HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 DublinPleasantonBART -1
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 2, 2004
I
C I T Y C L E IR K
File # D~0J-~~
'f I 0 -~$
!
!
SUBJECT:
I
I
I
I
I
PUBLIC HEARING - P A 03-033 Stage I Planned Development
Zoning District, West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment, and
request for an Inclusionary Zoning waiver for a residential, hotel,
I
and small-scale commercial development on property at 6600 '
Golden Gate Drive (APN 941-1500-046)
Report Prepared by: Kristi Bascom, Associate Planner fJf
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution adopting an Addendum to both the Negative
Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plan and the I
. . I
Supplemental EIR for the West Dublm/ Pleasanton BART
I
Station and Transit Village Project and certifying that the City
reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR
I
and Negative Declaration :
Exhibit 1: Addendum to the Supplemental EIR for the W e~t
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Proj~ct
and Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans'
Exhibit 2: Initial Study .
2. Ordinance amending the West Dublin BART Specific Plan;
rezoning property at 6600 Golden Gate Drive to a Planned:
Development Zoning District, and approving the related St~ge 1
Development Plan i
Exhibit 1: Stage 1 Conceptual Site and Landscape Plan I
Exhibit 2: Land Use Plan for West Dublin BART SpecificlPlan
Exhibit 3: Aerial Photo I
3. Resolution approving a waiver to the Inclusionary Zoning I
Ordinance per Section 8.68.040.E i
4. Resolution denying a waiver to the Inclusionary Zoning
Ordinance per Section 8.68.040.E
5. Planning Commission Resolutions 04-05 and 04..06
6. Planning Commission Minutes dated February 10, 2004
7. Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans (adbpted
by the Dublin City Council on December 19,2000) I
8. Supplemental EIR for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART I
Station and Transit Village Project (certified by the BART Board
of Directors on April 2, 2001) I
1Gb'
G:\PA#\2003\03-033 West Dublin BART Apts-Hotel\CC Staff Report PD.doc
I
COPIES TO: Applicant/Property O~er
In House Distribution'
ITEM NO.----"d
t/
\Jc
RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open public hearing
~ 2. Receive staff presentation
3. Receive public testimony
4. . Close public hearing
. '\ 5. nplihF'r~tF' / I
6. s_:IDOPT Res()ll1!~()I1_(Attachment 1) I
adopting an Addendum to both the NegatIVe Declaration Ibt the
Downtown Specific Plan and the Supplemental EIR for th~
West Dublin/ PleasantonBART Station and Transit Village
Project and certify that it reviewed and considered the . I
information contained in the EIR and Negative Declaratiob
7. Waive Reading and INTRODUCE Ordinance (Attachme*t 2)
adopting a West Dublin BART Specific Plan amendment, I
approving the rezoning of property at 6600 Golden Gate drive
to a Planned Development Zoning District, and approving Ithe
related Stage 1 Development Plan. !
8. ADOPT Resolution (Attachment 3) approving a waiver tol
The Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance per Section 8.68.040.E
.... ..~- .'fm_-
Pursuant to the City's Memorandum of Understanding with BART
and the City of Pleasant on, the tax revenues generated from th~
development ofthis project have been pledged toward the payJ.ent
of future debt service associated with a bond issue for construction
ofthe BART station. !
I
I
In 2000, the City Council approved three downtown specific plans aimed at guiding future developJent in
Downtown Dublin. One of these specific plans covered the area south of Dublin Boulevard between
Highway 680 and San Ramon Road, where the future West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station is pro~osed
to be built. The West Dublin BART Specific Plan outlined a design for the redevelopment of th~ area
around the future transit station, envisioning a mixture of office, hotel, and residential uses. I
!
I
Two of the properties closest to the future station have submitted applications for new development lin the
area. The subject proposal will help bring this area one step closer to realizing its ultimate development
as a transit village. I
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: '
The proposed project consists of a West Dublin BART Specific Plan amendment, Planned Develo~ment
Rezoning, and related Stage I Development Plan and to permit 210 apartments, a I50-room hote~, and
7,500 square foot small-scale commercial pad on approximately 7.26 acres at 6600 Golden Gate prive,
adjacent to the future West Dublin BART station. The Applicant is also requesting a waiver to the
I
Inclusionary Zoning requirements per Section 8.68.040.E of the Dublin Municipal Code. I
The bigh-density residential portion of the development would be located on the southwest comer IOf S1.
Patrick Way and Golden Gate Drive, and is proposed as a four-story building wrapped around stru~tured
parking. The hotel portion of the project would be located closest to Highway 580, and is proposeh as a
five-story hotel with . surface parking and some parking within the future BART garage (which Jill be
built on a separate parcel). The small-scale commercial portion ofthe project would be located at t~e end
I
I
I
J-~ I
of Goiden Gate Drive, closest to the future BART station pedestrian bridge entrance. The SingJstory
building will share the same surface parking lot as the hotel, and could be developed as any raJge of
commercial uses, including restaurant, retail, office, or other small-scale commercial uses. At thi~ time
the Applicant is considering both possibilities. This flexibility can be preserved as long as total v1ehicle
trips generated by the entire project is at or below that which has been studied and documented ~n the
Initial Study and Addendum (Exhibits 1 and 2 to Attachment 1). ;
ANALYSIS:
Rezoning:
The Stage I Development Plan, which contains greater detail regarding the project, is included as Exhibit
1 to Attachment 2 of this report. This section will briefly analyze each item of the Stage 1 Develop~ent
Plan. i
I
1. Zoning. The zoning for the property is currently Planned Development (West Dublin :BART
Specific Plan). The development standards for this zoning district are those that are contaihed in
the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, which permits residential uses on the northern port~on of
the property, and hotel uses on the southern portion of the property. Since the Appliqant is
proposing slightly different uses at different densities than is permitted in the Specifiq Plan
Planned Development zoning, the Stage I Planned Development Zoning District will need! to be
changed to reflect the new Stage I Development Plan (see table under no. 8 below). 1
I
2. Statement of Proposed Uses. The proposed uses for the site include a 210-unit, four-story,: high-
density residential apartment project, a 150-room hotel, and a 7,500 square foot ancillary full-
service/quality restaurant or retail establishment. These uses are permitted on the site ass1uning
that the development regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance can be met. No uses are
I
permitted by Conditional Use Permit. !
3. Stage 1 Site Plan. The Stage 1 Site Plan is a generalized, schematic depiction of the locat~on of
the proposed uses on the site. Minor adjustments to internal vehicle circulation routes, ped~strian
connections between the project, the future land uses to the west, and the BART station, Ptrrking
requirements and layout, and a more precise site plan will be developed at the subsequep.t PD
Zoning District/Stage 2 Development Plan. Precise roadway arid infrastructure improvements,
which have already been discussed preliminarily, will also be formalized in the Stage 2
Development Plan. !
. I
4. Site Details. The Project site is a total of7.26 acres. By use, the site areas will be as follow~: 3.65
acres for residential, 2.43 acres for hotel, and 1.16 acres for small-scale commercial uses. :
5. Maximum development densitvpermitted. The maximum density for the residential portion!ofthe
project will be 58 units per acre (maximum of 210 units). The maximum square footage for the
hotel portion of the project is 79,500 square feet (maximum of 150 rooms). The maximum fquare
footage for the small-scale commercial portion of the project is 7,500 square feet. i
6. Phasing Plan. It is anticipated that the construction of the apartments will commence by the bnd of
2004 and will be completed by December 2005. As part of the residential phase bf the
development, approximately 1/3 of the length of the future St. Patrick Way will be built to! serve
this project. The remaining 2/3 of the road will be built when the office/residential development to
the west is constructed. In the case that the office/residential project to the west develops fiist, the
entire length of St. Patrick Way will be built at that time. The hotel and ancillary smad-scale
I
commercial portion of the project is anticipated to be under construction from Octoben 2006
through December 2007. i
:
7. Conceptual Landscape Plan. Attached to the Stage I Development Plan. '
:3cnt
8. Consistency with General Plan and West Dublin BART Specific Plan. The proposed projectlis
consistent with the General Plan and West Dublin BART Specific Plan in the following mariber:
I
General Plan and Specific Plan Consistency
Portion of Project General Plan Land Consistent West Dublin BART Consistent with SP?
Use designation withGP? Specific Plan land use
desi!!nation
High-Density High-Density Yes Residential Yes, but requires a SP amendj:nent
Residential Residential to allow higher unit count (21:0 units
instead of 160 units) and higher
density (58 units/acre instead lof 45
units/acre. )
Portion of Project General Plan Land Consistent West Dublin BART Consistent with SP? !
Use designation with GP? Specific Plan land use I
desi!!nation i
Hotel Retail/Office Yes Lodging Yes i
Small-scale Retail/Office Yes Lodging No - requires a SP amendme*t to
commercial Commercial B land use category to
allow restaurant or retail use. I
.1
9. InclusIOnary ZOlllng RegulatIOns. In accordance wIth CIty polIcy, the ApplIcant shall comply wIth
Chapter 8.68 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, Inclusionary Zoning Regulations, and any City
Council Resolution relating to that ordinance in effect at the time of the issuance of thb first
building permit for this project. Section 8.68.040.E allows for the City Council to waive, ~holly
or partially, the requirements of the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance at their discretion. i The
Applicant has requested such a waiver and this request is discussed in a separate section 9f this
~~. I
I
10. Aerial Photo. Attached to the Stage I Development Plan. I
I
Amendment to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan I
On August 192003, the City Council adopted a resolution approving a Specific Plan Amendment I Study
request for the project. In order to permit this application as proposed, the West Dublin BART Specific
Plan would need to be amended as described below. Exhibit 1 to Attachment 1 illustrates the prdposed
land use designation change. I
I
I
1. Change in maximum permitted density on the residential site from 160 dwelling units (45
units/acre) to 210 units (58 units/acre) in Table 5, Maximum Economic Development potent1al.
2. Change text of Residential land use category to state that a high density range of 30 ItO 58
units/acre may be acceptable. The textual description of the residential land use category I states
that a high-density range of 30-50 dwelling units/acre ~ay be acceptable in this locationj The
Applicant's proposal is for a density above this range, and the Specific Plan text would nee4 to be
amended accordingly. I
3. Change in land use designation for a small part of the southern portion of the site ~om L
(Lodging), which permits hotels and ancillary uses, to Commercial (B), which permits resta~rants,
retail and other smaller-scale commercial uses. The Applicant's proposal is for a quality rest~urant
or small-scale retail establishment that is supplemental to, and separate from, the hotel. IThese
uses are not expressly permitted in the L (Lodging) category, so a portion of the site currently
designated for the hotel will be changed to commercial uses, as illustrated in Exhibit 1 to
I
Attachment 2. I
I
Yl5b1
Request for Inc1usionarv Waiver:
Chapter 8.68 of the Dublin Municipal Code requires all new residential development projects of 2d units
or more designed and intended for permanent occupancy to construct 12.5% of the total number of
I
dwelling units within the development as affordable units, except as otherwise provided by the chap~er.
The Applicant is requesting a waiver of the City's Inclusionary Zoning Regulations under S~ction
8.68.040.E, which states "The City Council, at its discretion, may waive, wholly or partiall~, the
requirements of this ordinance and approve alternate methods of compliance with this chapter !if the
applicant demonstrates, and the City Council finds, that such alternate methods meet the purposes 9f this
chapter." . i
The apartment portion of the project is part of the larger West DublinlPleasanton BART statiql and
Transit Village development. Income generated from the development ofthe private parcels in the 1i'ransit
Village -- in the way of ground leases, BART ridership and municipal taxes -- will go to pay ~or the
construction of the BART station. To adequately fund the station construction, it is necess~ry to
maximize the proceeds from the private parcels. Waiving the Inc1usionary Zoning Regulatioh will
increase the value of the land, increase the proceeds from the ground leases for the station, and ~educe
amount of the revenue bonds necessary to pay for the balance of the station construction. The City ~s also
part of an agreement with BART to contribute City tax revenues, generated as a result of the ~rivate
development in Dublin, to the debt service for the revenue bonds. The City will be relieved: of its
obligation within a certain window of time after the opening of the station. . Maximizing the pn?ceeds
from the private development could allow the City to be released from their obligation soo~er by
increasing the property value, increasing the property tax proceeds, retiring the debt sooner, and tnereby
shortening the time where the City would need to contribute their tax revenues to bond service. i
Proceeds from the proposed development project will provide a critical piece of the funding for the Ifuture
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. By granting a waiver to the Inclusionary Zoning regulatio~s, the
development project will be more viable and profitable, and thereby increasing the funds avail~ble to
construct the future BART station in a timely fashion. Once the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station is
under construction, property near the station and in Downtown Dublin will become viable for resi4ential
uses and new opportunities for affordable housing will be introduced to the community. Althou~ the
project itself may not provide affordable housing units, through the development of the BART sta~ion, it
will influence the development of future residential projects that will contain units affordable to a rahge of
income categories. Staff finds that the approval of the waiver could jump start residential developnient in
the area and eventually result in an increase in the production of affordable residential units, which lis one
of the purposes ofthe Inclusionary Zoning regulations per Section 8.68.010.A ofthe ordinance. :
Staff supports approving the waiver request, but resolutions both approving and denying the ~aiver
request are included with this Staff Report as Attachments 3 and 4 for the City Council's revie~ and
consideration. !
Environmental Review: ;
On February 8, 1990, the BART Board of Directors approved the extension of the BART transpo~ation
system to Dublin and Pleasanton. Along with approval of the Dublin/Pleasanton extension, they c~rtified
an Environmental Impact Report that evaluated the environmental impacts associated with extendipg the
BART rail line through the Livermore/Amador Valley area into the communities of Castro Valley,
Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore. !
I
In 2001, the BART Board of Directors finalized plans to construct the West Dublin/Pleasanton 1ART
Station and the joint development of BART-owned pieces of property in both Dublin and Plea~anton,
I
i
I
bOO'
including the project site. In approving the plan, BART, as the lead agency, certified a SUPPlement~l EIR
for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project on April 2, 2001. BARTl is the
lead agency for this project, and the City is a responsible agency under CEQA. As a responsible a$ency,
the City's role is very limited. Rather than certify Lead Agency's document as adequate, <CEQA
Guidelines require the decision-making body of a responsible agency only to certify that it review~d and
considered the information contained in the EIR prepared by the Lead Agency. I
The City reviewed and commented on the Draft SElR when it was circulated in 2000 and had sUb~tted
comments on noise impacts, issues regarding parking provided by the proposed project, and pqssible
traffic impacts ofthe development. These concerns were addressed in the Final SEIR and the City ~id not
challenge the response. I
I
I
This project is within the boundaries of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area. The Specific Pldnwas
I
adopted on December 19, 2000 and is intended to guide future development in the area. A Negative
Declaration was also adopted on the same date that provided an environmental analysis for thel three
downtown specific plans together. For the subject site, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan enviSioned
the development of a 240-room hotel and 160 high-density residential units, and the Negative Decl~ration
examined the potential impacts of such a project. :
However, the development that is now proposed to take place on the Dublin parcel is slightly dJferent
than the project that was analyzed in both the Supplemental EIR and the Negative Declaration pr~pared
for the Downtown Specific Plans. In order to determine if there were any environmental impacts that are
present with the revised project proposal that were not already addressed (and mitigated if necess4ry) in
the Supplemental EIR or the Negative Declaration, an Initial Study was completed (Exhibi~ 2 to
Attachment 1). The Initial Study, dated January 12,2004, determined that the potentially significant
effects of the project were adequately addressed in both the Supplemental EIR and Negative Declatation.
No significant new information has arisen for this project during the preparation of the Initial Study that
would require further environmental review. An Addendum to the Supplemental EIR and Ne~ative
Declaration has been prepared which notes the minor land use changes and their relation to the ce~ified
Supplemental EIR analysis and Negative Declaration (Exhibit I to Attachment 1). :
The ApplicantlDeveloper is required to comply with all applicable action programs and mitikation
measures of the Final West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project Supple~ental
Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), the Final Dublin/Pleasanton Extension Project EIR, and the
I
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) certified and adopted by the Bay Area Rapid Transit
District (BART) Board of Directors. I
I
Additionally, the ApplicantlDeveloper shall comply with all applicable action programs and mitikation
measures of the Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and those policies and
programs contained in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan approved by the City of Dublin. I
Planning Commission Action: I
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of February 10, 2004, considered the Addendum to the! SEIR
and Negative Declaration, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment, the rezoning to a Planned
Development Zoning District, and the related Stage 1 Development Plan. The Planning Commissidn was
informed of the Applicant's request for an Inclusionary Zoning waiver and the fact that the City C~uncil
would be acting on the request at a public hearing. I
The Planning Commission discussed items such as parking, future project review, and timing ~f the
development. The Planning Commission approved a change to the Stage I Development Plan kvhich
I
I
!
~Db' i
would pennit any use as listed in the Commercial B category of the Specific Plan to occupy the s~arate
7,500 square foot building and to not limit the occupant to restaurant or retail uses as originally sugg~sted.
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended to the City Council adoption of the AddeUdu!n and
certification that it reviewed and considered the information contained in the SEIR, adoption of the West
Dublin BART Specific Plan amendments, and rezoning the property to a Planned Development ~oning
District, and approving the related Stage 1 Development Plan. i
I
I
I
This application has been reviewed by the applicable City departments and agencies, and their comjrnents
have been incorporated into the Stage 1 Development Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the
Dublin General Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan (with the approved amendments), and rep~esents
an appropriate project for the site. i
i
I
!
!
Staff recommends that the City Council (1) Open Public Hearing, (2) Receive Staff presentatiJn, (3)
Receive Public Testimony, (4) Close Public Hearing, (5) Deliberate, (6) Adopt Resolution adopting an
Addendum to both the Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plan and the Supplementfl EIR
for the West Dublin/ Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project and certify that it review~d and
considered the information contained in the EIR and Negative Declaration, (7) Waive Readin!g and
introduce Ordinance adopting a West Dublin BART Specific Plan amendment, approving the rezoJing of
property at 6600 Golden Gate Drive to a Planned Development Zoning District, and approving the related
Stage 1 Development Plan, and (8) Adopt Resolution approving a waiver to the Inclusionary Zoning
Ordinance per Section 8.68.040.E. I
RECOMMENDATION:
CONCLUSION:
lOb'
IJ
I
I
I
I
!
ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO BOTH THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR TUt
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLANS AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE WEST DUBLIN!
PLEASANT ON BART STATION AND TRANSIT VILLAGE PROJECT AND CERTIFY THl4.T IT
REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE SEIR FOR11'HE
HOTEL, RESIDENTIAL, AND SMALL-SCALE COMMERCIAL PROJECT PROPOSED! AT
6600 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE !
