 --- 17 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
3.0<--- 1717 THRU Dublin Blvd.
THRU 1455 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES)
RIGHT 566 --- 2.5
I
v
N
W + E
S
3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 --- 793 LEFT
<--- ^ ---> I
101! 1912 !38 v
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Dougherty Rd.
SIG "ARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
========================-----=--=====--==--============= --=----~
MOVEMENT
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED
VOLUME VOlUME* CAPACITY
CRITICAL
V/C
vlc
RATIO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NB RIGHT (R) 974 768 * 3000 , 0.2560 NB RIGHT (R) 538 o * 3000 0.0000
THRU (n 1244 1244 4950 0.2513 THRU (n 1922 1922 4950 0.3883
lEFT (l) 216 216 4304 . 0.0502 0.0502 lEFT (l) 1015 1015 4304 0.2358 0.2358
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
sa RIGHT (R) 138 138 1650 0.0836 SB RIGHT (R) 134 134 1650 0.0812
THRU (n 2096 2096 6600 0.3176 THRU (n 1315 1315 6600 0.1992
LEFT (L) 50 50 3000 0.0167 LEFT (L) 43 43 3000 0.0143
T + R 2234 6600 0.3385 0.3385 T + R 1449 6600 0.2195 0.2195
------~-----------------------------------------------------------------
EB RlGHT (R)
THRU (n
LEFT (l)
647
1162
143
496 *
1162
143
3000
4950
3000
0.1653
0.2347
0.0477
0.0477
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I./B RIGHT (R)
THRU (n
LEFT (L)
30
1657
296
3 *
1657
296
1650
4950
4304
0.0018
0.3347
0.0688
0.3347
========================================================================
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
0.77
C
======--=================================================================
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=BUIlDOUT.INT,VOL=BLDOUT.AMV,CAP=...LOSCAP.TAB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EB RIGHT (R) 566 0 * 3000 0.0000
THRU (n 1455 1455 4950 0.2939 0.2939
LEFT (l) 263 .263 3000 0.0877
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WB RIGHT (R) 17 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1717 1717 ' 49S0 0.3469
lEFT (l) 793 793 43040.1842 0.1842
=======================--============--=======--- ----==
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
. INTER~ECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
0.93
E
========================================================__r -===--=====
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=BUIlDOUT.INT,VOL=BLDOUT.PMV,CAP=...LOSCAP.TAB
-
..
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
. .t:_. ...
- -:'....,,~-:-o,.-~_~ ~ _ '"'. ~y-::' ~"'lJzi:!~i;:/'-, .,_ ~- ""_.",~ t. :"1_,- .. -, 'j, J )." \ ~ M ,I J __, ... .p,' ,_ 1-_ ,- -~< . 1- )r'-~T -\J_ ~ \:-~;:~y-IJ...., _:.' )~_ ~'_'" _' ~_
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Condition: Buildout Conditions AM Peak
06/15/05
========================================--===============================
INTERSECTION
Count Date
2 Hacienda Dr./I-S80 EB Ramps City of Dublin
Time Peak Hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCTA METHOD
RIGHT THRU'LEFT
133 2696 0
I I I
<--- v --->
3.1 1.9 3.0 0.0
2-PHASE SIGNAL
^
I Split? N
0.0 --- 0 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 EB Ramps
LEFT 1441
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES)
RIGHT 756 --- 3.1
I
v
N
Y + E
S
0.0 3.0 1.9
<--- . ^ --->
11,10 !59
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
0 LEFT RIGHT 357 --- 3.1 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 _u 0 LEFT
I <--- ^ ---> I
v 12Jo 199 v
SIG YARRANTS: N SIG "ARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y W + E Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
0.0 ---
I
v
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr.
==----=========================--==============================--===========
MOVEMENT
ORIGINAL AD JUSTEO
VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACIty
CRITICAL
VIC ,
V/C
RATIO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
========================================================--
Condition: Buildout Conditions PM Peak
06/15/05
=============================--===--- =----==========--====---- ~==:&-
INTERSECTION
Count Date
2 Hacienda Dr./I-580 EB Ramps City of Dublin
Time Peak Hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCTA METHOD
RIGHT THRU LEFT
130 2454 0
I I I
<--- v --->
1.9 3.0 0.0
2-PHASE SIGNAL
.....;.---------
^
LEFT
I
648 u_ 3.1
I Split? N
0.0 --- 0 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 EB,Ramps
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES)
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr.