(APN 941-1500-046) PA 03-033 I
RESOLUTION NO. - 04
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*********
WHEREAS, on February 8, 1990, the BART Board of Directors approved the extension oftne BART
transportation system to Dublin and Pleasanton. Along with approval of the Dublin/Pleasanton exten~ion, they
certified an Environmental Impact Report that evaluated the environmental impacts associated with ~xtending
the BART rail line through the Livermore/Amador Valley area into the communities of Castro V alle~, Dublin,
Pleasanton, and Livermore; and !
I
WHEREAS, the BART Board of Directors approved a plan to construct the West Dublin/Pteasanton
BART Station and the joint development of BART-owned pieces of property in Dublin and PleasantoI1 in 2001.
. In approving the plan, BART, as the lead agency, certified a Supplemental EIR for the West DublinlPleasanton
BART Station and Transit Village Project on April 2, 2001; and :
WHEREAS, Ampelon Development Group, on behalf of the San Francisco Bay Area RaPi~ Transit
District (BART), submitted a Stage I Planned Development application for a high-density residential, ij.otel, and
I
small-scale commercial development located on 7.26-acres directly north of the future West Dublin/Pleasanton
BART station at the terminus of Golden Gate Drive. The project proposes 210 high-density residenti~l units, a
150-room, 79,500 square foot hotel, and a 7,500 square foot small-scale commercial pad. Th~ project
application includes a request to amend the West Dublin BART Specific Plan; to zone the site as P~-Planned
Development, to approve a related Stage 1 Development Plan; and to. approve a waiver to t~e City's
Inc1usionary Zoning requirement; and I
I
. I
WHEREAS, BART is the lead agency for this project, and the City is a responsible agenlcy under
CEQA. As a responsible agency, the City's role is very limited. Rather than certify Lead Agency's 40cument
as adequate, the decision-making body of a responsible agency is required only to certify that it revi~wed and
considered the information contained in the EIR prepared by the Lead Agency according to CEQA Guidelines, S
15050, subd. (b).); and i
I
I
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin did review and consider the information contained in the EIR ih relation
to the project as proposed; and I
WHEREAS, the project is within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area and a Negative Dllaration
was adopted by the City for future development in the specific plan area on December 19, 2000; and :
:r:4-f..M La. \ ~\Iz.\ 04
I ATTACHMENT ~
!
I
I
i
.. ":...1.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby find that:
A. The proposed project is consistent with Dublin General Plan. I
I
B. The City has reviewed and considered all environmental documents that have been I prepared
I
regarding this project. !
C. The City finds that the development of the West Dublin/P1easanton BART Transi~ Village
project will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding are~.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council is adopting an Addendum to IbOth the
Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans and the Supplemental EIR for the Wes~ Dublin/
Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project and certify that it reviewed and consiqered the
information contained in the SEIR and the Negative Declaration for the hotel, residential, and sdIall-scale
commercial project proposed at 6600 Golden Gate Drive. !
I
I
I
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of March 2004.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:\PA#\2003\03-033 West Dublin BART Apts-Hotel\CC Reso Addendum.DOC
Iy
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the West DUblin/Pleasantll on
BART Station and Transit Village Project and the
Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans
January 12, 2004
INTRODUCTION: .
I
On February 8, 1990, the BART Board of Directors approved the extension of the BART transpo~ation
system to Dublin and Pleasanton. Along with approval of the Dublin/Pleasanton extension, I they
certified an Environmental Impact Report that evaluated the environmental impacts associated I with
extending the BART rail line through the Livermore/Amador Valley area into the communities ofqastro
Valley, Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore. I
In 2001, the BART Board of Directors approved a plan to construct the West Dublin/Pleasanton JART
Station and the joint development of BART-owned pieces of property in Dublin and Pleasanto*. In
approving the plan, BART, as the lead agency, certified a Supplemental EIR for the IWest
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project on April 2, 2001. BART is thd lead
agency for this project, and the City is a responsible agency under CEQA. As a responsible agenc~, the
City's role is very limited. Rather than certify Lead Agency's document as adequate, the dectsion-
making body of a responsible agency is required only to certify that it reviewed and considered the
information contained in the EIR prepared by the Lead Agency. (See Guidelines, S 15050, subd. (b)l)
This project is within the boundaries of the West Dublin BART Spec~fic Plan area. The specifiJ Plan
was adopted on December 19,2000 and is intended to guide future development in the area. A Ne~ative
Declaration was also adopted on the same date that provided an environmental analysis for the !three
downtown specific plans together. For the subject site, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan envistoned
the development of a 240-room hotel and 160 high-density residential units, and the Ne4ative
Declaration examined the potential impacts of such a project. i
However, the development that is now proposed to take place on the Dublin parcel is slightly difrerent
than the project that was analyzed in the Supplemental EIR and Negative Declaration. The overal land
use development plan is still oriented toward creating a Transit Village providing an integrati. n of
transportation services, employment opportunities, services and housing within a section of dowrltown
I
Dublin that is both visible and accessible from the freeways. The differences between the pre!vious
project and the current proposal are summarized in the section below. I
In order to determine if there were any en~ronmental impacts that were present with the revised ptoject
proposal that were not already addressed (and mitigated if necessary) in the Supplemental Em.. and
Negative Declaration, an Initial Study was completed. The Initial Study, dated January 12, f004,
determined that the potentially significant effects of the project were adequately addressed ih the
Supplemental EIR and Negative Declaration. This Addendum to the Supplemental EIR and Ne~ative
Declaration has been prepared which notes the minor land use changes and their relation to the ce1ified
Supplemental EIR ana Negative Declaration analysis. !
I
EXl:lI Sill: ,.
I
I
I
PROJECT PROPOSAL: f
The Planned Development Zoning District/Stage I Development Plan varies slightly from the projkt as
originally proposed and analyzed in the two environmental documents:!
I
Hotel/residential project Hotel/residential project as Difference
described in 2001 SEIR currentlvorooosed
Hotel size 240 room full-service hotel 150 room hotel -90 rooms
(rooms) with restaurant, meeting
rooms
Residential units 160 apartment units 210 apartment units +50 units
(44 units/acre) (58 units/acre)
Restaurant/retail Restaurant included in full- Separate 7,500 square foot None
service hotel retail/restaurant pad
I"
I
The Initial Study determined that the only area that required additional analysis of potential impact~ was
I
the traffic and circulation section of the SEIR and Negative Declaration. !
I
A supplementary traffic analysis was completed to ensure that the traffic generated by the revised ptoject
(150-room hotel, 210 apartment units, and 7,500 square foot restaurant/retail space) would nbt be
substantially different than the project as studied in the Supplemental EIR and Negative Declatation
(240-room hotel and 160 apartment units). I
Since the trip generation rate for a quality restaurant is higher than the trip generation rate for a !retail
space of the same size, the traffic analysis assumed the more traffic-intensive ("worst case") scenafio of
having the 7,500 square foot pad utilized as a restaurant. I
The results of the traffic analysis were as follows:
Previous plans: 240-room full service hotel, 160 unit apartment complex
Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Land Use Size Trip Rate Trips Trips in Trips Out Total Trips in Trips Out Total
Hotel trips 240 8.23 1975 82 52 134 78 69 146
Residential 160 6.63 742 9 48 57 47 23 69
BART trips 2215 . 354 92 446 85 296 381
TOTAL 4932 445 193 638 209 388 597
Proposed plans: 150-room hotel, 210 unit apartment complex, 7500 square foot restaurant
Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Land Use Size Trip Rate Trips Trips in Trips Out Total Trips in Trips Out Total
Hotel trips 150 8.23 1235 51 33 84 48 43 92
Residential 210 6.63 975 12 63 75 61 30 91
Restaurant 7500 89.95 675 5 1 6 38 19 56
BART trips 2215 354 92 446 85 296 381
TOTAL 5099 422 189 611 232 388 620
I
It was determined by the City Traffic Engineer that the 3.3% increase in daily trips and the 3.7% indrease
in P.M. peak hour trip was not substantial and the traffic mitigation measures that were approved in the
. I
!
I
!
Iw
SEIR for the original project would also be sufficient to mitigate the traffic-related impacts of the re~ised
. I
project. i
I
CONCLUSION: I
I
Pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guide~nes,
no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for this project, as no substantial changes have been proposed ~o the
project which require revisions of the previous EIR. No new significant environmental impacts ha~e
been identified and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts have bee~
discovered. I
I
I
With minor technical amendments and clarifications as outlined in this Addendum, the Supplerriental
EIR for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project and Negative Dec1rnfation
for the Downtown Specific Plans will continue to adequately address the environmental impacts ~f the
proposed BART development on the Dublin parcel. 1
I
This addendum will serve to document the file as such. I
G:\P A#\2003\03-033 West Dublin BART Apts-Hotel\Addendum to EIR.doc
...,
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Transit Village
Residential, Hotel, and Restaurant/retail development project
Planned Development Zoning District and Stage I Development Plan
West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment
P A 03-033
INITIAL STUDY
Reviewing Agency: City of Dublin
Prepared by: Kristi Bascom, Associate Planner
January 12, 2004
EXHlsrc, 2-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Environmental Checklist............................................ ............................................................. 3
Determination...............................................................................................................,....... 11
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts . ................ ................... ............................................... 12
Mandatory Findings of Significance.............. .... ..................................... ............................... 33
1'3
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
Pag~ 2
January 12, 2004
i
C1
I
Introduction I
This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environment~1
Quality Act (CEQA)to assess the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed projebt
described below. The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanatic~n
of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. I
Environmental Checklist/Initial Study
Project Applicant
Robert Russell
Ampelon Development Group LLC
2101 Webster Street, Suite 1605
Oakland, CA 94612
i
I
Project Location and Context I
The project site is located at 6600 Golden Gate Drive near Downtown Dublin. The site is approximatdly
7.26 acres and lies adjacent to the future West Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
Station, on property currently owned by BART. The West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station (not a part bf
this project) will be built on an elevated structure in the median of the 1-580 freeway. Pedestri~n
overcrossings will connect the main platform areas to parking garages in the cities of Dublin a~d
Pleasanton. i
I
Exhibit 1 depicts the location of the project area in context of the larger City of Dublin, and Exhibit 2 depic~s
the project site in relation to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. :
The projecl sile is loealed within !he Wesl Dublin BART Specific Plan area. This specific plan was adOPtld
I
by the City of Dublin on December 19, 2000 for the purpose of directing the land use, circulatioh,
infrastructure and development for land located in the central portion of Dublin, west of the 1-680 freew~y
and north of the 1-580 freeway. At build-out over the next five to seven years, the West Dublin BART
Specific Plan area will allow the development of a range of residential, commercial office, ret~il,
employment and public/quasi-public uses. i
Contact Person for Initial Study
Kristi Bascom, Associate Planner
City of Dublin
1 00 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Project Background and Description
On February 8, 1990, the BART Board of Directors approved the extension of the BART transportation
system to Dublin and Pleasanton. Along with approval of the Dublin/Pleasanton extension, they certifi~d
an Environmental Impact Report that evaluated the environmental impacts associated with extending tne
BART rail line through the Livermore/Amador Valley area into the communities of Castro Valley, Dublir,
Pleasanton, and Livermore. A component of the Dublin/Pleasanton Extension EIR included an evaluatidn
of the environmental impacts associated with the construction of the West Dublin BART station and jOirt
development on parcels adjacent to the station. I
In 2001, the BART Board of Directors approved a plan to construct the West Dublin/Pleasanton BA~T
Station and the joint development of a BART-owned piece of property in Dublin for a 240-room hotel a~d
160-unit high-density residential units. In approving the plan, BART, as the lead agency, certified I a
I
City of Dublin PagEf3
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033) January 12, 2064
!
10
Supplemental EIR for the West DublinlPleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project on April I ,
2001. BART is the lead agency for this project, and the City is a responsible agency under CEQA. As, a
responsible agency, the City's role is very limited. Rather than certify Lead Agency's document ~s
adequate, the decision-making body of a responsible agency is required only to certify thatit reviewed a~d
considered the information contained in the EIR prepared by the Lead Agency. {See Guidelines, 9 1505b,
I
subd. (b).) !
This project is within the boundaries of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan w~s
adopted on December 1"9, 2000 and is intended to guide future development in the area. A Negati~e
Declaration was also adopted on the same date that provided an environmental analysis for the thr$e
downtown specific plans together. For the subject site, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan envisioned
the development of a 240-room hotel and 160 high-density residential units, and the Negative Declarati~n
examined the potential impacts of such a project. I
However, the development that is proposed to take place on the Dublin parcel is slightly different than t~e
project that was analyzed in the Supplemental EIR. The overall land use development plan is still oriented
toward creating a Transit Village providing an integration of transportation services, employmert
opportunities, services and housing within a section of downtown Dublin that is both visible and accessiole
I
from the freeways. The future West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and the development proposed by
the plan could be the catalyst for revitalization of the downtown area. The preliminary development pl~n
for the Planned Development Zoning DistricUStage 1 rezoning indicates that the project sponsor proposes
I
a maximum number of 210 multi-family dwelling units (apartments) on 3.65 +1- acres of the 7.26-acre
property, with a density of approximately 58 dwelling units per acre. A 150-room hotel is proposed for 2.43
+1- acres of property immediately northwest and adjacent to the future BART station. Instead of having t~e
restaurant located inside the hotel as originally envisioned, a 7,500 square foot restaurant/retail lis
proposed for 1.16 +1- acres of property immediately north of and adjacent to the future BART station. I
The differences between the previous project and the current proposal are summarized below:
Hotel I residential project Hotel I residential project as DifferencE
described in 2001 SEIR currently proDosed
Hotel size (rooms) 240 room full-service hotel with 150 room hotel -90 rooms
restaurant, meeting rooms
Residential units 160 apartment units 210 apartment units +50 units
Restaurant/retail Included in full-service hotel Separate 7,500 square foot None I
I
I
restaurant/retail pad I
Since the existing Specific Plan, the Negative Declaration for the Specific Plan, and the We~t
DublinlPleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project Supplemental EIR analyzed a slightly differe~t
mix of land uses on the property than are currently proposed, this Initial Study has been prepared to
examine whether the alternative uses have an environmental impact that was not addressed and mitigat$d
in the Supplemental EIR. i
This Initial Study examines the potential environmental impacts resulting from development on the Dubljin
parcel only, not the BART stalion itseW or the BART parking garage. i_
City of Dublin Page 4
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (P A 03-033) January 12, 20b4
I
i
} I
The proposed project involves adopting a Planned Development Zoning DistricUStage 1 Development Plan
for the Dublin property. With approval of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan in December 2000, the City
of Dublin approved a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation on the subject property
to Retail/Office for 3.7+ acres and High Density Residential (30 to 50 dwelling units per acre) for 3.5+
acres, to accommodate the future use of the land for a commercial type use and multi-family housing. At
that time, a Negative De.claration for the Specific Plan and the accompanying General Plan Amendment
was also approved which analyzed and evaluated the land use mix proposed in the Plan.
This Initial Study has reviewed the current proposal in light of existing environmental documentation to
ensure that all impacts related to the proposed project are adequately addressed in the Supplemental EIR,
mitigated to a less-than-significant level by measures incorporated in the project, and that no further
environmental analysis is necessary for the project. This Initial Study has determined that the potentially
significant effects of the project were adequately addressed in the Supplemental EIR and an Addendum to
the Supplemental EIR has been prepared which notes the minor land use changes and their insignificant
impacts.
Future actions
There is a Stage I Planned Development Zoning District designation on the property currently. Because
the proposed project varies slightly from the existing Stage I Development Plan, a revised Planned
Development Zoning District and Stage I Development Plan needs to be adopted to allow the project as
proposed.
Following approval of the Stage I Development Plan and West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment, it
is anticipated that a Stage 2 Development Plan, Tentative Parcel Map, Site Development Review
application, and possibly a Development Agreement would be submitted with the details on how the site
and buildings will be designed and the maximum densities accomplished.
As a part of the next phase of land use entitlements, grading activities would occur to accommodate
planned land uses, roads and utilities. Water, sewer and recycled water services will be provided to the
site by Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) in accord with DSRSD's Water Supply and
Wastewater Collection System Master Plans. At the present time, it is anticipated that water supply for the
project would be provided by Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District. Water service is available to the surrounding properties and would be extended to serve this sit~.
Sewer service for the project would be accommodated through connection to the existing sewer system
owned and maintained by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), which has existing lines in the
vicinity of the site and adequate capacity to service the planned development. When and where available,
recycled water from DSRSD would be used for irrigation purposes, reducing the need for potable water.
The storm drain system for the development will be connected to the existing system of drainage facilities
owned and maintained by Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation System.
This system consists of underground pipes, box culverts and open channels that flow southerly adjacent to
1-580. From there, stormwater runoff will be transported south into Alameda County Flood Control District
facilities.
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
Page 5
January 12, 2004
)v
Exhibit 1. Regional Context
~.I~.
~-..., / . 1
) I
I \~,Ii; \"
I -----'
! ~ \
I \
I '
I ~ )
I \------.)
!
I
I
I
I
.J
Livermore I
-
.-?~~.--
{~
\ Sunnyvale
I S,= c,," (
\ Jos~
,:~
.~l
'10i.
\
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
Page 6
January 12, 2004
13
Exhibit 2. Site LocationNicinity
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
Page 7
January 12, 2004
1+
Exhibit 3. Proposed Planned Development Rezoning
Parcel to be rezoned to Planned Development (PA 03-033)
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
Page 8
January 12, 2004
".,..
)~
1. Project title:
West Dublin BART Station Transit Village Residential, Hotel, and
RestauranURetail Development project
2. Project description:
Proposed Planned Development District (PD) Rezoning (Stage 1)
Maximum development would include 210 multi-family dwelling
units, a 150-room hotel, and a 7,500 square foot restauranUretail
adjacent to the future West Dublin BART station.
3. Lead agency:
City of Dublin
100 civic Plaza
Dublin CA 94588
4. Contact person:
Kristi Bascom, Associate Planner
Community Development Department
(925) 833-6610
5. Project location:
6600 Golden Gate Drive (generally located at the southerly
terminus of Golden Gate Drive, between St. Patrick Way and
Interstate 580).
6. Assessor's Parcel Number(s):
941-1500-046
7. Project sponsor:
Robert Russell, Ampelon Development Group, 2101 Webster
Street, Suite 1605, Oakland, CA 94612
8. General Plan designations:
Retail/Office and High Density Residential
9. Zoning:
Planned Development (West Dublin BART Specific Plan)
10. Specific Plan designations:
(R) Residential and (L) Lodging/Hotel
11. Surrounding land uses:
The hotel and restauranUretail portion of the project is adjacent to
the future West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. To the west ,is
an existing warehouse with parking to the north, which is
designated Mixed-Use in the General Plan and in the West Dublin
BART Specific Plan. North and east of the project site are
retail/commercial and office buildings, which are designated for
Retail/Office use in the General Plan and in the West Dublin
BART Specific Plan. To the south of the property is the Interstate
580 freeway corridor.