====::::;=~=====--============- -- -- - --
MOVEMENT
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED
VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY
CRITICAL
VIC
VIC
RATIO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NB RIGHT (R) 959 959 1800 0.5328 NB RIGHT (R) 499 499 1800 0.2772
THRU (n 1130 1130 5400 0.2093 THRU (n 2490 2490 5400 0.4611 0.4611
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB RIGHT (R) 133 133 1800 0.0739 SB RIGHT (R) 130 130 1800 0.0722
THRU (n 2696 2696 5400 0.4993 ' 0.4993 THRU (n 2454 2454 5400 0.4544
--------------------------------------~------------------------~--------
EB RIGHT (R) . 756
LEFT (L) 1441
T + R + L
756
1441
2197
4695
4695
7590
0.1610
0.3069
0.2895
0.3069
------------------------------------------------------------------------
==============~==============--==========================================
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
0.81
D
=====----======================--======================--===================
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=BUILDOUT.INT,VOL=BLDOUT.AMV,CAP=...LOSCAP.TAB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EB RIGHT (R)
LEFT (L)
T + R + L
357
648
357
648
1'005
4695
4695
7590
0.0760
0.1380
0.1324
0.1380
------------------------------------------------------------------------
=========--======*==============~-=====-
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
=====================----===-- --=========-
* AOJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=BUILDOUT.INT,VOL=BLDOUT.PMV,CAP=...LOSCAP.TAB
-
--=====:r===
0.60
A
-----==
- -
-
-
-
-..--
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
========================================================================
I NTERSECTI ON
Count Date
Condition: Buildout Conditions AM Peak
06/15/05
========================================================================
CCTA METHOD
LEFT 201
4 Hacienda Dr./Dublin Blvd.
Time
RIGHT THRU LEFT
343 161638
I I I
<--- v --->
2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0
THRU 635 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES)
City of Dubl in
Peak Hour
8-PHASE SIGNAL
I Spl i t? N
1.0 --- 123 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
3.0<--- 1676 THRU Dublin Blvd.
-
- ..
-
^
RIGHT THRU LEFT
275 547 253
I I I
<--- v --->
1.0 3.0 2.0
-
INTERSECTION - 4 Hacienda Dr./Dublin Blvd.
Count Date Time,
- -
- -..
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants / ,
========~=========================================================--~-
Condition: Buildout conditions PM Peak 06/15/05
=========================---~=====--======================--==============
CCTA METHOD
, LEFT
I
346 --- 2.0
THRU 1444 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES)
City of Dublin
Peak Hour
8-PHASE SIGNAL
^
I Spl i t? N
1.0 --- 52 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
3.0<--- 899 THRU Dublin Blvd.
RIGHT 233 --- 2.5 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 697 LEFT RIGHT 320 _u 2.5 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 --- 768 LEFT
I <--- ^ ---> I I <--- ^ ---> I
v , 5311019 t6 v v ~9! 9!2 t3 v
N SIG WARRANTS: N SIG WARRANTS:
W + E Urb=Y, Rur=Y W + E Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr. STREET NAME: Hacienda Dr.
MOVEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRITICAL
VlC
NB, RIGHT (R)
THRU (T)
LEFT (L)
SB RIGHT (R)
THRU (n
LEFT (L)
EB RIGHT (R)
THRU (n
LEFT (L)
UB RIGHT (R)
THRU (n
LEFT (L)
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED
VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY
246
1029
533
343
1616
38
233
635
201
123
1676
697
o *
1029
533
232 *
1616
38
o *
635
201
102 *
1676
697
1650
4950
4304
1650
4950
3000
3000
4950
3000
1650
4950
3000
VIC
RATIO
0.0000
0.2079
0.1238
0.1238
0.1406
0.3265
0.0127
0.3265
0.0000
0.1283
0.0670
0.0670
0.0618
0.3386
0.2323
0.3386
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
0.86
D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=BUILDOUT.INT,VOL=BLDOUT.AMV,CAP=...LOSCAP.TAB
===========~========================-------===========-- -
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C ' CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO VIC
~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NB RIGHT (R) 763 341 * 1650 0.2067 0.2067
THRU (T) 9D2 902 4950 0.1822
LEFT (L) 295 295 4304 0.0685
SB RIGHT (R)
THRU (n
LEFT (l)
EB RIGHT (R)
THRU (n
LEFT (L)
WB RIGHT (R)
THRU (n
LEFT (L)
======-
275
547
253
85 *
547
253
320
1444
346
114 *
1444
346
52
899
768
0*
899
768
1650
4950
3000
3000
4950
3000
1650
4950
3000
=
0.0515
0.1105
0.0843
0.0843
0.0380
0.2917
0.1153
0.2917
0.0000
0.1816
0.2560
0.2560 '
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
--
-------------------
- ------------------ --
0.84
D
--
~--======
=============================================----=
-=====
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON REO
INT=BUILDOUT.INT,VOL=BLDOUT.PMV,CAP=...LOSCAP.TAB
- -
-
-
- -
- -
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
- --
- ~ ~ - - ~ - -- --- ~ - - ~-
~ -. .