12. Other public agency required approvals: Tentative and Final Parcel Map (City of Dublin)
Planned Development Zoning DistricUStage II Development Plan
(City of Dublin)
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
Page 9
January 12, 2004
lLQ
Consideration of the Supplemental EIR and Addendum to the
SEIR (City of Dublin)
Approval of Development Agreement (City of Dublin)
Site Development Review Permit (City of Dublin)
Grading and Building Permits (City of Dublin)
Sewer and water connections (DSRSD)
Encroachment permits (City of Dublin)
Notice of Intent (State Water Resources Control Board)
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
- Aesthetics - Agricultural Resources - Air Quality
- Biological Resources - Cultural Resources - Geology/Soils
- Hazards and Hazardous - Hydrology/Water Quality - Land Use/ Planning
Materials
- Mineral Resources - Noise - Population/Housing
- Public Services - Recreation - T ransportation/
Circulation
- Utilities/Service - Mandatory Findings of
Systems Siqnificance
Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
_ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and the
previous Negative Declaration certified for this project by the City of Dublin adequately address potenti,al
impacts and mitigate any impacts to a less-than-significant Jevel.
_ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared.
_ I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, but at least
one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis, as described on the
attached sheets. If the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated,"
and Environmental Impact Report is required, but must only analyze the effects that remain to be
addressed.
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
Page 10
January 12, 2004
J1
.lL I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed
adequately in both the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project Supplemental
EIR (certified by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District Board of Directors on April 2, 2001) and the Negative
Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans (adopted by the Dublin City Council on December 19,2000).
The impacts of development on the site and the surrounding area have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to the earlier documents, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the
proposed project.
An Addendum to the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project Supplemental EIR
and Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans has been prepared which explains the minor
differences between the original project proposal as analysed in the SEIR and the project as currently
proposed. The Addendum will be considered with the Supplemental EIR before a decision is made on the
project.
Signature: -V""')t.. O~~
Printed Name: Kristi Bascom, Associate Planner
Date: January 12, 2004
For: City of Dublin, Community Development Dept.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis following each question.
A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors
as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on
a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as
well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "potentially significant impact" entries when the determination is
made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" implies elsewhere the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "potentially significant effect" to a
"less than significant impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
Page 11
January 12, 2004
J3
Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources
used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist)
Note: A full discussion of each item is found following
the checklist.
I. Aesthetics. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic
vista? (Source: 1,2,5)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including
but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Source: 1,2,5)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
(Source: 1,2,5)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
that would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area? (Source: 1,2,5)
II. Agricultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance, as showing
on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to a non-
agricultural use? (Source: 1,2,5)
/b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, or
a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 1,2,5)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural
use? (Source: 1,2,5)
III. Air Quality (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management district may be relied on to make
the following determinations). Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? (Source: 1,2,5)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation? (Source: 1,2,5)
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 12
January 12, 2004
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
.l..
Note: A full discussion of each item is found following
the checklist.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
(Source: 1,2,5)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Source: 1,2,5)
e) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 1,2,5)
IV. Biological Resources. Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies
or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Source: 1,2,5)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies or
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Source: 1,2,5)
c) Have a substantial adverse impacton federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other
means? (Source: 1,2,5)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 1,2,5)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as tree
protection ordinances? (Source: 1,2,5)
J0
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitiaation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 13
January 12, 2004
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
Note: A full discussion of each item is found following
the checklist.
f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan or other approved local,
regional or state habitat conservation plan?
(Source: 1,2,5)
V. Cultural Resources. Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 1,2)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 1, 2)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or unique geologic
feature? (Source: 1, 2)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of a formal cemetery? (Source:
1,2)
VI. Geology and Soils. Would the project
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or
based on other known evidence of a known fault
(Source: 1,2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (Source: 1,2)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? (Source: 1,2)
iv) Landslides? (Source: 1,2)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? (Source: 1,2)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in on-
and off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, (Source: 1,2) or
30
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 14
January 12, 2004
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
Note: A full discussion of each item is found following
the checklist.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
13-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
(Source: 1,2)
e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste? (Source: 1, 2)
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use 0
disposal of hazardous materials
(Source: 1, 2)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous into the environment?
(Source: 1 J 2)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Source: 1, 2)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to
Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result
would it create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (Source: 1, 2)
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such plan has not been adopted,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
(Source: 1, 2)
D For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
(Source: 1, 2)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with the adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 1, 2)
c5)./
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
MitiQation
X
X
X
r
.'
X
X
X
,
X
X
X
Page 15
January 12, 2004
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
Note: A full discussion of each item is found following
the checklist.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 1, 2)
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? (Source: 1, 2)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g. the production rate of existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted? (Source: 1,
2)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of .
the site or area, including through the aeration of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site? (Source: 1, 2)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or areas, including through the alteration
of a course or stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off-
site? (Source: 1, 2)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
(Source: 1, 2)
n Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(Source: 1, 2)
g) Place housing within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
delineation map? (Source: 1, 2)
~
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
MitiQation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 16
January 12, 2004
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
Note: A full discussion of each item is found following
the checklist.
h) Place within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area
structures which impede or redirect flood flows?
(Source: 1, 2)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, and death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam? (Source: 1, 2)
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
(Source: 1, 2)
IX. land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
(Source: 1, 2, 3, 5)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect? (Source: 1, 2, 3, 5)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
(Source: 1, 2, 3, 5)
X. Mineral Resources. Would the project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state? (Source: 1, 2)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general Plan, specific plan
or other land use plan? (Source: 1, 2)
XI. Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies? (Source: 1, 2)
b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive
ground borne vibration or ground borne noise
levels? (Source: 1, 2)
~3
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
MitiQation
X
X
X
,
X
X
,
X
X
X
X
X
Page 17
January 12, 2004
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
Note: A full discussion of each item is found following
the checklist.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above existing levels
without the project? (Source: 1, 2)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels without the project? (Source: 1, 2)
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working n the project area to
excessive noise levels? (Source: 1, 2)
n For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels? (Source: 1, 2)
XII. Population and Housing. Would the project
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
(Source: 1, 2)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? (Source: 1, 2)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the replacement of housing
elsewhere? (Source: 1, 2)
XIII. Public Services. Would the proposal:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service rations, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services? (Sources: 1, 2)
Fire protection?
Police protection
Schools
Parks
a~
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
MitiQation
X
X
X
X
. X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
Page 18
January 12, 2004
Note: A full discussion of each item is found following
the checklist.
Other public facilities
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Source: 1, 2)
XV. Transportation and Traffic. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system (i.e. result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion
at intersections)? (Source: 1, 2)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the County
Congestion Management Agency for designated
roads or highways? (Source: 1, 2)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
(Source: 1, 2)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm
equipment? (Source: 1, 2)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Source:
1,2)
D Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Source: 1,
2)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs
supporting alternative transportation (such as bus
turnouts and bicycle facilities)? (Source: 1, 2)
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board? (Source: 1, 2)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects? (Source:
1,2)
as
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
MitiQation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
Page 19
January 12, 2004
Note: A full discussion of each item is found following
the checklist.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (Source: 1,
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing water entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (Source: 1, 2)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
providers existing commitments? (Source: 1, 2)
~ Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs? (Source: 1, 2)
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? (Source:
Source: 1,2)
XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number of or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impaots that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current projects
and the effects of probable future projects).
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts
:;)-U
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitiaation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
Page 20
January 12, 2004
.~-
I
9-1
1. Final West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project Supplemental EIR (April 2,
2001 )
2. Initial Study and Negative Declaration prepared for the Downtown Specific Plans (August 2000,
revised and adopted December 19, 2000)
3. Discussion/correspondence with City of Dublin staff or affected special districts
4. Other source (Development Plan, Field observations, Record Search, etc.)
XVII. Earlier Analyses
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Reference Section
15063 (c)(3)(d).
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Nearly all of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this Initial Study refer to
environmental information and mitigation measures contained in the Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project (Certified April 2, 2001)
and the Negative Declaration prepared for the Downtown Specific Plans (adopted December 19, 2000).
BART, as the lead agency for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village project,
prepared and certified a Supplemental EIR for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Tran~it
Village Project. BART is the lead agency on the project and the environmental review, and the City is a
responsible agency under CEQA. As a responsible agency, the City's role is very limited. Rather than
certify Lead Agency's document as adequate, the decision-making body of a responsible agency is
required only to certify that it reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR prepared by
the Lead Agency. (See Guidelines, S 15050, subd. (b).) If the City were to conclude that the document .is
inadequate under CEQA, its only remedy would be to litigate the EIR's adequacy. In order to satisfy the
City's responsibilities as responsible agency under CEQA, Staff prepared this Initial Study for the project
that analyzed the potential impacts of the project and the adequacy and suitability of BART's analysis,
keeping in mind that the project as proposed is slightly different than the project analyzed in the SEIR and
could have different or additional impacts. The Initial Study has determined that the potentially significant
effects of the project were adequately addressed in both the Supplemental EIR and Negative Declaration.
As part of the certification of the EIR, the BART Board of Supervisors adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the construction noise and operational noise impacts.
The certified EIR contains a large number of mitigation measures that will be applied to the West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project. Specific mitigation measures are noted in the
following discussion section. This Initial Study has been prepared due to the availability of more specific
information on the Dublin project since the time of the SEIR certification, to document the environmental
information related to the discretionary decisions to be made by the City of Dublin for the Transit Village
project, and to analyze the current project details in relation to the previous project proposal.
Copies of documents referenced here are available for public review at the City of Dublin Planning
Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA, during normal business hours.
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
Page 21
January 12, 2004
dB
Discussion of Checklist
I. Aesthetics
Proiect Impacts and Mitiqation Measures
a-d) Significant impact on scenic vista, damage to scenic resource, degrades visual character of the
site or create light or glare? Construction of the proposed project would change the character of
the area from undeveloped property within a predominantly light industrial area to an urbanized
area with hotel and residential development, although a substantial amount of landscapin.g and
pedestrian-oriented open spaces are anticipated to be included in the project. However, this site
area is contained in the downtown urbanized portion of the City, and the introduction of the BART
Transit Village development would entail construction of a multi-story hotel (five stories), a
residential complex (four stories) and associated parking, and a restaurant/retail on land that .is
currently undeveloped. Aesthetic impacts of constructing the project were addressed in both the
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental EIR and the Initial
Study/Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. However, this development
should not obstruct views of surrounding hillsides and would be considered consistent with t~e
commercial character of the area.
As this is a less-than-significant effect, no mitigation measures are necessary. However, the
design of the project must be consistent with the Design Guidelines incorporated in the West
Dublin BART Specific Plan, as a well-designed transit village would be an aesthetic asset to the
Dublin downtown. The proposed plaza adjacent to the hotel and station, and the many pedestrian
walkways and streetscape features of the Transit Village will further enhance the appearance and
overall design of the project. As the adjacent 1-580 corridor is designated a Scenic Highway in the
Dublin General Plan, the project must follow the City's guiding policy related to implementing a
physical design that enhances a positive image of Dublin as seen by travelers on the highway. A
more in-depth review and evaluation of the design of the structures and the pedestrian
connections will be performed at Stage 2 of the Planned Development and Site Plan Review
process.
With the revised project proposal of 210 residential units, 150 hotel rooms, and a 7,500 square
foot restaurant/retail, there are no impacts beyond those that have already been identified (and
mitigated if necessary) in the Final West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village SEIR
and the NegativeDeclaration for the Downtown Specific Plans.
II. Agricultural Resources
Proiect Impacts and Mitiqation Measures
a-c) Converl Prime Farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning or converl prime farmland to a non-
agricultural use? The site has not been used for agricultural purposes in the past or present, and no
Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreement exists on the project site. It is located in an urbaniz~d
portion of the City, completely isolated from other agricultural resources within the region.
Additionally, the site is not located on Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide
Importance as identified by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
Page 22
January 12, 2004
:i1
Resources Agency. The potential for impacts related to agricultural resources has been adequately
assessed in previous environmental documents. Therefore, no adverse impacts to agricultural
resources would result from the project and no additional mitigation measures are required.
With the revised project proposal of 210 residential units, 150 hotel rooms, and a 7,500 square foot
restaurant/retail, there are no impacts beyond those that have already been identified (and mitigated
if necessary) in the Final West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village SEIR and the
Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans.
III. Air Quality
Proiect Impacts and Mitiqation Measures
a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? The proposed project
would not conflict with the local Clean Air Plan adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District, since the proposed number of dwelling units in the entire specific plans area is only slightly
higher than what has been included in Dublin's planned growth as part of the West Dublin BART
Specific Plan and is permitted under the City's General Plan. Additionally, the proposed land uses
are consistent with the ABAG growth projections for the City of Dublin, and the proposed transit
facility development has been included in the Transportation Improvement Plan for the nine-county
San Francisco Bay Area. As a result, development of the proposed project would not conflict with
the projections contained in the Bay Area '97 Clean Air Plan. Therefore, such impacts would be less-
than-significant.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? Short-term construction impacts related to
implementation of the project, including grading and excavation, could result in exceeding air quality
standards established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (West Dublin EIR, Impact
4.4-1). Adherence to the mitigation measures in Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 contained in the We$t
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental EIR will reduce short-term t;lir
quality impacts to a less-than-significant level. These measures minimize the creation of fugitive dust
during grading and construction activities and also mandate that construction equipment be kept in
proper running order. The West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental
EIR concludes that potential air quality impacts related to construction could be mitigated to a less-
than-significant impact his impact.
Similarly, potential air quality impacts related to vehicular traffic emissions on roadways and in the
proposed parking structure of Reactive Organic Gasses and Nitrogen Oxide, both precursor
indicators of smog, and stationary source emissions would not exceed regional air quality standards
or thresholds. Additionally, approval of the proposed project would facilitate construction of the
approved West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, which would substantially reduce automobile travel
on the local and regional roadways by providing a transportation alternative for commuters. The
result would be a net reduction in regional emissions. Therefore, this impact would be considered
less-than-significant.
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
Page 23
January 12, 2004
Jf)
c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? The West Dublin/Pleasanton
BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental EIR identify vehicular emissions and stationary
source emissions as less-than-significant impacts. Generally such impacts are based on vehicular
emission from future traffic within the sub-region as well as stationary sources. As discussed in lI.b.
above, approval of the project would allow development of an additional BART transit facility and
also development of housing, office and commercial land uses near the transit facility. The result
would be a net reduction in cumulative regional emissions. Therefore, this impact would be
considered less-than-significant.
d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors? The
land uses proposed for site include residential and commercial land uses. As the development of the
BART transit facility would actually reduce cumulative regional emissions and reduce the number Of
vehicles on the area roadways, the project will not expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant
concentrations or create objectionable odors. No impact will occur and no further analysis is
necessary .
In sum, air quality impacts associated with the project have been addressed in previous
environmental documents. With the revised project proposal of 210 residential units, 150 hotel
rooms, and a 7,500 square foot restaurant/retail, there are no impacts beyond those that have
already been identified (and mitigated if necessary) in the Final West Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station and Transit Village SEIR and the Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans.
The proposed development of the transit village project is consistent with previous actions approved
by the City of Dublin and no additional mitigation measures are required.
IV. Biological Resources
Proiect Impacts and Mitiqation Measures
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on special-status species riparian features, movement of fish or
wildlife species or conflict with Habitat Conservation Plan? Potential impacts to rare, threatened or
endangered species have been addressed in the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit
Village Supplemental EIR and Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area as
well as in the original EIR for the BART extension project. The development of the project site would
result in the loss of approximately 9.5 acres of grassland habitat. All biological habitat was assumed
to be removed from the site in original EIR for the BART extension project, and no increase in
biological resources on the site has occurred. Because of the geographic location of the site
between the 1-580 freeway corridor and light industrial/commercial development, it is highly unlikely
that any special status species would locate on the site or use the site as mitigation or movement
corridor.
Additionally, a recent review of the California Department of Fish and Game's CNDDB conducted .in
February 2000, and a site reconnaissance survey on March 16, 2000, confirmed that the biological
resources existing on the site have not significantly .changed since the original EIR for the BART
extension project was prepared.
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
Page 24
January 12, 2004
- -~._------_.
>,j
~\
With the revised project proposal of 210 residential units, 150 hotel rooms, and a 7,500 square foot
restaurant/retail, there are no impacts beyond those that have already been identified (and mitigated
if necessary) in the Final West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village SEIR and the
Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans. The proposed development of the transit
village project is consistent with previous actions approved by the City of Dublin and no additional
mitigation measures are required.
V. Cultural Resources
Proiect Impacts and Mitioation Measures
a-d) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic, archeological or paleontological resources
or human remains? The West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental
EIR and the original EIR for the BART extension project identified no known historic or cultural
resources on the project site. However, disturbance of unknown cultural resources, including
disruption or destruction of prehistoric resources, and disruption to historic resources, may occur with
the removal of vegetation and surface soils through development related grading activities. To
reduce the potential degradation of unidentified cultural resources on the site, Mitigation Measures
4.10-2 have been included in the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
Supplemental EIR to reduce impacts to cultural resources to a level of less-than-significant. '
With the revised project proposal of 210 residential units, 150 hotel rooms, and a 7,500 square foot
restaurant/retail, there are no impacts beyond those that have already been identified (and mitigated
if necessary) in the Final West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village SEIR and the
Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans. The proposed development of the transit
village project is consistent with previous actions approved by the City of Dublin and no additional
mitigation measures are required.
VI. Geology and Soils
Proiect Impacts and Mitiqation Measures
a-e) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death
related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or landslide, substantial erosion,
unstable soils or liquefaction? The West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village EIR
and the original EIR for the BART extension project identify several potential impacts to soils and
geology, including earthquake, .ground shaking, and ground rupture. The site is relatively flat and
contains no areas of slope, and no impacts related to landslides or erosion have been identified.
Mitigation measures such as additional subsurface investigations, and with appropriate structural
and foundation design incorporated into the final engineered design are contained in the West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental EIR and the original EIR for the
BART extension project, will reduce soils and geologic impacts to a level of less-than-significant.
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
Page 25
January 12, 2004
3d-
Soils and geologic impacts associated with the project site have been addressed in previous
environmental documents, including the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
Supplemental EIR and the original EIR for the BART extension project.
With the revised project proposal of 210 residential units, 150 hotel rooms, and a 7,500 square foot
restaurant/retail, there are no impacts beyond those that have already been identified (and mitigated
if necessary) in the Final West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village SEIR and the
Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans. The proposed development of the transit
village project is consistent with previous actions approved by the City of Dublin and no addition'al
mitigation measures are required.
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Proiect Impacts and Mitiqation Measures
a-g) Create a significant hazard through transport of hazardous materials or release or emission pf
hazardous materials, listed as a hazardous materials site, interference with an emergency
evacuation plan, subject to wildland fires, or located near a public or private airstrip? No hazards
related to transport of hazardous materials should occur with the development of the project as the
BART station will serve only human passengers, and the other proposed uses are residential, a
commercial hotel, and a restaurant/retail, none of which are associated with the transport or use of
hazardous materials. The area has had reports of hazardous materials contamination, and
development of the site could expose workers and sensitive receptors to hazardous materials in the
area. Residents and hotel occupants would also be exposed to soil contaminants, both identified
and unidentified, in the vicinity. A Phase 1 and Phase 2 Site Assessment was performed on the site
for the original BART extension project and discussed in the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Statiqn
and Transit Village Supplemental EIR and the original EIR for the BART extension project. In order
to determine the extent of soil and groundwater contamination on the site, the environmental
documents recommend further field sampling prior to commencement of construction activities. If
contaminants are identified, a remediation plan will be prepared consistent with applicable local,
state and federal regulations.
Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 contained in the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station a~d
Transit Village Supplemental EIR and the original EIR for the BART extension project will reduce
potential risks related to hazardous materials exposure and contaminants to a less-than-significant
level.
The site is not in an area subject to wildland fires, and lies outside the referral area for the Livermore
Municipal Airport.
With the revised project proposal of 210 residential units, 150 hotel rooms, and a 7,500 square foot
restaurant/retail, there are no impacts beyond those that have already been identified (and mitigated
if necessary) in the Final West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village SEIR and the
Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans. The proposed development of the transit
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
Page 26
January 12, 2004
33
village project is consistent with previous actions approved by the City of Dublin and no additional
mitigation measures are required.
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality
Proiect Impacts and Mitiqation
a-i) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, deplete groundwater
resources, alter drainage patterns, effect surface or subsurface water quality, result in placing
housing in a flood plain? Water and hydrologic impacts of the proposed development of the Transit
Village project were addressed in the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
Supplemental EIR and the original EIR for the BART extension project, certified by the BART Board
of Supervisors in 1990 and 2001. Impacts reviewed included potential flooding, loss of groundwater
recharge area, potential increases in surface water quality pollution. Since the proposed project will
develop the same area on the site as assumed in the original EIR for the BART extension project, no
new significant stormwater drainage impacts are anticipated. Construction activities and operational
site uses associated with the project could result in degradation of water quality in nearby surface
water and reservoirs by reducing the quality of stormwater runoff. A Notice of Intent (NOI) must be
filed with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be developed and implemented for the site, in accordance with the
mitigation measures discussed in the Supplemental EIR. Adherence to mitigation measure 4.2-2 will
reduce potential impacts to water and water quality to a level of less-than-significant.
With the revised project proposal of 210 residential units, 150 hotel rooms, and a 7,500 square foot
restauranUretail, there are no impacts beyond those that have already been identified (and mitigated
if necessary) in the Final West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village SEIR and the
Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans. The proposed development of the transit
village project is consistent with previous actions approved by the City of Dublin and no additional
mitigation measures are required.
IX. Land Use and Planning
Proiect Impacts and Mitiqation
a) Physically divide an established community? The project iS,vacant and has been planned for similar
uses associated with a BART Station since the original adoption of the Dublin General Plan in 1990.
The adoption of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and related General Plan Amendment to
change the land use designation on the subject property to Retail/Office for 3.7+ acres and High
Density Residential (30 to 50 dwelling units per acre) for 3.5+ acres, to accommodate the future use
of the land for a commercial type use and multi-family housing. At that time, a Negative Declaration
for the Specific Plan and the General Plan Amendment were also approved which analyzed and
evaluated the land use mix proposed in the Plan, including that proposed in the area of the future
West Dublin BART Transit Village proposed at that time by Jones Lang LaSalle Project and
Development. Management. Surrounding uses planned for the area under the Specific Plan are
mixed use (combination of residential and retail/commercial or office uses) and retail/commercial and
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
Page 27
January 12, 2004
---I.:, .-
3~
office type uses. Adjacent to the southern property boundary is the 1-580 freeway corridor.
Therefore, there would be no disruption of any established community.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? The proposed project would be
consistent with goals and policies contained in the Dublin General Plan. The project as proposed
is a higher residential land use density than is currently allowed in the West Dublin BART Specific
Plan. The project is requesting a Specific Plan amendment to allow 58 units per acre on the High
Density Residential site instead of the maximum 45 units/acre that is currently allowed. Although
this density sounds like a sizable increase, the overall increase in the number of residential units .in
the Specific Plan area is not very much because the overall number of residential units proposed
in the whole West Dublin BART Specific Plan area is increased only slightly, as shown on the table
below. Additionally, the number of accompanying hotel rooms has been reduced from 240 rooms
to 150.
Subject site Other residential site in Total
6600 Golden Gate the W. Dublin BART
Dr Specific Plan area:
6700 Golden Gate Dr
Units allowed per Specific Plan 160 331 491
Units proposed in actual projects 210 304 514
Unit surplus (deficit) 60 (27) 23
This project consists of a rezoning to implement the existing general plan designations on the site
and a request to amend the Specific Plan to allow the increased density. No impacts are anticipated
as a result of this request and no additional mitigation measures are required.
c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No such plan has
been adopted within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area, in which the Transit Village project is
located. There would therefore be no impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan for the proposed project. .
With the revised project proposal of 210 residential units, 150 hotel rooms, and a 7,500 square foot
restaurant/retail, there are no impacts beyond those that have already been identified (and mitigated
if necessary) in the Final West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village SEIR and the
Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans. The proposed development of the transit
village project is consistent with previous actions approved by the City of Dublin and no addition.al
mitigation measures are required.
x. Mineral Resources
Proiect Impacts and Mitiqation
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? The site is not
located in an area of aggregate resources. The West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Tran~it
Village Supplemental EIR and the original EIR for the BART extension project do not indicate that
significant deposits of minerals exist on the site. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
Page 28
January 12, 2004
?P
With the revised project proposal of 210 residential units, 150 hotel rooms, and a 7,500 square foot
restaurant/retail, there are no impacts beyond those that have already been identified (and mitigated
if necessary) in the Final West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village SEIR and the
Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans. The proposed development of the transit
village project is consistent with previous actions approved by the City of Dublin and no addition'al
mitigation measures are required.
XI. Noise
Proiect Impacts and Mitiqation
a-D Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by
the General Plan or other applicable standard, expose people to groundborne vibration, result in
permanent increases in ambient noise levels? The West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and
Transit Village Supplemental EIR addressed potential noise impacts of implementing the proposed
Transit Village project. Noise related impacts identified in the EIR included exposure of future
residents in the residential portion of the development and occupants of the hotel to increased levels
of noise due to the proximity of the 1-580 freeway corridor, and exposure of residents and occupants
to construction noise from the BART Station and parking structure to be constructed on adjacent
sites.
Mitigation measures 4.3-1 through 4.3-4 outlined in the Supplemental EIR will mitigate most noise
impacts to a level of less-than-significant. However, the impacts of noise generated by the 1-580
freeway corridor on exterior noise levels in outdoor areas of the project was identified as an impact
that may remain significant even after mitigation and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was
adopted. Additionally, on-site construction activities that occur after the residential units and tbe
hotel are occupied could exceed acceptable ambient noise levels above the significance thresholds,
even with the implementation of proposed mitigation measures. This impact was also identified as
significant and unavoidable, with no additional or feasible mitigation available to reduce it to a less-
than-significant level, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted.
To mitigate interior noise levels to an acceptable level for the residences and the hotel, the project
developers will be required to commission an independent acoustical consultant to develop noise
attenuation measures to be incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed residential
and hotel components of the project (Charles Salter and Associates, 1997). Adherence to site-
specific mitigation measures contained in the acoustical analysis and all other mitigation measures
set forth in the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental EIR will
reduce noise impacts to a less-than-significant level.
With the revised project proposal of 210 residential units, 150 hotel rooms, and a 7,500 square foot
restaurant/retail, there are no impacts beyond those that have already been identified (and mitigated
if necessary) in the Final West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village SEIR and the
Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans. The proposed development of the transit
village project is consistent with previous actions approved by the City of Dublin and no addition'al
mitigation measures are required.
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
Page 29
January 12, 2004
XII. Population and Housing
Proiect Impacts and Mitiqation
3LP
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? Approval of the
proposed Transit Village rezoning is substantially consistent with the existing, approved West Dublin
BART Specific Plan and the Dublin General Plan for the site. The project would add an addition.al
210 multi-family housing units to the City's housing units, and introduce residential development to
an area of predominantly retail/commercial and office development. However, this is consistent with
the intent and land use designations in the Specific Plan and the General Plan, and is considered an
appropriate land use given the location of the future West Dublin BART station and the regional
need to develop housing in proximity to transit facilities. No impacts are therefore anticipated, and
no mitigation measures are required.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? The site is
vacant, and no housing exists on the site. Implementation of the proposed project would therefore
displace neither housing units nor people.
With the revised project proposal of 210 residential units, 150 hotel rooms, and a 7,500 square foot
restaurant/retail, there are no impacts beyond those that have already been identified (and mitigated
if necessary) in the Final West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village SEIR and the
Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans. The proposed development of the transit
village project is consistent with previous actions approved by the City of Dublin and no additional
mitigation measures are required.
XIII. Public Services
Proiect Impacts and Mitiqation
a-e) Potential impacts related to: fire protection, police protection, schools, maintenance, or solid waste
generation? The West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental EIR and
the original EIR for the extension project identify a number of potential impacts associated with the
approval and construction of the BART Station and Transit Village project. These include a slight
increased demand for police and fire service, police service accessibility, fire response to the project
area, minor financial impacts to local school districts, increased solid waste generation, and impacts
to solid waste facilities, but not to a substantial or significant level. BART would provide police
protection services for facilities related to the BART station and parking garage, which are primarily
associated with auto thefts and burglaries with the station parking areas.
In accordance with City of Dublin regulations and policies, the project sponsor will be required to pay
a negotiated fire impact fee to offset fire protection service costs incurred as a result of project
implementation. Additionally, school and park impact fees will be required to cover any additional
service costs. Adherence to these mitigation measures will reduce public service impacts to a less-
than-significant level.
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
Page 30
January 12, 2004
31
Potential public service impacts associated with the Transit Village project have, therefore, been
addressed in previous environmental documents, including the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station and Transit Village Supplemental EIR and Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART
Specific Plan. The proposed rezoning of the site is consistent with previous actions and
environmental documentation approved by the City of Dublin and no additional mitigation measures
are required.
With the revised project proposal of 210 residential units, 150 hotel rooms, and a 7,500 square foot
restauranUretail, there are no impacts beyond those that have already been identified (and mitigated
if necessary) in the Final West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village SEIR and the
Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans. The proposed development of the transit
village project is consistent with previous actions approved by the City of Dublin and no additional
mitigation measures are required.
XIV. Recreation
Proiect Impacts and Mitiaation
a, b) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or require the
construction, of new recreational facilities? Parks and recreation impacts of the project have been
addressed in the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental EIR.A
slight increased demand for park facilities is anticipated with the Transit Village project; however, itis
not expected that future residents of the project would utilize the park facilities in the City such that
substantial deterioration of the facilities would occur. In accordance with City of Dublin regulations
and policies, the project sponsor will be required to pay park impact fees to cover any potential
additional service costs related to the development.
Potential parks and recreation impacts associated with the project have therefore been addressed .in
previous environmental documents, including the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit
Village Supplemental EIR and Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and no
impact related to recreational services would result. The proposed rezoning and subdivision of the
site is consistent with previous actions and environmental documentation approved by the City of
Dublin and BART, and no mitigation measures are required.
With the revised project proposal of 210 residential units, 150 hotel rooms, and a 7,500 square foot
restauranUretail, there are no impacts beyond those that have already been identified (and mitigated
if necessary) in the Final West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village SEIR and the
Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans. The proposed development of the transit
village project is consistent with previous actions approved by the City of Dublin and no addition'al
mitigation measures are required.
xv. Transportation/Traffic
Proiect Impacts and Mitiaation
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village. Project (PA 03-033)
Page 31
January 12, 2004
3S
a-g) Cause an ,increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street capacity, exceed
LOS standards for CMA roadways, change of air traffic patterns, increase traffic safety hazard,
provide for inadequate emergency vehicle access, inadequate parking, provide hazard or barrier to
alternative transportation modes? Traffic and transportation impacts associated with the approval
and implementation of the West Dublin BART Station and Transit Village project have been
addressed in the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental EIR, and
the Negative Declaration approved by the City of Dublin for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan.
Specific impacts identified in the Supplemental EIR included impacts resulting from cumulative traffic
growth in the region, to which the proposed project would contribute. In the Existing Plus Approved
Projects Plus Project Plus General Plan Buildout Scenario, the project would contribute to the
unacceptable operation of the intersections of Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive, Dublin
Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road, Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road, St. Patrick Way/Golden Gate
Drive, and San Ramon Road/l-580 interchange. Additionally, cumulative traffic growth in the region
with the project would contribute to traffic volumes on roadway segments of Amador Plaza Road
south of Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive exceeding their capacity.
A project-specific traffic impact analysis was prepared to analyze the impacts of the change in land
use with the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and General Plan amendment action (Omni-Means,
2000). The Omni-Means report concluded that all traffic and circulation impacts of the proposed
Specific Plan, which included implementation of the land uses proposed with this project, could be
reduced to less-than-significant levels after a number of roadway improvements are completed in the
vicinity of the project. Those improvements specifically relating to the development of the Transit
Village project will be made conditions of the rezoning and parcel map approval.
The West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental EIR also sets forth a
number of mitigation measures to assist in reducing cumulative traffic impacts related to the
development of the BART Station and the Transit Village project. These include Mitigation Measures
6-1 through 6-2 of the EIR. In sum, potential traffic and transportation impacts associated with the
project have been addressed in previous environmental documents, including the West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental EIR, and the Negative
Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans.
Additional traffic analysis was done for the revised project proposal of 210 multi-family residential
units, a 150-room hotel, and a 7,500 square foot restaurant/retail. The traffic study, conducted by
T JKM, concluded that based on the increased number of residential units and decreased number 'of
hotel rooms, there would actually be a reduction in the number of vehicle trips generated by the
project. This analysis assumed that the hotel type remained full-service, which has a daily trip rate
of 8.23 trips per room. If a different type of hotel, such as a limited-service hotel, were built instead,
the traffic impacts would be less.
An Addendum was prepared to the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
Supplemental EIR that explains the analysis and its results in greater detail.
Once the additional traffic analysis was completed, it was determined that the proposed rezoning
and subsequent subdivision is consistent with previous actions and environmental documentation
and no additional mitigation measures are required.
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
Page 32
January 12, 2004
~q
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems
Proiect Impacts and Mitiqation
a-g) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB, require new or expanded water or
wastewater treatment facilities, require new storm drain facilities, require additional water supplies,
require new or expanded wastewater treatment, facilities, or require new solid waste facilities?
Potential impacts of the Transit Village project were addressed in the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station and Transit Village Supplemental EIR and the Negative Declaration for the West Dublin
BART Specific Plan. Impacts addressed included impacts to the wastewater and wastewater
treatment and disposal system, water system, over drafting of groundwater resources, additional
water treatment plant capacity needs, inducement of substantial population growth as a result of an
expanded water system, and need for additional water storage facilities. The environmen~al
analyses concluded that the project would incrementally increase the need for these services, but to
a less-than-significant level. Adequate resource supplies and utility services are available to the
project site, and no mitigation measures are required. Some basic utility service fees, required of all
construction within the City, may be required for connection. to systems and facilities.
With the revised project proposal of 210 residential units, 150 hotel rooms, and a 7,500 square foot
restauranUretail, there are no impacts beyond those that have already been identified (and mitigated
if necessary) in the Final West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village SEIR and the
Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans. The proposed development of the transit
village project is consistent with previous actions approved by actions and environmental
documentation approved by the City of Dublin and no additional mitigation measures are required.
XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory? No. The preceding analysis indicates that the proposed
project will not have a significant adverse impact on overall environmental quality, including
biological resources or cultural resources with the implementation of mitigation measures included in
the Final West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village SEIR and the Negative
Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects). No, although incremental increases in certain areas can be
expected as a result of constructing this project, the project site lies within an area with an approved
specific plan and the impacts of the project were anticipated and mitigated.
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
Page 33
January 12, 2004
IjO
c)
Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on humf,ln
beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been discovered in the course of '
preparing this Initial Study.
Initial Study Preparer
Kristi Bascom, Associate Planner
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study:
The Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7)
Livermore Dublin Disposal District
Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LA VWMA)
References
Initial Studv/Neqative Declaration prepared for the Downtown Specific Plans, prepared by City of
Dublin, Community Development Department, adopted December 19,2000
Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report for the Dublin/Pleasanton Extension Proiect,
prepared by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, September 1989 (adopted February 8, 199d)
Draft and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station and Transit Villaqe Proiect, prepared by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, November
2000 (adopted April 2, 2001)
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the West Dublin BART Transit Village Project (PA 03-033)
. Page '34
January 12,2004
tfl
ORDINANCE NO. -04
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AMENDING THE WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP
TO REZONE A PARCEL AT 6600 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE (APN 941-1500-046) TO A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT, AND APPROVING THE RELATEI)
STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
P A 03-033
The Dublin City Council does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: Findings
A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows.
1. The Planned Development Zoning District meets the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 in that it
provides a comprehensive development plan that is sensitive to surrounding land uses by virtue
of the layout and design of the site plan, and uses creative design and a mix of complementary
uses to establish the project as a focal point for the area surrounding the future West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station.
2. The Planned Development Zoning District will be harmonious and compatible with existing and
future development in the surrounding area in that the residential, hotel, and commercial use of
the site will be complimentary uses to the future transit West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Stat~on.
The land uses and site plan provide an efficient use of the property and are compatible with the
existing retail, office, and light industrial uses surrounding the property as well as to the more
intensive land uses that will likely develop in the future.
B. Pursuant to Sections 8.120.050.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as
follows.
1. The Site is a relatively flat, infill site, with existing infrastructure (including roads, sewer, storm
drain, potable and recycled water, natural gas, and electricity) located immediately adjacent to the
site and no major or unusual physical or topographic constraints and thus is physically suitable
for the residential, hotel, and commercial proj ect proposed for the Planned Development Zoning
District.
2. The Planned Development Zoning District will not adversely affect the health or safety of
persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare in that the project will comply with all applicable development regulations and standards
and will implement all adopted mitigation measures.