l,..,:~-:..;-'~~ ~"'-_~ -'<';'-1,,-,,'- - ~..l')~-:-, ..;I.... _1 - _, ,<,-. _ _' < : _,~ ~ ~'-' " '~. _,' ,,' \~ , "\ ~."~''1"'1-_. ;'--""""~-~... ,_ '-.. ~,- > -~~
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
========================================================================
Condition: Mitigated Buildout Conditions AM Peak 08/11/05
INTERSECTION
Count Date
========================================================================
5 Santa Rita Rd./I-580 EB Ramps City of Dublin
Time Peak Hour
----_._------------------------~-----------------------------------------
CCTA METHOD
LEFT 601
7-PHASE SIGNAL
RIGHT THRU LEFT
466 2010 240
I I I
<--- v --->
3.0 1.9 2.0 1.0
I Split? N
2.5 --- 417 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 EB Ramps
THRU 135 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES)
N
Y + E
S
RIGHT 516 --- 1.9 0.0 4.1 1.1 2.0 --- 142 LEFT
I <--- ^ ---> I
v 1 1819 164 v
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Santa Rita Rd. .
SIG YARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
MOVEMENT
========================================================================
CRITICAL
VIC
NB RIGHT (R)
THRU (n
T + R
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED
VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY
VIC
RATIO
364
1869
364
1869
2233
1650
6600
6600
0.2206
0.2832
0.3383
----------------~-------------------------------------------------------
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants.
============================================--===========================
1 NTERSECTl ON
Count Date
Condition: Mitigated Buildout Conditions PM Peak
08/11/05
====================--===================================================
5 Santa Rita Rd./I-580 EB Ramps City of Dublin
Time Peak Hour
ceTA METHOD
----------~---------------------------------------._--------------------
7-PHASE SIGNAl
I
LEFT 1057 --- 3.0
RIGHT THRU LEFT
926 1791 270
I I I
<--- v --->
1.9 2.0 1.0
I Spl it? N
2.5 ---. 515 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
0.0<--- . 0 THRU 1-580 EB RlllI'pS
RIGHT
THRU 79 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES)
65 --- 1.9 0.0 4.1 1.1 2.0 --- 126 LEFT
I <--- ^ ---> I
v. ! 25!6 103 v
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Santa Rita Rd.
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
MOVEMENT
================================--============--============- v __~=
CRITICAL
VIC
YB RIGHT (R)
LEFT (L)
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED
VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY
VIC
RATIO
N
Y + E
S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NB RIGHT (R)
THRU (n
T + R
203
2596
0.1230
0.3933
0.4241
203
2596
2799
1650
6600
6600
0.4241
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB RIGHT (R) 466 466 1650 0.2824 SB RIGHT (R) 926 926 1650 0.5612
THRU (T) 2010 2010 3300 0.6091 0.6091 THRU (n 1791 1791 3300 0.5427
LEFT (L) 240 240 1650 0.1455 LEFT (L) 270 270 1650 0.1636 0.1636
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
EB RIGHT (R) 516 516 1650 0.3127 EB RIGHT (R) 65 65 1650 0.0394
THRU (T) 135 135 1650 0.0818 THRU (n 79 79 1650 0.0479
LEFT' (L) 601 ,601 4304, 0.1396 0.1396 LEFT (L) 1057 1057 4304 0.2456 0.2456
\IB RIGHT (R)
LEFT (L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.0000
417
142
o *
142
3000
3000
0.0000
0.0473
~=======================================================================
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION, LEVEL OF SERVICE:
0.75
C
========================================================================
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MIT_BU-1.INT,VOL=eLDOUT.AMV,CAP=...LOSCAP.TAB
----------------------------------~-------------------------------------
515
126
24 *
126
3000
3000
0.0080
0.0420
0.0080
---------------------------
-----------------------------
__===============--======______.___---u~
TOTAL VOLUME-TO~CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION 'LEVEL OF SERVICE:
0.84
D
========================================================================
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=MIT_BU-1.INT,VOL=BLDOUT.PMV,CAP=...LOSCAP.TAB
- -
-
-
-
- -
- -
- -
-
- -
- -
- --
~~"~~-!"...'~ j:,.~'~ '-";_\ . " _'" ~~,<:,d~: 1 . ~l .; ~:T"~ ~ _ _. - j ~. -' j _' ',.': ~..) \ _ _' '- j _~l"" - \, ,I I ~\ -, ::'I" _, ~'~'""",,,,~,"",,-L _V1~--.-,...._ -~'"";;;= ..--