3. The Planned Development Zoning District is consistent with the General Plan and West Dul?lin
BART Specific Plan in that the project includes companion amendments to the West Dubli:q
BART Specific Plan were approved by the City Council in Resolution XX-04 on March 2,2004,
and which amendments proposed the land uses and development plans reflected in the proposed
Planned Development Zoning District.
/
'ATTACHMENT 2.
t.fL-
C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council adopted an Addendum to
both the Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plan and the Supplemental EIR for the West
Dublin/ Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project and certifying that the City reviewed and
considered the information contained in the EIR and Negative Declaration, as required to support
approval of the project, including approval of the Planned Development Zoning District.
SECTION 2:
Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code the City of Dublin Zoning Map
is amended to rezone the following property ("the Property") to a Planned Development (P A 03-033)
Zoning District:
Approximately 7.26 acres of land located at 6600 Golden Gate Drive and further
identified as Assessor Parcel Number 941-1500-046
A map of the rezoning area is shown below:
SECTION 3:
.:~:-"_'~X")
Parcel to be rezoned
The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property are set forth in
the following Stage 1 Development Plan for the project area, which is hereby approved. Any
amendments to the Stage 1 Development Plan shall be in accordance with section 8.32.080 of the ~ublin
Municipal Code or its successors
This is a Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance for resid~ntial,
hotel, and small-scale commercial development on property at 6600 Golden Gate Drive (APN 941-1500-
046). This Development Plan meets all of the requirements for Stage 1 review of the project.
This Development Plan is also represented by the attached Aerial Photo and Stage 1 Conceptual Site
Plan. The Planned Development Zoning District allows the flexibility needed to encourage innovative
2
Lf3
development while ensuring that the goals, policies, and action programs of the General Plan, West
Dublin BART Specific Plan, and provisions of Section 8.32 ofthe Zoning Ordinance are satisfied.
Except as specifically modified by the provisions of this Planned Development Zoning District/Stage I
Development Plan, all applicable general requirements and procedures of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
shall be applied to the land uses designated in this Planned Development Zoning District.
1. Zoning: Planned Development (P A 03-033), rezoning project site from Planned
Development cPA 02-014, West Dublin BART Specific Plan)
2. Statement of Approved Uses
The proposed uses include high-density residential, hotel, and small-scale commercial uses.
The residential portion of the development will be located furthest from the freeway and would
include 210 apartments in a four-story building wrapped around structured parking. Additional
surface parking would be provided along the western boundary ofthe residential site.
The five-story, 150-room hotel will be located on the southern portion ofthe site adjacent to 1-580.
The ancillary small-scale commercial pad will be located at the end of Golden Gate Drive, adjacent
to the hotel. The proposed building will be 7,500 square feet. The commercial uses allowed fit the
site will be those listed in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan "Commercial B" land use category:
small scale uses including specialty retail, restaurants, offices, entertainment and similar pedestrian-
oriented uses. The exact uses permitted will be determined at the Stage 2 Development Plan.
The location of the hotel, high-density residential dwelling units, and commercial pad shall be
generally as shown on the West Dublin BART Transit Village Conceptual Landscape Plan, attached,
with minor adjustments to the parking layout and site circulation.
These minor modifications will address issues relating to joint vehicular access between this project
and the future office and residential development to the west. Another minor modification .to be
made is the provision of a pedestrian walkway across the BART parcel that would serve to copnect
the future office and residential development to the west with Golden Gate Drive, thereby providing
a more direct route to access the future BART station.
3. Stage 1 Conceptual Site and Landscape Plan (Attached as Exhibit 1)
4. Site Details
The Project site is a total of 7.26 acres. The site will ultimately be divided into three parcels. By
use, the site areas will be as follows: 3.65 acres for residential, 2.43 acres for hotel, and 1.16 acre for
small-scale commercial.
5. Maximum development density permitted
The maximum density for the residential parcel will be 58 units per acre with a maximum of 210
total units. The maximum square footage is 79,500 square feet/150 rooms for the hotel and 7,500
square feet for the small-scale commercial.
Setbacks and building envelopes for buildings, structures, and parking areas shall be generally as
shown on the Stage 1 Conceptual Site and Landscape Plan as attached. The maximum h.eight
3
Lfq
permitted on the parcels shall be in accordance with the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the
City of Dublin General Plan, as amended in December 2000.
6. Phasing plan
It is anticipated that the construction of the apartments will commence in the summer of 200.;1- and
will be completed by December 2005. The hotel and ancillary small-scale commercial are
anticipated to be under construction from October 2006 through December 2007.
7. Conceptual Landscape Plan (Attached as Exhibit 1)
8. Consistency with General Plan and West Dublin BART Specific Plan
Portion of General Plan Land Consistent West Dublin BART Consistent with SP?
Project Use designation with GP? Specific Plan land use
desif.mation
High- High-Density Yes Residential Yes, upon approval of a SP
Density Residential amendment to allow higher unit
Residential count (210 units instead of 160
units) and higher density (58
units/acre instead of 45 units/acre.)
Hotel RetaiVOffice Yes Lodging Yes
Small-scale RetaiVOffice Yes Lodging Yes, upon approval of a SP
commercial amendment to Commercial Bland
use category to allow commercial
use.
The West Dublin BART Specific Plan amendment was approved by City Council on March 2, 2004,
Resolution xx-04. The project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site as
High Density Residential for the northern portion of the site and Retail/Office for the sOl.l;thern
portion of the site. The Retail/Office land use designation allows for such uses as restaurants, retail
establishments, and hotels.
The Specific Plan land use designations for the property are Residential (R) for the northern portion
of the property, and Hotel/Lodging (L) and Commercial B (COM B) for the southern portion of the
property (See Exhibit 2).
The project density of210 dwelling units at 58 units/acre is consistent with the Specific Plan.
9. Consistency with Inclusionary Zoning Regulations
The Applicant requested a waiver of the City's Inclusionary Zoning Regulations under Section
8.68.040 (E) of the City of Dublin Municipal Code. The waiver to the City of Dublin Inclusionary
Zoning Regulations was approved/denied by City Council on March 2,2004, Resolution xx-04.
10. Aerial Photo (Attached as Exhibit 3)
11. Compliance with the adopted mitigation measures
The Applicant/Developer is required to comply with all applicable action programs and mitigation
measures of the Final West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), the Final Dublin/Pleasanton Extension Project
EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) certified and adopted by the Bay
Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Board of Directors.
4
-- -- ---"1
y.~
Additionally, the Applicant/Developer shall comply with all applicable action programs and
mitigation measures of the Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and those
policies and programs contained in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan approved by the City of
Dublin.
SECTION 4:
No development shall occur on this property until a Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development
Review permit have been approved for the property. Except as provided in the Stage I Development
Plan/Planned Development Zoning District, the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the
Property shall be governed by the provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 5:
This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced upon the effective date of the West Dublin ~ART
Specific Plan amendment in P A 03-033. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance
to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 369,33 of
the Government Code of the State of California.
SECTION 6:
This ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days from and after its passage.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 2nd day of March 2004,
by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:\PA#\2003\03-033 West Dublin BART Apts-Hotel\CC Ord PD. doc
5
Orix West Dublin Apartments,
235 Pine Street, Buffe #1650, San Francisco, CA. 94104
LLC
--qUBlIN PlANIIl
l:iECEiVED
!\UG 0 1 2003
ARCHITECTS (
144 NORTH ORANGE STREET. ORANGE, CAI
/)'2.._/)? ~2...
Exhibit 1 to planned
Development zoning District
Stage 1 conceptual site and
Landscape plan
West
Dublin Bart Transit
Village
Dublin,
CALIFORNIA
I
!
I
I
I
,
~
[ii
iJ?
);!
i1l
,
,f::;
C:>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUTURE
BART PARKING STRUCTURE &
INTERMODAL BUS STA TlON
(NOT A PART)
EXISTING LIGHT
INDUSTRIAU OFFICE
EXISTING LIGHT
WDUSTRIAU OFFICE
EXISTING AUTO
DEALERSHIP
ST.A ,..,....
[
-~L"li
D5W
a:;o.l SIlIJX)SWEStIN:
~ ~~_ \ltllul.Da!p
I5Un.o.ua-.,._2(I2,."I_CA~
~:lWJlAXl4OIlMr7MI
REV. JUL Y 30, 2003
A3045 JUL Y 28, 2003
--c-",l
,
,I
I
I
I
EXISTING
WAREHOUSE
GOLDEN GA TE DRIVE
/.../
EXISTING
LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL
.-
TI
I I I I
o 30' 60' 90'
SCALE: 1" = 30'
LANDSCAPE PLAN
~
NORTH
4LP
~1
Existing Land Use Plan for West Dublin BART Specific Plan:
Proposed Land Use Plan for West Dublin BART Specific Plan:
Exhibit 2 to planned
Development zoning District:
Land Use plan for West Dublin
BART specific plan
f":
::I:
D...
~
C)
o
I-
o
::I:
D...
...I
<C
~
w
<C
,~'6
(")
'~- ..//
CJ
Exhibit 3 to planned
Development zoning District:
Aerial photo
r "......Jm_._-
4Cf
RESOLUTION NO. - 04
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*********
APPROVING A WAIVER TO CHAPTER 8.68 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE FOR A
HOTEL, RESIDENTIAL, AND SMALL-SCALE COMMERCIAL'PROJECTPROPOSEDiAT
I
6600 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE
(APN 941-1500-046) PA 03-033
WHEREAS, Ampelon Development Group, on behalf of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit
District (BART), submitted a Stage I Planned Development application for a high-density residential, hotel, and
small-scale commercial development located on 7.26-acres directly north of the future West Dublin/Pleasanton
,
BART station at the terminus of Golden Gate Drive. The project proposes 210 high-density residenti~l units, a
150-room, 79,500 square foot hotel, and a 7,500 square foot small-scale commercial pad. The project
application includes a request to amend the West Dublin BART Specific Plan; to zone the site asPQ-Planned
Development, to approve a related Stage I Development Plan; and to approve a waiver to the City's
Inclusionary Zoning requirement (hereafter the "Project") ; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 8.68 of the Dublin Municipal Code requires all new residential dev~lopment
projects of 20 units or more designed and intended for permanent occupancy to construct 12.5% of, the total
number of dwelling units within the development as affordable units, except as otherwise provided by the
chapter; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant is requesting a waiver of the City's Inclusionary Zoning Regulations under
Section 8.68.040.E for the Project, which states "The City Council, at its discretion, may waive, wholly or
partially, the requirements of this ordinance and approve alternate methods of compliance with this chapter if
the applicant demonstrates, and the City Council finds, that such alternate methods meet the purposes of this
chapter; and
I
WHEREAS, the City is party to an agreement with BART to contribute City tax revenues generated in
Dublin from the Project to assist in payment of the debt service for the revenue bonds to be issueg to fund
construction of the BART station; and
WHEREAS, proceeds from the proposed development project will provide a critical piece of the
funding for the future West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. By granting a waiver to the Inclusionary Zoning
regulations, the development project will be more viable and profitable, and thereby increasing t4e funds
available to construct the future BART station in a timely fashion. Once the West Dublin/Pleasantqn BART
station is under construction, property near the station and in Downtown Dublin will become ~iable for
residential uses and new opportunities for affordable housing will be introduced to the community; and
WHEREAS, although the project itself may not provide affordable housing units, through the
development of the BART station, it will influence the development of future residential projects 'that will
contain units affordable to a range of income categories. Staff finds that the approval of the waiver could jump
start residential development in the area and eventually result in an increase in the production of affordable
ATTACHMENT ~
~~_. L.,
5'0
residential units, which is one of the purposes of the Inclusionary Zoning regulations per Section 8.68 01O.A of
the ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby fitid that by
allowing the project to waive its obligation to provide affordable housing, the City of Dublin's ~onetary
contribution to the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station construction will cease sooner than would occur if
the Project were subject to the Inclusionary Zoning Regulation requirements. I
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT if the waiver is granted, the project will be more profitable, it
will enable the construction of the future West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station (which will be a benefit to the
Dublin community), and will indirectly support the construction of new residential projects in the vicitiity ofthe
new station that will contain affordable housing units, thereby meeting the purpose of Chapter 8.98 of the
Dublin Municipal Code, including enhancing the public welfare and assuring that further housing development
contributes to the attainment of the City's housing goals by increasing the production of residen,tial units
affordable by households ofvery-Iow-, low-, and moderate income.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of March 2004.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:\PA#\2003\03-033 West Dublin BART Apts-Hotel\CC Reso Addendum.DOC
51
RESOLUTION NO. - 04
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*********
DENYING A WAIVER TO CHAPTER 8.68 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE FOR A HOTEL,
RESIDENTIAL, AND SMALL-SCALE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AT
I
6600 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE .
(APN 941-1500-046) PA 03-033
WHEREAS, Ampelon Development Group, on behalf of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit
District (BART), submitted a Stage I Planned Development application for a high-density residential, hotel, and
small-scale commercial development located on 7.26-acres directly north of the future West Dublin/Pleasanton
BART station at the terminus of Golden Gate Drive. The project proposes 210 high-density residential units, a
150-room, 79,500 square foot hotel, and a 7,500 square foot small-scale commercial pad. The project
application includes a request to amend the West Dublin BART Specific Plan; to zone the site as PO-Planned
Development, to approve a related Stage 1 Development Plan; and to approve a waiver to the City's
Inclusionary Zoning requirement (hereafter the "Project") ; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 8.68 of the Dublin Municipal Code requires all new residential dev~lopment
projects of 20 units or more designed and intended for permanent occupancy to construct 12.5% of the total
number of dwelling units within the development as affordable units, except as otherwise provided by the
chapter; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant is requesting a waiver of the City's Inclusionary Zoning Regulations under
Section 8.68.040.E for the Project, which states "The City Council, at its discretion, may waive, wholly or
partially, the requirements of this ordinance and approve alternate methods of compliance with this Ghapter if
the applicant demonstrates, and the City Council finds, that such alternate methods meet the purposyS of this
chapter; and
WHEREAS, the City is party to an agreement with BART to contribute City tax revenues generated in
Dublin from the Project to assist in payment of the debt service for the revenue bonds to be issue<;l to fund
construction of the BART station; and
WHEREAS, proceeds from the proposed development project will provide a critical piece of the
funding for the future West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. By granting a waiver to the Inclusionary Zoning
regulations, the development project will be more viable and profitable, and thereby increasing the funds
available to construct the future BART station in a timely fashion. However, the City does not agree that once
the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station is under construction, property near the station and in Dpwntown
Dublin will become viable for residential uses and new opportunities for affordable housing will be iJ1troduced
to the community; and
WHEREAS, the project itself does not provide affordable housing units and the City does not agree that
the project would influence the development of future residential projects that would contain units affqrdable to
a range of income categories. Staff finds that the approval of the waiver could not jump start residential
development in the area and could not eventually result in an increase in the production of affordable residential
ATTACHMENT ~
/
!
5&
i
i
units, which is one of the purposes of the Inclusionary Zoning regulations per Section 8.68.01O.A of the
ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council has reviewed and consi~ered the
argument in favor of waiving the Inc1usionary Zoning requirement but finds that alternate methods, may not
meet the purposes of this chapter, which includes enhancing the public welfare and assuring that further housing
development contributes to the attainment of the City's housing goals by increasing the production of residential
units affordable by households of very-Iow-, low-, and moderate income, and that waiving the requirement
could result in decreasing the number of affordable units available.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby find that by dep.ying the
waiver request, the City of Dublin is ensuring that a certain number of affordable units are constructed and a
certain amolJilt of monies collected by way of in-lieu fees as part of this project, which is furthering thy purpose
of Chapter 8.68 ofthe Municipal Code, Inc1usionary Zoning Regulations.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of March 2004.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:\PA#\2003\03-033 West Dublin BART Apts-Hotel\CC Reso Addendum.DOC
5"~
RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 05
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
, I
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT, ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY AT 6600 GOLDEN GATE
DRIVE (APN 941-1500-046) TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT, a~d
APPROVE A RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
P A 03-033
i
,
WHEREAS, Ampelon Development Group, on behalf of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit
District (BART), submitted a Stage I Planned Development application for a high-density residential, ~otel, and
small-scale commercial development located on 7.26-acres directly north of the future West Dublin/P~easanton
BART station at the terminus of Golden Gate Drive. The project proposes 210 high-density residential units, a
150-room, 79,500 square foot hotel, and a 7,500 square foot small-scale commercial pad. The project
application includes a request to amend the West Dublin BART Specific Plan; to zone the site as PD~Planned
Development, to approve a related Stage 1 Development Plan; and to approve a waiver to the City's
Inclusionary Zoning requirement (which will be acted on by the City Council at a future public hearing); and
WHEREAS, the project area boundaries include the future St. Patrick Road right-of-way to the north,
Golden Gate Drive to the east, an Alameda County Flood Control channel and future West Dublip BART
station to the south, and a future office and residential development (currently warehouse use) at 6700 Golden
Gate Drive to the west; and
WHEREAS, on August 19,2003, the City Council adopted Resolution 179-03 approving the initiation
ofa West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment for the project; and
WHEREAS, the land use entitlements of the Planned Development Zoning District and W e~t Dublin
BART Specific Plan amendment are outlined in the Planned Development Zoning District/Stage I Development
Plan, incorporated entirely within by reference and attached as Exhibit 3 to this resolution; and
i
WHEREAS, only those land use entitlements described in the Stage I Development Plan, at,ached as
Exhibit 1 to this resolution, are approved with this resolution. All other development standards for the proposed
project, including but not limited to parking requirements, landscape requirements, site developmeijt review
requirements, etc., shall be reviewed at the Planned Development Zoning District/Stage 2' Planned
Development/Site Development Review phase ofthe project; and
WHEREAS, the location of the hotel, residential dwelling units, and small-scale commercial pad shall
be generally as shown on the West Dublin BART Transit Village Conceptual Landscape Plan, which i~ attached
to the Planned Development Zoning District/Stage I Development Plan. Minor modifications to the plan may
be made and will be formalized at the Planned Development Zoning District/Stage 2 Planned Development/Site
Development Review phase of the project; and
WHEREAS, the following West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendments are required to permit the
project as proposed:
.1. Change in maximum permitted density on the residential site from 160 dwelling units (45 unit~/acre) to
210 units (58 units/acre) in Table 5, Maximum Economic Development Potential.
. ATTACHM:ENT 5
:54
I
I
2. Edit text of Section 5.2, Land Use Categories, to read "Residential uses include medium a~d higher
density dwellings. A high-density range of30 to W 58 units/acre may be acceptable."