LOS Software by,~TJKM Transportation Consultants
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
========================================================================
==================================--=====================================
Condition: Buildout Conditions AM Peak
06/15/05
Condition: Buildout Conditions PM Peak
06/15/05
========================================================================
================--========--===========--_:';;4======================
I NTERSECTI ON
Count Date
7 Tassajara Rd./Dublin Blvd.
Time
City of Dublin
Peak Hour
INTERSECTION
Count Date
7 Tassajara Rd./Dublin Blvd.
Time
City of Dublin
Peale Hour
CCTA METHOD
LEFT
I
126 --- 2.0
RIGHT THRU LEFT
293 2170. 242
I I I
<--- v --->
2.0 4.0 2.0
8-PHASE SIGNAL
CCTA METHOD
THRU 298 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES)
I Split? N
1.0 --- 124 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
3.0<--- 1265 THRU Dublin Blvd.
LEFT
, I
939 --- 2.0
RIGHT THRU LEFT
430 1497 281
I I I
<--- v --->
2.0 4.0 2.0
8-PHASE SIGNAL
^
^
THRU 830 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES)
I Split? N
1.0 --- 274 RIGHT
.STREET NAME:
3.0<--- 641 THRU Dublin Blvd.
RIGHT 226 --- 2.5 3.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 --- 1188 LEFT RIGHT 745 --- 2~5 3.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 _u 1088 LEFT
I <--- ^ ---> I I <--- ^ ---> I
v 9J Js !74' v v 5J 1J9 181 v
N SIG WARRANTS: N SIG WARRANTS:
W + E Urb=Y, Rur=Y W + E Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd.
==--=====================================================================
STREET NAME: Tassajara Rd.
=====================================================~==--===
===
MOVEMENT
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED
VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY
V/C
RATIO
CRITICAL
VIC
MOVEMENT
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED
VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY
V/C
RATIO
CRITICAL
V/C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NB RIGHT (R) 574 119 * 1650 0.0721 NB RIGHT (R) 681 264 * 1650 0.1600
THRU (T) 735 735 6600 0.1114 THRU en 1459 1459 6600 0.2211
LEFT (L) 962 962 4304 0.2235, 0.2235 LEFT (L) 569 569 4304 0.1322 0.1322
----------------------..------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB RIGHT (R) 293 224 * 3000 0.0747 SB RIGHT (R) 430 o * 3000 0.0000
THRU (T) 2170 2170 6600 0.3288 0.3288 THRU (T) 1497 1497 6600 0.2268 0.2268
LEFT (L) 242 242 3000 0.0807 LEFT (L) 281 281 3000 0.0937
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
EB RIGHT (R) 226 o * 3000 0.0000 EB RIGHT (R) 745 348 * 3000 0.1160
THRU (T) 298 298 4950 0:0602 0.0602 THRU eT) 830 830 4950 0.1677
LEFT (L) 126 126 3000 0.0420 LEFT (L) 939 939 3000 0.3130 0.3130
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\IB RIGHT (R)
THRU (T)
LEFT (L)
124
1265
1188
0*
1265
1188
1650
4950
4304
0.0000
0.2556
0.2760
0.2760
WB ' RIGHT (R)
THRU (n
LEFT (L)
274
641
1088
119 *
641
1088
1650
4950
4304
0.0721
0.1295
0.2528
0.1295
===========================================================~============
===================--====--====================---==-- . --===
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
0.89
o
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
0.80
C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
===============~=======--==================--=========----================
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=BUILDOUT.INT,VOL=BLDOUT.AMV~CAP=...LOSCAP.TAB
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=BUILDOUT.INT,VOL=BLDOUT.PMV,CAP=...LOSCAP.TAB
- -
- --
- -
- -
-
-
- --
- -
- --
- -
~~:\.,~-~c,J- ~ ~" -'-"",,; _ '-'-'." ~l~;'-. ...., ~~ . ~ '''' ~ " .', ~l ..<.'- _~ _, _ -" '_, _ _ ,.,'.
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
=======================================================~================
INTERSECTION
Count Date
Condition: Buildout Conditions AM Peak
06/15/05
========================================================================
9 Fallon Rd./Dublin Blvd.
Time
City of Oubl in
Peak Hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCTA METHOD
lEFT
I
39 --- 2.0
RIGHT THRU LEFT
347 1374 615
I I I
<--- v --->
1.0 4.0 2.0
8-PHASE SIGNAL
^
ISplit?N'
1.0 --- 247 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
3.0<--- 1449 THRU Dublin Blvd.
THRU 450 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES)
RIGHT 278 --- 2.5
I
v
N
II + E
S
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
=======================:::=====~-=====================-
I NTERSECTI ON
Count Date
Condition: Buildout Conditions PM Peak
06/15/05
===========================================================--========----
9 Fallon Rd./Dublin Blvd.
Time
City of Dubl in
Peak Hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCTA METHOD
LEFT
505 u12.0
RIGHT THRU LEFT
83 676 549
I I I
<--- v --->
1.0 4.0 2.0
THRU 1446 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES)
8-PHASE SIGNAL
I Split? N
1.0 --- 311 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
3.0<--- 646 THRU Dublin Blvd.
3.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 --- 822 LEFT RIGHT 707 --- 2.5 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 --- 1023 LEFT
<--- ^ ---> I I <--- ^ ---> I
921 31, J49 v v 50! 1113 105 v
SIG IIARRANTS: N
Urb=Y, Rur=Y II + E
LEFT THRU RIGHT SpLit? N S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Fallon Rd.
MOVEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
V/C CRITICAL
RATIO V/C
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED
VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STREET NAME: Fallon Rd.
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
MOVEMENT
===================================--==============--==~--~
CRITICAL
VIC
--====
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C
VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY ' RATIO
-----------------------------------------------~------------------------
NB RIGHT (R) 1049 734 * 3000 0.2447 0.2447 NB RIGHT (R) 605 213 * 3000 0.0710
THRU (1) 341 341 6600 0.0517 THRU (n 1183 1183 6600 0.1792 0.1792
lEFT (L) 928 928 4304 0,,2156 LEFT (l) 500 500 4304 0.1162
------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------~----------------------------------------
S8 RIGHT (R) 347 326 * 1650 0.1976 S8 RIGHT (R) 83 o * 1650 0.0000
THRU (1) 1374 1374 6600 0.2082 THRU (1) 676 676 6600 0.1024
LEFT (L) 615 615 3000 0.2050 0.2050 LEFT (l) 549 549 3000 0.1830 0.1830
EB RIGHT (R)
THRU (1)
lEFT (l)
-------------------------------------------------------------.----------
3000
4950
3000
278
450
39
o *
450
39
0.0000
0.0909
0.0130
0.0130
LIB RIGHT (R)
THRU (1)
lEFT (l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.2927
247
1449
822
0*
1449
. 822
1650
4950
4304
0.0000
0.2927
0.1910
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL VOlUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
'INTERSECTION lEVEL OF SERVICE:
, 0.76
C
========================================================================
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=BUILDOUT.INT,VOL=BLDOUT.AMV,CAP=...LOSCAP.TAB
'EB RIGHT (R)
THRU (1)
lEFT (l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.2921
707
1446
505
358 *
1446
505
3000
4950
3000'
0.1193
0.2921
0.1683
lIB RIGHT (R)
THRU (n
lEFT (L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1650
4950
4304
0.2377
311
646
1023
9*
646
1023
0.0055
0.1305
0.2377
========================!!!'--====-IU;;;._===-----======_ _===--====
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION lEVEL OF SERVICE:
0.89
o
==============================================================----======
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=BUllDOUT.INT,VOL=BLDOUT.PMV,CAP=...lOSCAP.TAB
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- -
-
-
-
-
~~';_ ~ PO' ~'-:;.."t" ~,,~ 'L<~' . .-'~,~qi;' ~ "''- ' . ~'j .' '" ..., ~ffl ,,- - :;:ya"""'~ ~? - , ' I..: ' ~,. ~ ~ ;"'''1 ~,~~ 7~--"-~., ~- ~ ",.....:::~ '~__J. _,..::~.....- _ ... _ ...,:"-'=1'."'.:: ' ~ ~~~- _
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants
========================================================================
06/15/05
INTERSECTION
Count Date
Condition: Buildout Conditions AM Peak
City of Dublin
Peak Hour
========================================================================
ccrA METHOD
LEFT
I
o --- 0.0
11 Fallon Rd./I-580 WB Ramps
Time
RIGHT THRU LEFT
903 1775 0
I I I
<--- v --->
1.9 3.0 0.0
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES)
RIGHT
o --- 0.0
I
v
N
W + E
S
2-PHASE SIGNAL
I Spl i t? N
2.0 --- 997 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 WB Ramps
2.0 --- 377 LEFT
I
v
0.0 3.0 1.9
<--- ^ --->
! 1718 t8
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Fallon Rd.