3. Edit Exhibit 9, Land Use Plan, so that land use designation for the southern portion of the site from L
(Lodging), which permits hotels and ancillary uses, to Commercial (B), which permits restauraijts, retail
and other smaller-scale commercial uses as illustrated on Exhibit 2 to this resolution; and .
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated February 10, 2004 and incorporated herein by reference, qescribed
and analyzed the proposed Planned Development Zoning District/Stage 1 Development Plan and proposed
amendments to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study, dated January 12, 2004, prepared to study the potential impacts of the
project as proposed, determined that the potentially significant effects of the project were adequately addressed
in both the Supplemental EIR for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project and the
Negative Declaration prepared for the Downtown Specific Plans and an Addendum to both documents ~as
prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the staffreport at a noticed public hearing on February
10, 2004, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. '
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct an~ made a
part ofthis resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission recommends that ,the City
Council adopt an ordinance rezoning property at 6600 Golden Gate Drive to a Planned Development Zoning
District, approving a related Stage 1 Development Plan, and adopting a West Dublin BART Specific Plan
amendment, based on findings that the PD zoning and project as a whole is consistent with the General,Plan and
the intent of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the: Planned
Development zoning district, and that development of the West Dublin/Pleasanton Transit Village project will
be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding area.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 10th day of February, 2004 by the following vote:
AYES:
Cm. Nassar, Jennings, King, and Machtmes
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
G:\PA#\2003\03-033 West Dublin BART Apts-Hotel\PC Reso.DOC
5~
I
RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 06
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
I
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO BOTH THE
, " , , , ' , , I
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLANS AND THE:
I
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE WEST DUBLIN/ PLEASANTON BART STATION AND TRANSIT
VILLAGE PROJECT AND CERTIFY THAT IT REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE
I
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE SEIR FOR THE HOTEL, RESIDENTIAL, AND SMALL-
SCALE COMMERCIAL PROJECT PROPOSED AT 6600 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE
(APN 941-1500-046) PA 03-033
WHEREAS, on February 8,1990, the BART Board of Directors approved the extension oftlie BART
transportation system to Dublin and Pleasanton. Along with approval of the Dublin/Pleasanton extens~on, they
certified an Environmental Impact Report that evaluated the environmental impacts associated with extending
the BART rail line through the Livermore/Amador Valley area into the communities of Castro Valley, Dublin,
Pleasanton, and Livermore; and
WHEREAS, the BART Board of Directors approved a plan to construct the West Dublin/P~easanton
BART Station and the joint development of BART-owned pieces of property in Dublin and Pleasantoniin 2001.
In approving the plan, BART, as the lead agency, certified a Supplemental EIR for the West Dublin/Pleasanton
BART Station and Transit Village Project on April 2, 2001; and
WHEREAS, Ampelon Development Group, on behalf of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit
District (BART), submitted a Stage I Planned Development application for a high-density residential, h,otel, and
small-scale commercial development located on 7.26-acres directly north of the future West Dublin/P~easanton
BART station at the terminus of Golden Gate Drive. The project proposes 210 high-density residential units, a
150-room, 79,500 square foot hotel, and a 7,500 square foot small-scale commercial pad. The project
application includes a request to amend the West Dublin BART Specific Plan; to zone the site as PD,-Planned
Development, to approve a related Stage 1 Development Plan; and to approve a waiver to t4e City's
Inclusionary Zoning requirement (which will be acted on by the City Council at a future public hearing); and
I
WHEREAS, BART is the lead agency for this project, and the City is a responsible agen~y under
CEQA. As a responsible agency, the City's role is very limited. Rather than certify Lead Agency's Qocument
as adequate, the decision-making body of a responsible agency is required only to certify that it reviewed and
considered the information contained in the EIR prepared by the Lead Agency according to CEQA Guidelines, S
15050, subd. (b).); and !
ATTACHMENT S
I
,
I
bLP
!
WHEREAS, Staff determined that because the project is slightly different than the project ithat was
analyzed in both the Supplemental EIR and the Negative Declaration prepared for the Downtown' Specific
Plans, an Initial Study should be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study, dated January 12, 2004 and attached to this resolution as E~hibit 2,
determined that the potentially significant effects of the project were adequately addressed in both the
Supplemental EIR and Negative Declaration; and
,
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for this project, as no substantial changes have been
proposed to the project which require revisions ofthe previous EIR. No new significant environmental impacts
have been identified and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts have been
discovered; and i
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act provides for an Addendum process when a
minor change is proposed on a project where there is an approved EIR, Negative Declaration, or Mitigated
Negative Declaration; and
,
,
WHEREAS, an Addendum, dated January 12, 2004 and attached to this resolution as Exhib~t 1, was
prepared which notes the minor land use changes and their relation to the analysis in the Supplemental EIR and
Negative Declaration; and
,
WHEREAS, an Addendum to the Supplemental EIR and Negative Declaration has been prepared and
will be considered by the Planning Commission together with the original Supplemental EIR and Negative
Declaration.
i
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission has revie'wed and
considered, the Addendum dated January 12, 2004, together with the Supplemental EIR and Negative
Declaration (both available and on file in the Planning Department), and finds that these documents ryflect the
independent judgment of the Planning Commission and the City as a responsible agency in the CEQA process.
The Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that no new environmental impacts could occur a~ a result
of the revised project proposal and therefore no new environmental documents have been prepared.
I
BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find th4t:
A. The proposed project is consistent with Dublin General Plan.
B. The City has reviewed and considered all environmental documents that have been prepared
regarding this proj ect.
C. . The City finds that the development of the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Transit Village
I
project will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding area.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
adopt an Addendum to both the Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans and the Supplemental
. EIR for the West Dublin! Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project and certify that it revi~wed and
considered the information contained in the SEIR and the Negative Declaration for the hotel, residential, and
small-scale commercial project proposed at 6600 Golden Gate Drive.
I
......1
::J
I
I
I
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this lOth day of February 2004.
AYES:
Cm. Nassar, Jennings, King, and Machtmes
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
G:\PA#\2003\03-033 West Dublin BART Apts-Hotel\PC Reso Addendum.DOC
~
\')>
Cm. Jennings asked if a hazardous material permit is required.
Mr. Saddeh responded yes.
Cm. Nassar if there were any further questions, hearing none he closed the public hearing.
Cm. King stated that the business owners that have come forward and have very valid
concerns. The area is zoned for this type of business subject to a conditional use permit. He
would like to vote for approval, however, with a condition for screening the fence and limited
to certain type of repairs.
Cm. Machtmes had concerns with the use type and how realistic it would be to have the us~
perrrritrevoked. I
Cm. Jennings asked if there are similar uses in the surrounding area.
Ms. Harbin stated Smart Auto Glass is in the area.
Cm. Nassar suggested a modification to the conditions to specify the type of services allow~d,
the fence" and possibly staff and the applicant to meet with those concerned. .
After much discussion, the Planning Commission continued the item to March 9,2004.
8.3 P A 03-033 Stage 1 Planned Development Rezoning and West Dublin BART Specific
Plan Amendment for a residential, hotel, and restaurant/retail development on
property at 6600 Golden Gate Drive. Ampelon Development Group, on behalf of the
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) has submitted an applicatioD for
a Stage 1 Planned Development Rezone/Development Plan for a 210-unit apartmeht
complex, ISO-room hotel, and 7,500 square foot ancillary restaurant/ retail pad at 6600
Golden Gate Drive.
Cm. Nassar asked for the staff report.
Kristi Bascom presented the staff report and explained that the proposed project consists of a
West Dublin BART Specific Plan amendment, Planned Development Rezoning, and related
Stage 1 Development Plan to permit 210 apartments, a 150-room hotel, and 7,500 square fOQt
restaurant/retail pad on approximately 7.26 acres at 6600 Golden Gate Drive, adjacent to the
future West Dublin BART station.
The high-density residential portion of the development would be located on the southwest
corner of St. Patrick Way and Golden Gate Drive, and is proposed as a four-story building
wrapped around structured parking. The hotel portion of the project would be located clogest
to Highway 580, and is proposed as a five-story hotel with surface parking and some parking
Commission
12
,'-
.'
~Cf
:J) ,
I
within the future BART garage, which will be built on a separate parcel. The restaurant/ retail
portion of the project would be located at the end of Golden Gate Drive, closest to the futur~
BART station pedestrian bridge entrance. The single-story building will share the same surface
parking lot as the hotel, and could be developed as either a full-service quality restaurant or a
retail establishment. At this time the Applicant is considering both possibilities. This flexibility
can be preserved as long as total vehicle trips generated by the entire project is at or below that
which has been studied and documented in the Initial Study and Addendum.
The Applicant is requesting a waiver of the City's Inclusionary Zoning Regulations under
Section 8.68.040.E, which states "The City Council, at its discretion, may waive, wholly or
partially, the requirements of this ordinance and approve alternate methods of compliance with
this chapter if the applicant demonstrates, and the City Council finds, that such alternate
methods meet the purposes of this chapter." The Planning Commission does not take actio;n on
the Inclusionary Zoning waiver request, and it will be reviewed by the City Council at a fu1;ure
public hearing. The applicable City departments and agencies have reviewed this application,
and their comments have been incorporated into the Stage 1 Development Plan. The propqsed
project is consistent with the Dublin General Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan (with tl;le
proposed amendments), and represents an appropriate project for the site.
The Applicant for the project spoke gave a brief outline about the project.
Cm. Machtmes.asked the Applicant's relationship to BART. The Applicant responded that'they
are the Master Developer for the entire project. He further indicated that they were selectep
through a competitive process and since then have been working with BART to get the
Entitlement process completed through the cities. They.are currently working with the CitY of
Dublin for Stage 1 PD and a PUD through the City of Pleasanton. They selected a design team
and stated that they presented the preliminary concept of the station to the City Council. He
also indicated that the preliminary design concept would be presented to the Planning
Commission within the next month. They are currently in the process of selecting a design team
for the BART Garage.
,
Cm. Machtmes stated that the reason for his question was to understand if the Applicant is in a
position to talk about the best possible use surrounding the BART station. In other words,
based on the surrounding uses of the other BART stations in the Bay Area, would the
Restaurant/Retail use proposed for the site in Dublin an appropriate use. The Applicant stated
that the Fruitvale Station in Oakland is a larger area and therefore a Residential/Retail mix;ed
use was possible. The Pleasant Hill BART Station, he pointed out was not well connected. ,
Although there is an oasis of parking with surrounding uses being office and residence, it does
not have any retail. The residents were opposed to retail uses due to traffic issues. The I
Applicant pointed out that the proposed project is designed to give a Transit Village look and
once implemented would be a welcome change to the existing conditions. This design was
more successful in the Eastern Dublin area due to the availability of land. The current project
site has a limited area, which has imposed restrictions on designing large-scale development on
it.
Y[,;rmi'l1iJ Cammission
13
1''tbrUMY fO, 2004
bO
Cm. King wanted to know if the plan for the proposed projected included any open space dr
park area in it. The Applicant pointed out that a pedestrian bridge from the station will en<;l in a .
Plaza area connected to the garage which has been designed for landscaping in order create a
pedestrian friendly environment.
Hearing no other comments, Cm. Nassar closed the public hearing and opened it for discu~sion
among the Commissioners.
Cm. Machtmes voiced his concerns regarding the Restaurant/Retail use and if it constitute$ the
highest and best use for a property intending to connect to a BART station. He understand~ the
fact that the future improvements along the Golden Gate may enhance the surrounding us~s but
he fails to see how the change of the current use from Hotel to Restaurant/Retail use would
help achieve the intended goal. .
Cm. King agreed with Cm. Machtmes' opinion and stated that a pedestrian friendly atmosphere
near the BART station is always a welcome site.
Cm. Machtmes asked when rezoned, would the use be obligatory or permitted.
Ms. Bascom stated that the current land use designation for the site under the West Dublin.
BART Specific Plan was Hotel/Lodging. The Applicant is requesting the rezone to Comm~rcial
B to permit restaurant/retail uses in a separate 7500 sq. ft. building. If the Commission so
desired to leave flexibility of uses then it could leave the designation open to allow any
Commercial B uses as allowed by the West Dublin BART Specific Plan including specialty retail,
restaurants offices, entertainment, and similar pedestrian-oriented uses, and not limit the 7(500
sq. ft. building to only restaurant or retail.
Cm. Nassar opened the public hearing and asked the Applicant to clarify the concerns the
Commission had.
The Applicant stated that the uses being suggested by the Commission were discussed witp.
Staff and based on those discussions and the impact a larger hotel would have on traffic w~re
the reason why they decided to scale down the hotel and request a rezoning of a portion of the
area to commercial uses.
Hearing no other comments or questions, Cm. Nassar closed the public hearing.
Cm. Machtmes suggested that the uses allowed on the Commercial B portion of the property
should remain as described under the West Dublin BART Specific Plan.
On a motion by Cm. King seconded by Cm. Machtmes by a vote 4-0-1 with Cm. Fa~ulkey
absent, the Planning Commission approved
(P&rnnin.q Comrrdssion
14
q;"efm.ury 10, 20M
(pI
RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 05
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A WEST DUBLIN BART
,
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY'AT
I
6600 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE <APN 941-1500-046) TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ZONING DISTRICT, and
APPROVE A RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
P A 03-033
RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 06
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO BOTHITHE
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLANS AND THE
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE WEST DUBLIN/ PLEASANTON BART STATION AND
TRANSIT VILLAGE PROJECT AND CERTIFY THAT IT REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED
I
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE SEIR FOR THE HOTEL, RESIDENTIAL, AND
REST AURANTjRET AIL PROJECT PROPOSED AT 6600 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE
I
<APN 941-1500~046) P A 03-033
8.4 P A 99-062 - Sybase Corporate Headquarters Facility Site Development Review
Amendment Perimeter Fence. Sybase is proposing to enclose their Corporate
Headquarters with a fence. The fence is proposed to ring the development leaving
a portion of the parking area adjacent to Dublin Boulevard outside of the fensed
area and available for visitors.
em. Nassar asked for the staff report.
Mr. Porto presented the staff report. He stated that the Applicant, Sybase, is proposing to
enclose their site with a fence. They would like to put a perimeter fence 6-feet in height around
their property along the Hacienda frontage, Central frontage, along the common access with Site
15 A, along the common property line and along the front of the project. Additionally, they are
proposing to put a 4-foot fence around the front of the property around the visitor's parking lot
and another 4-foot fence which would be serpentine in nature along the front of the property
along the Dublin Blvd frontage connecting from Building B to Building A. This particular fence
would be in front of a visitor parking area, but the visitor parking would not be gated. The
fence would be a wrought iron fence and would be grey in color to complement the existing
structure. There are also Pilasters proposed in the project which would have lights with Sybase
logo and additionally, the applicant is proposing to redesign two of the driveways to permit the
ability for cars entering that area to exit in case they can't get access to the site. The Applicant's
request for the fence is mainly because of security. They have very large parking lots located
'Y[mni7l/1 Commission
15
q;tGn.wry iO, 2D01
t"
"
,
~2t~
;[~\?/ii.: lt4>
pti/ ~~~~\~
0t\~~'!i
~
tp;)-
CITY OF DUBLIN
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568
Website: http://www.ci . dul~lin. c~..C~
DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION
September 2, 2000
Revised Decemi)er 14,2000
Project Title: Downtown Specific Plans - Downtown Core Specific Plan (PA-99-055), West
Dublin BART Specific Plan (PA-99-056), and Village Parkway Specific Plan I(PA_99_
054).1
Description of Project: The proposed Project eonsists of three specific plans developed for the downto~n area
of Dublin, the Downtown Core Specific Plan, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan,1 and the
Village Parkway Specific Plan to be considered for adoption by the Dublin City CoUncil.
The Specific Plans are intended to direct the use of land, the design of public I
improvements, and the design and appearance of private and public development,
including buildings, parking areas, signs and landscaping. The adoptions of the Plans will.
require General Plan Amendments for the Downtown Core and West Dublin BARt
Specific Plan areas rel.ated to land use changes and land use intensification. AddItionally,
the portions of the previously adopted (1987} Downtown Specific Plan will require Irepeal
with adoption of the plans, to modify sections of the document relative to Zones 1,1 2, 3, 4,
7,8,10 and 11. Following Plan adoption, amendment of the City's Zoning Ordinahce will
f' be necessary. 1.
Project Location: Central downtown area of Dublin, generally west of Maple Drive and Porta e Road,
south of Amador Valley Boulevard, north of Interstate 580, and east of Regional! Street.
Name of Proponent: City of Dublin, Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, C..! 94568,
(925) 833-6610
Public Hearings:
Determination:
r
A Planning Commission Public Hearing on the Draft Negative Declaration and the
associated Project is tentatively scheduled for September 26, 2000 to consider k
recommendation of approval to the City Council. A City Council Public Hearing Ifor
approval is tentatively scheduled for October 17, 2000, November 21. 2000 and
December 19, 2000. All hearings will be held in the City Council Chambers, City of
Dublin offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA. ' j
I hereby find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on th
environment and a Negative Declaration will be adopted. This document and tHe
accompanvino Environmental Initial StudY have been revised to incorporate and
evaluate modifications in the Specific Plans that occurred durino the proiect review
process. All impacts of these chanoes have been assessed and determined to !be
insionificant based on the policies and pr9grams incorporated in the Specific Pl~ms.
Because the modifications are minor in nature and result in no new si nificant i~ acts
recirculation of the Neoative Declaration is not required.
Area Code (925) ,. City Manager 833-6650 . City Council 833-6650 . Personnel 833-6605 . Economic Development 833- 1650
Finance 833-6640 . Public Works/Engineering 833-6630 . Parks & Community Services 833-6645 . Police 833-6670 I
Planning/Code Enforcement 833-6610 . Building Inspection 833-6620 . Fire pre'ATTACRMENT i.~
Printed on Recycied Paper i
.. I
i
(
Review Period:
The review and comment period for this document was originally 20 days from the date \J
of publication on September 2, 2000. That period was extended to September 26,
2000.
I v/;1 0'0
I D te
Copies of the Initial Study documenting the reasons to support the above finding are available at:
City of Dublin, Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, or by calling (925)
833-6610.
Attachments
Date Published: September 2. 2000. Revised December 14. 2000
Date Posted: September 1. 2000
Date Notice Mailed: Se~tember 1. 2000
Considered by: ~ Cou t.i I
On: h!Jtf/OD ' Council Resolution No. ;J-?b -00
N.O.D. filed: 1/j'.;;;-tjotJ
....,
g:\DowntownSpecPlans\NegDec.
"wi1
I I
, t
:~
,
",-...,.,
t!
r-",
,
i!'/"""'\
r....:
NTERSTATE 58
LEGEND
~
I!jI .
'It
CONTEXT ,
LOCAL , PECIFIC PLAN
DOWNTOWN S
CITY
OF
I U B LI N
.