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
MOVEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRITICAL
V/C
NB RIGHT (R)
THRU (T)
S8 RIGHT (R)
THRU (T)
WB RIGHT (R)
LEFT (l)
V/C
RATIO
158
1798
158
1798
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED
VOLUME VOLUME. CAPACITY
0.0878
0.3330
903
1775
903
1775
1800
5400
0.3330
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
997
377
997
377
1800
5400
0.5017
0.3287
3273
3273
0.3046
o. 1152
0.3046
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.64
B
========================================================================
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=BUILDOUT.INT,VOL=BLDOUf.AMV,CAP=...lOSCAP.TAB
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation Consultants'
=========================================================--===--==========
Condition: Buildout Conditions PM Peak
06/15/05
===============================================~========================
I NTERSECTl ON
Count Date
11 Fallon Rd./I-580 WB Ramps
Time
City of Dublin
Peak Hour
CCTA METHOD
RIGHT THRU LEFT
1077 1790' 0
I I I
<--- v' --->
1.9 3.0 0.0
2-PHASE SIGNAL
LEFT
I
o --- 0.0
I Split? N
2.0 --- 1091 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 WB Ramps
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES)
RIGHT
o --- 0.0
I
v
0.0' 3.0 1.9
<--- ^ --->
! 13!8 ,172
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y. Rur=Y
2.0 --- 394 LEFT
I
v
N
W + E
S
STREET NAME: Fallon Rd.
==============================================--========~-======r.==:=====
MOVEMENT
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED
VOLUME VOLUME. CAPACITY
VIC
RATIO
CRITICAL
VIC
NB RIGHT (R)
THRU (T)
672
1338
0.3733
0.2478
672
1338
1800
5400
S8 RIGHT (R) 1077 1077 1800 0.5983
THRU (T) 1790 1790 5400 0.3315 0.3315
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WB RIGHT (R) 1091 1091 3273 0.3333 0.3333
lEFT (l) 394 394 3273 0.1204
================--================--======
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
0.66
B
---------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------- -
~
-:-.::;;~
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=BUIlDOUT.INT.VOl=BLDOUT.PMV.CAP=...LOSCAP.TAB
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
From: "Erica Fraser" <Erica.Fraser@cLdublin.ca.us>
Subject:
Date: March 19, 2007 7:59:53 AM PST
To: "Jerry Haag" <jphaag@pacbell.net>
~ 1 Attachment, 655 KB
Here is a clean copy of the MOU,
Erica
,
\
i
s,
\.:''':'''''';,."
:)~~{
'." ~ULn.:.:J.:.ii:.i' ,\ '
, ":]T:~,l'~~:'''':,
","_-' \ Mf.Mtaraii(m;,:lieUiyRaldeliii'.
::",:,j~~~,,', ,:
""':;''''~'~M '
~~f:JI~::
.,i.: ,.'
. ..,~', .... '
l!~' ~- .~
)J
:l'
.,:
~ j .
.:.... .
"';":;:,:=lIf!
1 ~l ~~
. ~l
!"
1:.
'1
i ~~ ,\
I,; : :':t~1;
i:;: '. 1
.I';;' ;
./::I:it I
JII I' j;'
,;
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Attachment 4
Casamira Valley Final Supplemental EtR
City of Dublin
Page 39
March 2007