.t
..,
DOWNTOWN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL
INITIAL STUDY
..."
PA 99-054
PA 99-055
P A 99-056
Lead Agency: City of Dublin
September 2000
Revised: December 2000
,."
I I
!
1.PLf;
INTRODUCTION
,r-...
r
This initial study has been prepared by the City of Dublin to assess the potential
environmental effects of the proposed Specific Plans and General PI13n Arnencirn~n!s forJb,~
Downtown Core Specific Plan, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and the Village ParkWay
Specific Plan areas. The analysis is intended to satisfy the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and provide the City with adequate information for project revie
This initial study includes a project description, environmental checklist 8.0d discussion focus~d upo
issues identified in the checklist. Modifications in the Specific Plans have been made since the
oriqinal draft Neqative Declaration and Initial Study were circulated in September 2000. The
revisions to the Plans are described in this revised document and have been evaluated on the basi
of their related environmental im acts in this revised document. Because the modifications are min ' r
in nature and result in no siqnificant impacts, recirculation of the Neaative Declaration and Initial
Study is not required under CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. Additions to the oriqinal document
are shown with an underline, and deletions from the docllment are shown .vvit~a ctriko throuoh:
In summary, this Initial Study concludes that the project will not pose any significant advers
environmental impacts. With the policies and proqrams are included in the Specific Plans, no
siqnificant impacts will result. .. .
The Initial Study was prepared based upon the location of the project, planning staff review,
field review, comments from City, County and local agencies, studies prepared by consultants, use
of City Planning Documents, the CEQA Law and Guidelines, and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of three specific plans developed for the downtown area of Dublin, trye
r Downtown Core Specific Plan, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and the Village Parkway spec~lc
, Plan to be considered for adoption by the Dublin City Council. The Specific Plans are intended to d.rect
the use of land, the design of public improvements, and the design and appearance of private and ublic
development; including buildings, parking areas, signs and landscaping. The adoptions of the PlanE will
require General Plan Amendments for the Downtown Core and West Dublin BART Specific Plan arras
related to land use changes and land use intensification. Additionally, the. portions of the previousl)'
adopted (1987) Downtown Specific Plan will require repeal with adoption of the plans, to mOdifY, ser ions
of the document relative to Zones 1,2,3,4,7,8,10 and 11. Following Plan adoption, amendment of t e
City's Zoning Ordinance will be necessary.
The Downtown Core Specific Plan area is generally located between 1-680 to the east and San Ra I on
Road to the we?t, and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north and Dublin Boulevard to the south, and
consists of approximately 51 acres of commercial land uses. The westerly boundary of the Plan ar~a is
. the westerly property line of the parcels containing the existing Montgomery Wards and Target ret il
stores. The Specific Plan calls for a maximum development potential of 1 ,206,848 1,100,110 squa, feet
commercial, office and mixed-use development and approximately 148 dwellings. The oriqinal
environmental initial stud evaluated a maximum develo ment otential of 1100 110 s uare feet f r the
area. However since that time the Cit Council has discusse .', an alternative ~an to remove the' ih
Dens' Residential land use for senior housin from the Plan arid maintain the retail commercial se on
the Dublin Place sho in center site with an increa.se in FAR to .40. This chane if a roved ViI uld
increase the s uare foota e of Commercial A retail US,e in the area bafoximatet 40 000 s blat feet.
Additionally, an increased FAR of .79 was recommended to the City Council bvthEfPlanniriQ
Commission for the ro ert owned b Dublin Honda on Amador Plaza Road, which couldincreas the
potential buildout square footaqe of the 2.55acres of Retail/Auto use hi the Plan area bY 65.330 so are
feet to 87.750 square feel [
The West Dublin BART Specific Plan area is generally located between 1-580 to the south and D~ Iln
Boulevard to the north. San Ramon Road lies to the west of the area, and properties on the west s de of
(Golden Gate Avenue are included in the plan area. The area consists of approximately 70 acres 0
. commercial, office and light industrial land uses. The Village Parkway Specific Plan area is generally
located between the north and south sides of Amador Valley Road to the north and Dublin Boulev rd to
!
the south. The 1-680 freeway forms the southwestern boundary of the area and lies adjacent to the rear
property line of commercial uses. The area consists of approximately 31 acres of restaurants, offices,
retail commercial, service commercial and other non-residential uses fronting on this portion of Village ....",
Parkway.. A maximum development potential of 1,900.743 1,750,055 square feet of non-residential and
491 residential dwellings are anticipated at full Specific Plan buildout. The orioinal environmental initial
study evaluated a maximum development potential of 1,750,055 square feet. However. since that time.
the FAR for office uses shown on the Land Use Plan (Exhibit 9) of the Specific Plan has been increased
from .87 to 1.00. to add approximately 40,000 square feet to the total amount of square footaqe in the
area. The hotel proposed on the BART-owned property has also increased in square footaoe bv
109.864 square feet from the orioinal proposal evaluated in the document. increasino the FAR to 1.12
for that portion of the Plan. The impacts of these increases in square footaoe and FAR's are assessed
In this revised study.
The Village Parkway Specific Plan is generally sited along the east and west sides of Village Parkway
between Dublin Boulevard to the south and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north. The Specific Plan
area encompasses approximately 31 acres of land and has been developed with a mix of retail
commercial, restaurant, office, automotive and similar uses, including the main Dublin Post Office. '
Existing types of land uses are anticipated to remain, however, a higher Floor Area Ratio included as
part of the Specific Plan is intended to encourage intensification of uses with a more pedestrian-oriented
design. Exhibit 3 shows the proposed land use concept for the Downtown Core Specific Plan; Exhibit 4
shows the land use concept for the West BART Specific Plan; and Exhibit 5 shows the land use concept
for the Village Parkway Specific Plan. Two potential alternatives to the roadway desion for Villaqe
Parkway are considered in this initial study. The Task Force for the Specific Plan reviewed several
possible aliqnments. and recommended implementation of a roadway desiqn that would decrease the
number of traffic lanes and add diaoonal parkinq within the existinq ri~ht-of-wav. Staff recommends
maintaininq the roadway with four lanes of traffic and parallel parkinq as it currently exists. with. '
streetscaoe desiqn modifications. All alternatives considered are discussed in this document as are the
Task Force recommended alternative and the Staff recommended desiqn.
"
....,
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 3
.t
~.
i
3.
r4.
2
:\'Z of DUS/'
G~ ~ <--4
if/; ~ ~'\\
19~1~82
~~@
o '"'~
<4.LIFOtz~ \-
CITY OF DUBLIN
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
1.
Project title: Downtown Specific Plans - Downtown Core Specific Plan (PA-99-055), West D blin
BART Specific Plan (PA-99-056), and Village Parkway Specific Plan (PA-99-054) I
Lead agency name and address: City of Dublin, Community Development Department, 100 Civic
Plaza, Dublin, CA, 94568 .
Contact person and phone number: Janet Harbin, Senior Planner (925) 833-6610
Project location: Central downtown area of Dublin, generally west of Maple Drive and Porta e
Road, south of Amador Valley Boulevard, north of Interstate 580, and east of Regional Street. See
Exhibit 1 for a regional location map and Exhibit 2 for the location of the three proposed Speci IC
Plans.
2.
5.
6.
Assessors Parcel Number(s): Various
Project sponsor's name and address: City of Dublin, Community Development Department 100
Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568
General Plan designations:
Downtown Core Specific Plan Area - Retail/Office
West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area - Retail/Office and Public/Semi-Public Facility
Village Parkway Specific Plan Area - Retail/Office and Retail/Office and Automotive
Zoning:
Downtown Core.Specific Plan Area - C-1 (Retail Commercial), C-2 (General Commercial), a
(Planned District)
West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area - C-1 (Retail Commercial), C-2 (General Commercial), and
M-1 (Light Industrial District)
Village Parkway Specific Plan Area - C-1 (Retail Commercial), C-2 (General Commercial), C N
(Neighborhood Commercial), and PD (Planned District)
Specific Plan designation: Previously adopted (1987) Downtown Specific Plan, Zones 1,2,3,4.7,
8,10 and 11
10. Description of project: See previous page.
7.
8.
9.
r 11. Surrounding land uses and setting: The project area is located in the commercial core f the
City of Dublin and generally consists of retail, commercial service, office and some light ind~strial
type uses. Easterly of the project area is Portage Road and Maple Drive, and the residential
development adjacent to the Village Parkway Specific Plan area. Westerly of the project area is
San Ramon Road and a portion of the Dublin Place Shopping Center containing retail and
commercial service type uses. Northerly of the project area is Amador Valley Boulevard, retail,
commercial service and office type uses, and medium density residential development. Southerly ....,
of the project area is 1-580, which also lies adjacent to the alignment of the proposed Bay Area
Rapid Transit District (BART) right-of-way spanning the freeway and connecting with the proposed
BART station in Pleasanton. Adjacent to the freeway on the Dublin side is the proposed West
Dublin BART station area. .
12. Other Public Agency Approvals Required: None
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact th~t is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
- Land Use/Planning - Transportation/ - Public Services
Circulation
- Population/Housing - Biological Resources - Uti I ities/Service
Systems
- Geotechnical - Energy/Mineral - Aesthetics
Resources
- Water - Hazards - Cultural Resources
- Air Quality - Noise - Recreation
- Mandatory Findings
of Significance
,""*'
Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation:
~ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a
Negative Declaration will be prepared.
_ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attachment
have been added to the project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared.
_ I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described
on the attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated." An Environmental Impact Report is required, but must only analyze the effects that remain
to be addressed.
_ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been
analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applica.ble standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the
proposed project.
~
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 5
1{)
Printed
For: PA 99-054, -055 & -056
Downtown Core, West Dublin BART & Village
Parkway Specific Plans, GPA
r Signature:
~
t . .
4)
r\
Date: Au ust 30 2000' revised December 14 200
Janet Harbin, Senior Planner
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1)
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are adeq ately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis following each
question. A "no impact'" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involv, ed (e.g. th, e projet falls
outside a fault rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is bas d on
project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose se, sitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2)
All answers must take account of the whole action, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative
as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as pperational imp cts.
3)
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evid~nce that an eff ct is
significant. If there are one or more "potentially significant impact" entries when the determi ation
is made, an EIR is required.
.. i'NegatlveDeCfaratfOn:Pofentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" implies elsewhe e the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "potentially significant effec " to a
"less than significant impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and riefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
5)
Earli.er analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other EQA
processes, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative decla ation.
Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17at the end of the chec list.
6)
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate the checklist references to information sour es for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). References to a previously prepa ed or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
document in substantiated. A source list shDuld be attached and other sources used or indi iduals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
7)
This is only a suggested form and lead agencies are free to use different forms.
Environmental Impacts: (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources
used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist)
Note: A full discussion of each item is found in
the attachment to the following checklist.
I. Land Use and Planning. Will the project
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning? (Source: 1)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental
plans or policies adopted with jurisdiction
over the project? (Source: 1)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in
the vicinity? (Source: 1,5)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(soils or farmlands or impacts from
incompatible uses)? (Source: 1,5)
e) Disrupt the physical arrangement of an
established community (including low
income or a minority community)? (Source:
2,5)
II. Population and Housing. Would the project:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Source: 1)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (Source: 1)
c) Displace existing housing, especially
affordable housing? (Sour~e: 1,2,5)
III. Soils and Geology. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts
involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Source: 1,6 )
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source: 1,6)
c) Seismic ground failure? (Source: 1,6)
d) Seiche, tsunami, including liquefaction?
(Source: 1, 6)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (Source: 1, 6)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable
soil conditions from excavation, grading or
fill? (Source: 1,5,6)
g) Subsidence of land? (Source: 1,6)
h) Expansive soils? (Source: 1,6)
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
(Source: 1,5, 6)
Dublin Plannmg Department
Downtown Specific Plans
""wI
Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
Unless impact
Mitigated
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
'~
..J
Page 7
~ IV. Water. Would the proposal result in:
r' a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of surface
run-off? (Source: 1)
b) Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? (Source:
FEMA map, 1)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
(Source: 1,5,6)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in
any water body? (Source: 1,5,6) .
e) Changes in currents or the course or
direction of water movements? (Source:
1,6)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or
withdrawals, or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? (Source:
1,6)
g) Altered direction of rate of flow of
groundwater? (Source: 1,6)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source:
o ;~ 1,6)
V. Air Quality. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
to an existing or projected air quality
violation? (Source: 3,4)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
(Source: 1,3,4)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, temperature,
or cause any change in climate? (Source: 1)
d) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 1)
r\
VI. Transportation/Circulation. Would the
proposal result in?
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(Source: 3)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
(Source: 3)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? (Source: 3,4,5)
d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite?
(Source: 1, 3)
10
x
X
X
X
X
X
~ ~
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
~ ~
X
DublIn Planmng Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 8
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or X
bicyclists? (Source: 1,3)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting X
alternative transportation (e.g. . bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (Source: 1,3,5)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? X
(Source: 1,3)
VII. Biological Resources. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or
their habitats (including but not limited to X
plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)?
(Source: 1,5,6)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage X
trees)? (Source: 1,5,6)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. X
oak forest, coastal habitat)? (Source: 1,5,6)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and " X
vernal pool)? (Source: 1,S,6)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X
(Source: 1,5,6)
VIII. Energy and Mineral Resources. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation X
plans? (Source: 1)
b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful X
and inefficient manner? (Source: 1 )
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future X
value to the region and residents of the
State? (Source: 1,6)
IX. Hazards. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of X
hazardous substances including, but not
limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, or
radiation? (Source: 1,4)
b) Possible interference with an emergency X
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (Source: 4, S)
c) The creation of any health hazard or X
potential health hazards? (Source: 4,5) ,
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of X
potential health hazards? (Source: 1,S,6)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with
flammable brush, grass or trees? (Source: X
4,S)
X. Noise. Would the proposal result in:
.....,
......,
...,
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 9
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source:
r\ 1 5)
, ,
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
(Source: 1,5)
XI. Public Services. Would the proposal result in
a need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas?
a) Fire protection? (Source: 1,4)
b) Police protection? (Source: 1,4)
c) Schools? (Source: 1,4)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? (Source: 1,4,5)
e) Other governmental services? (Source:
1,4,5)
XII. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems
or supplies, or substantial alterations in the
following utilities?
a) Power or natural gas? (Source: 4)
b) Communication systems? (Source: 4)
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution systems? (Source: 4)
d) Sewer or septic systems? (Source: 4)
e) Storm water drainage? (Source: 1,4,5)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Source: 1,4,5)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source:
1,4)
r\
XIII. Aesthetics. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or view? (Source: 1, 5)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? (Source: 1, 5) ,
c) Create light or glare? (Source: 5)
XIV. Cultural Resources. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Source:
1,5)
b) Disturb archeological resources? (Source:
1,5)
c) Have the potential to cause a physical
change which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values? (Source: 1,5)
d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within potential impact area? (Source: 1,5,6)
f' XV. Recreation. Would the proposal:
1~
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dublm Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 10
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other r~treational
facilities? (Source: 1,4,5)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
Source: 1,4,5)
Dublm Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
x
Page 11
x
....,
""
'''WIiI
'"
XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to, drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number of or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals?
o
c) Does the project have impacts that are
, individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects).
d) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
1U
Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Unless Impact
Mitigated
X
"
X
X
X
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts
1. Dublin General Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance
2. Evaluation of Development Scenarios, Downtown Dublin, prepared by Economic and Planning
Systems (EPS) (July 25, 2000)
3. Traffic analysis prepared by Omni-Means (August 4,2000); secondary revisions to the Omni-
Means traffic analvsis (September 22. 2000; memo from GeorQe Nickelson of Omni-Means dated
November 13. 2000: and. letters from Peter Gallowav of Omni-Means dated December 8. 2000.
4. Communication with appropriate City of Dublin Department(s) and service providers
5. Site visit
6. Other source (geotechnical reports, biological surveys and other studies)
r.
Dublm Plannmg Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 12
, Attachment to Downtown Specific Plans Initial Study -
Negative Declaration
P A 99-054
P A 99-055
P A 99-056
..,
Discussion of Checklist
Legend
PS: Potential!y Significant
PS/M: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated
LS: Less Than Significant Impact
NI: No Impact
I. Land Use and Planning
Environmental Settinq
The project site area is the existing downtown commercial area of Dublin. The project site is the location
of approximately 150 acres of retail shops, restaurants, commercial businesses, offices and light
industrial uses with associated roadways and parking areas. Various small parcels remain undeveloped.
No residential development has occurred within the project area.
The City's existing General Plan and Zoning Ordinance envision a mix of retail, lodging, auto service,
restaurant, office and similar uses within the project area.
Proiect Impacts
~
a) Conflict with general plan designation and zoning? LS. The Dublin General Plan designates the
downtown specific plan areas as Retail/Office, Retail/Office and Automotive, and Public/Semi-Public
Facility, which allow retail uses, commercial service uses, and civic type uses. The City's Zoning
Ordinance establishes C-1, Retail Commercial; C-2, General Commercial; C-N, Neighborhood
Commercial; M-1, Light Industrial; and PD, Planned District zoning districts in the project area. Some
land use designations in the Downtown Core and the West Dublin BART Specific Plan areas would
be modified through the general plan amendment process in conjunction with adoption of the land
use plans for these areas; however, the modifications would generally be minor and establish
another commercial type land use compatible with the existing and surrounding .land lJses. In the
West Dublin BART area, some high density residential use designations are proposed to replace
Public/Semi-Public Facility and Retail/Office designations in close proximity to the BART station
location. This change would be consistent with the intent of the existing General Plan to create a
more transit-oriented area near the proposed BART station. The residential use would support the
surrounding commercial development proposed, and also provide riders for the transit facility. The
designation of Public/Semi-Public Facility was placed on a portion of the property in the area with the
anticipation that the BART station would be developed in the general area.
In the Downtown Core Specific Plan area, the intent of the Specific Plan is to retain existing major
retailers (Target, Montgomery Ward and similar users), and, at the same time, add complementary
smaller scale retail uses, restaurants, entertainment uses and offices to attract a more pedestrian-
oriented clientele. The Specific Plan also calls for the eventual development of a number of plazas
and civic uses as additional attractors of people to the area. Senior residential housing is proposed
adjacent to the new senior center in the northwest portion of Specific Plan area. This would also be a ...."
complimentary land use which should support the senior center and the surrounding retail
Dublin Planning Department Page 13
Downtown Specific Plans
13
commercial establishments. The mixed-use area (high density residential and commercial
combination) shown at the southeast corner of Amador Valley Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road would
be compatible with the residential dev~lopment across Amador Valley Boulevard and the existing
retail commercial uses on Amador Plaza Road.
(""-,
r\
In both the Downtown Core and the West Dublin BART Specific Plan areas, intensification of
development through increased floor area ratios (FAR) is anticipated"The City's General Plan
presently allows a up to a maximum FAR of .50 in each area for retail and office type uses. The
Downtown Core Specific Plan suggests a maximum FAR of .79 for retail and office uses, and the
West Dublin BART Specific Plan suggests a maximum FAR of .83 for retail and office uses, .,.&11.00
for strictly office use, and 1.00 for mixed-use development. An increased FAR of 1.00 for office use.
as considered for approval by the City Council, on 6.98 acres within this Plan area has been
evaluated in this assessment. Additionally, an increased FAR of 1.12 for the property adiacent to the .
West Dublin BART Station is beino considered in coniunction with the, develoPlTlent . of a, 240 room
hotel. Although these proposed FAR's under the specific plans are greater than those presently
provided for in the existing General Plan, they are consistent with FAR's in traditional, thriving
downtown areas, and in transit villaoesas proposed with the West Dublin BART Station
development. This is not considered a sionificant increase nor would it create a sionificant irnpact.
General plan amendments will be necessary to amend the allowed FAR for:fhedowntowriplanareas.
and modify the land uses. The proposed FAR's for the plan areas have been analyzed in regard to
traffic generation rates, and only minor traffic improvements are necessary to support the
intensification of the proposed development under the plans (refer to Section VI, Transportation).
Possible chanoes in trip oeneration rates and levels of service related to the land use chanoes from
the oriqinal Plans are addressed in the Transportation/Circulation section of this document. 'these
improvements have been programmed into the Specific Plans. Should FAR's exceedino these
amounts be proposed with future land use applications, a specific traffic analysis and land use
analysis would be required prior to approval to determine the impacts of the related intensified land
Use on the roadway Systern..
Additionally, adoption of the Downtown Cor~ and West Dublin BART Specific Plans will require that
. portions of the previously adopted (1987) Downtown Specific Plan be repealed to modify sections of
the document relative to Development Zones 1,2,3,4,7,8,10 and 11, which are within these specific
areas. Following Plan adoption, amendment of the City's Zoning Ordinance will be necessary.
There are no proposed land use changes or modifications for the Village Parkway Specific Plan area.
The present General Plan allows up to a maximum FAR of .50 for the Village Parkway area, and the
average FAR in that area is currently .26. Therefore, further intensification in this plan area up to a
FAR of .50 would be within the range permitted under the present General Plan. No general plan
amendment will be necessary in conjunction with adoption of this Specific Plan.
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies? NI:The City of Dublin has adopted no other
city-wide or specific environmental plans or policies which would affect this project. No impacts would
therefore result
c) Incompatibilities with existing land use in the vicinity? NI. The proposed land uses to be established
with the Specific Plans would be compatible with and support the surrounding retail commercial uses
i in the three areas (refer to Com.ment a, above). Non-confprmino uses in the Specific .Plan area
J would be reviewed in accordance with the City's established zoning reoulations. There will,
therefore, be no impacts related to land use compatibility.
~,,', \,d). Effect on agricultura/ operations or soils? Nt. The site has been used for commercial uses since the
f early 1960's. No agricultural operations exist in the subject areas or the, surrolll1l:iing areas of the
City.. No impacts would therefore result. ..
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 14
e) Disruption of physical arrangement of an established community? Nl. The project consists of three
plans intended to direct the land use and future development in the City's central downtown area.
The plan is proposed to be implemented over a five to teR seven year period, and will occur as a ....,
gradual replacement of uses with new uses. This method of adaptive reuse of the areas will serve to
integrate land uses, transportation and public improvements within the three Specific Plan areas not
significantly disrupt the physical arrangement of the downtown. There will therefore be no impacts
regarding disruption of established communities
II. Population and Housing
Environmental Settinq
The city population as of January 1, 1999 was estimated by the State Department of Finance to be
28,707. Significant population growth is anticipated for the community based on planned residential
growth in east Dublin, where the City has approved a specific plan calling for residential growth.
According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the total population oJ Dublin is
expected to increase to 35,200 by the year 2000, to 49,400 by the year 2005 and 58,900 in the year
2010. Under the proposed Specific Plans, a maximum of approximately 491 residential dwelling units
would be introduced in the West Dublin BART area, and a maximum of approximately 150 residential
dwelling units would be introduced in the Downtown Core area. This is not considered a significant
increase for the region, and would actually establish housing closer to existing services and
transportation than much of the residential development in the City.
Proiect Impacts
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? NI. The project involves
primarily retail, office, lodging and similar uses. Although future residential and mixed uses are
envisioned in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and Downtown Core Specific Plan areas, such
residential uses are intended to support transit-oriented development programs. Although the overall
amount of residential development for the community is anticipated to increase, such increases
would be less-than-significant.
~
b) Induce substantial growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? NI. The majority of the development
that would occur under the Specific Plans would be commercial, office and other non-residential type
land uses. Some new residential housing is proposed in the Downtown Core and West Dublin BART
Specific Plan areas, but it would not result in a substantial amount of new dwellings, nor would it
induce substantial growth in the area as land available for development is limited in this part of the
City. Under the proposed Specific Plans, approximately 490 residential dwelling units would be
introduced in the West Dublin BART area, and approximately 150 residential dwelling units would be
introduced in the Downtown Core area. This is not considered a significant increase for the region,
and would establish housing closer to existing services and transportation than much of the
residential development in the City, thereby reducing some impacts associated with growth such as
increased traffic generation.
According to the City's General Plan, the Downtown Core and West Dublin BART Specific Plan
areas are considered a Downtown Intensification Area which would. allow up to 200 dwelling units. It
is also stated that the number may be increased if mid-rise, mixed-use buildings, such as that
proposed in portions of the specific plan areas, achieve market acceptance. Additionally, the plan
areas are currently serviced with water, sewer, and roads, and therefore, the specific plans are not
considered growth inducing projects. ~
Dublin Planmng Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 15
~o
c) Displacement of existing housing, especially affordable housing? NI. The project site has been
developed as a retail commercial and office downtown arE?a,O[t presently contains no housing.
r--\ Therefore, there would be no displacement of housing units on the site.
III. Soils and Geology
Environmental Settinq
The site lies within the Tri-Valley area, in the commercial core of Dublin. According to historic geologic
studies in the area, the site is underlain by poorly consolidated, non-marine deposit sedimentary rocks of
the TassaJaraF'Ormafion. The geotechnical investigation report prepared for the project indicates that the
site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone (1982). There are no mapped faults which are known to
traverse the site, the closest Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone is the Calaveras Fault located along San Ramon
Road approximately one-quarter mile to the west. The next nearest active seismic faults include the
Hayward and the San Andreas Faults which are located approximately 9 miles southwest, and 27 miles
west-southwest, respectively. The closest potentially active faults include the (1) Verona, which is
located approximately 3 miles to the south, and (2) the Las Positas, which is located approximately 9
miles to the southeast.
The soil conditions in the downtown area are summarized from previously prepared geotechnical studies
as follows: Medium stiff to stiff lean clays to the maximum depth of about 41.5 feet below site grade
(BSG). The upper 2 to 5 feet SSG consist of dark brown lean clays with varied gravel and sand content.
The upper 6 to 12 inches of the clays were intermixed with wood debris suggesting that the upper, 6
inches was engineered fill. The near surface clays exhibit low to moderate plasticity, a low to moderate
expansion potential~ and moderate shear strength. The consolidation tests indicate that the clays are
I"'""\over-consolidated . and exhibit low comp:essibil!ty under the anticipated foundation lo~ds. Groundwater
{was encountered m most of the test bonngs drilled below 10 feet BSG at depths ranging from 12 to 13
':.,.' feet BSG. From a geotechnical standpoint, the area is suitable for proposed retail commercial and
residential development with regard to support of shallow spread foundations and concrete slabs-on-
grade. As this is a currently built and urbanized area, when excavation activities are proposed with
individual projects on spe~ific sites, geotechnical studies specific to that property may be required at that
time. .
Proiect Impacts
a). Is the site subject to fault rupture? NI. The risk of fault rupture on the site is anticipated to be low,
since the nearest known active or potentially active faults lie a minimum of one quarter mile away.
No impacts would therefore result.
b) Is the site subjectto ground shaking? LS. The site as well as the encompassing region is anticipated
to be subject to moderate to severe ground shaking from a number of active and potentially active
faults in the greater Bay Area, including the Hayward fault, San Andreas fault and Calaveras fault.
The ground shaking issue is less than significant for properties in the Specific Plan areas because
new development constructed will be required to adhere to the requirements of the Uniform Building
Code and other seismic safety standards as they are developed over the life of the Specific Plans.
c) Is the site subject to seismic ground failure? NL Based on previous geotechnical reports and
information for this area of the City, the risk of ground failure would be low. Routine enforcement of
provisions of the 1997 Uniform Building Code and recommendations contained in geotechnical
reports prepared for specific development projects will serve to reduce potential impacts of seismic
ground failure to a lesS than significant level.
r,..' ,
... . \
Page 16
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
d) Is the site .subject to seiche, tsunami hazards, including liquefaction? Nl. Geotechnical investigation
reports for past projects in the downtown conclude that the risk of liquefaction in the downtown is
low. This is based on the presence of clay soils on the site which are not prone to liquefaction. There
are no major bodies of water located nearby which could be a source of seiche hazard. ..""
e) Is the site subject to landslides or mudflows? Nl. The downtown project area is essentially flat with
little change in slope; therefore, no impacts are anticipated with regard. to landslides or mudflows.
f) . Is the site subject to erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions? LS. The area is
essentially flat and contains no unstable soil conditions. No significant changes in topography are
proposed because the area has been previously graded the past to accommodate existing
development. However, future development and construction within the area under the auspices of
the three Specific Plans would result in grading and excavation for additional building foundations,
underground utilities and similar purposes. There would be a possibility of erosion of graded material
and construction debris off of construction sites. The City of Dublin requires preparation and approval
of erosion control plans for all new construction where grading plans are requested. For development
projects involving five acres of land are greater, preparation of Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plans are also required by the State Water Resources Control Board Adherence to standard erosion
control plans and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans will ensure that any impacts related to
erosion will be reduced to less-than-significant levels.
g) Subsidence of land? Nl. Minimal subsidence would occur in the area, according to geotechnical
reports prepared for past projects in the downtown. No impacts would therefore result.
h) Expansive soils? LS. The soils have a low to moderate expansion potential and moderate shear
strength. Foundations of future buildings and other structures proposed under the auspices of the
Specific Plans will be reviewed by the City of Dublin pursuant to the Uniform Building Code to ensure
that adequate foundations are provided. Less-than-significant impacts related to expansive soils are
therefore anticipated. '-I
i) Unique geologic or physical features? Nl. No unique geologic or physical features have been
identified on any of the Specific Plan sites, based upon a review of a topographic survey and a field
visit. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
IV. Water
Environmental Settinq
Surface water exists on perimeters of the West Dublin BART and Downtown Core Specific Plan areas in
the form of open storm drainage channels owned by Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District (ACFCWCD) Zone 7 site. Stormwater runoff within Specific Plan areas is directed
to regional storm drain facilities owned and maintained by ACFCWCD, which underlie the SpeCific Plan
areas. There are no creeks, wetlands or other bodies of water near the Specific Plan areas
The entire Tri-Valley area is underlain by an extensive. underground aquifer. The aquifer ranges in depth
between 15 and 500 feet but is no longer used as the primary source of domestic water in the area.
Zone 7 is presently finalizing plans to store treated wastewater within the aquifer during winter months,
which will be pumped out and used for landscape irrigation during dry, summer months.
Proiect Impacts
a) Changes to absorption rates? LS. The Specific Plan areas have been largely developed over the
past thirty to forty years and covered with impervious surfaces, including buildings, parking areas, ''<itttrIII
walkways and other paved areas. Small portions of the areas are either vacant or landscaped to
Dublin Planning Department Page 17
Downtown Specific Plans
81-
allow for drainage and irrigation. Construction of new buildings within the areas, under the auspices
of the Specific Plans, would add new impervious surfaces, but would also add additional pervious
surfaces in terms of plazas and more landscaping as required by the Specific Plans. Less-than-
significant impacts to absorption patterns are therefore anticipated.
f""""
\
b) Exposure of people or property to flood hazard? LS. Portions of the Village Parkway and Downtown
Core Specific Plan are subject to flooding during 1 DO-year flood events .and are generally inundated
with water during periods of intense andlor long-term rain fall. Representatives of the City of Dublin
Public Works Department have indicated that sub-regional drainage improvements will be
undertaken in the future as part of the City's Capital Improvement budget to alleviate flooding
hazards. Programs to deal with flood hazards are included in the ViHage Parkway and Downtown
Core Specific Plans. Less-than-significant impacts are therefore anticipated with regard to flood
hazards.
c) Discharge into surface waters or changes to surface water quality? NL Existing storm drainage
facilities are planned to be used to accommodate stormwater runoff from the Specific Plan areas.
Since the amount of stormwater runoff is not anticipated to increase above existing volumes (see
comment a, above), no impacts are anticipated with regard to discharge into surface water. Future
development projects undertaken under the auspices of the Specific Plans will be required to meet
the water quality requirements of the City of Dublin's NPDES permit and the Alameda County Urban
Runoff Clean Water Program.
d) Changes in amount of surface water? NI. Adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would have no
impacts to surface waters as all drainage shall be directed to the existing storm drainage system. No
impacts to surface bodies of water are therefore anticipated.
to;) Changes in currents or direction of water movement? NI. The project would not alter currents or
direction of water movement in nearby water bodies since no substantial changes are anticipated to
the volume of stormwater runoff.
Changes in quantity of groundwater? NI. Approval and implementation of the three Specific Plans
would not significantly alter existing ground water resources on or near the project site because all
drainage is directed to the storm drainage system operated by Zone 7. Similarly, significant amounts
of groundwater use are not anticipated, since representatives of the Dublin-San, Ramon Services
District have indicated that adequate water supplies have been identified to serve the maximum
amount of development envisioned in the proposed Specific Plans.
g) Altered direction of groundwater? LS Nt. The project would not affect groundwater dIrection, since no
significant subsurface construction is anticipated. In the event that subsurface excavation is
proposed. adopted City standards require that specific development proiects. such as those reQuirino
underoround parkino structures, prepare a' site-specific hydrolooical analysis with oeotechnical and
soils analvsis to determine oroundwaterlevels. No sionificant impacts are anticipated related to
altered direction of oroundwater.
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? NI. The scope of the project is such that groundwater resources will
not be affected, as discussed above.
i) Substantial reduction of groundwater resources? LS. The project involves approval of three Specific
Plans to upgrade the appearance and land uses in downtown Dublin. Since more intensive land uses
r, are anticipated in the Plans above that allowed in the current General Plan, some increase in the use
of water IS anticipated. Representatives of the Dublin-San Ramon Services District have indicated,
that adequate water supplies have been identified and addressed in future District plans to serve the
Dublin Planning Department Page 18
Downtown Specific Plans
maximum amount of development envisioned in the proposed Specific Plans. Therefore, the
projected level of water use is expected to be less-than-significant.
v. Air Quality
\tttII
Environmental'Settinq
The project site is located within the Tri-Valley area, a sheltered, inland area surrounded by hills to the
west, south and east. Most of the airflow into the southern portions of the Valley is accomplished through
two passages in the surrounding hills: the Hayward and Niles canyons. Local wind data show the
frequent occurrence of low wind speed and calm conditions (the latter approximately 23 percent of the
time). These local limitations on the capacity for horizontal dispersion of air pollutants combined with the
regional characteristic of restricted vertical dispersion give the area a high potential for regional air
quality problems.
Proiect Impacts
a) Violation of air quality standard? LS. Potential air quality impacts can be divided into short-term,
construction related impacts and long-term operational impacts associated with the project.
In terms of construction-related impacts, it is anticipated that construction of new buildings under the
auspices of the Specific Plans would generate temporary increases in dust and particulate matter
caused by excavation and grading activities. Construction vehicle equipment on unpaved surfaces
also generates dust, as would wind blowing over exposed earth surfaces. Generalized estimates of
construction air emissions include approximately 1.2 tons of dust per acre per month of construction
activity. About 45 percent of construction-related dust is composed of large particles which settle
rapidly on nearby surfaces and are easily filtered by human breathing patterns. The remainder of
dust consists of small particles (also known as PM10). The City of Dublin requires the approval and ....,
implementation of a Construction Impact Reduction Plan as a standard condition of approval for new
construction projects which will reduce short-term air quality impacts to a level of insignificance.
Buildout of the maximum development of the three Specific Plans would add additional vehicular
traffic to this portion of Dublin. These additional vehicles would generate quantities of carbon
monoxide, reactive organic gasses, nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter (PM10).
However, the location of the Specific Plans near major regional transportation corridors (1-680 and
Dublin Boulevard), and the fact that the intent of the West Dublin BART and Downtown Core Specific
Plans is to promote transit-friendly development results in conformity with the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District's Clean Air Plan. The short-term and long-term impacts to air quality of
approving and implementing the three Specific Plans would, therefore, be less-than'-significant.
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? LS. As stated in V-a above, the impacts to air quality of the
project will be less-than-significant both on the long- and short-term. The project, if approved and
constructed, would add some vehicular trips to the project area, but the development of the new
West Dublin BART Station would also reduce a portion of the vehicular trips in the area. This
increase in vehicular trips is minor considering the fact that many of the trips are multi-purpose trips.
It is unlikely that the project would expose additional sensitive receptors, future visitors, and
residents to significantly higher concentrations of vehicle related pollutants. Any impacts related to
this issue would be less-than-significant.
c) After air movement, moisture, temperature or climate? Nl. The Specific Plans are intended to
encourage the same general type of development as currently exists on each of the project sites.
..J
Dublin Plannmg Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 19
~4
Although building heights may be somewhat higher than currently found on the site, no substantial
interference regarding prevailing wind patterns or climatic conditions is anticipated.
r\
d) Create objectionable odors? NI. Permitted uses allowed by the Specific Plans include primarily retail,
office, entertainment, lodging and residential land uses, none of which are associated .with the
release of significant amounts of objectionable odors. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
VL Transportation/Circulation
[Note: The following section is based on an analysis of the traffic and transportation performed byOmni;..
Means, Transportation Consultants in AUQust 2000, with updates in September. November and
December 2000.]
Environmental SettinQ
Major roadways serving the site include:
o
.
Interstate 580, a six-lane east-west freeway connecting Dublin with nearby local communities
such as Livermore and Pleasanton and regional destinations, such as Tracy and Oakland. In the
vicinity of the proposed project, 1-580 carries between 160,000 and 187,000 vehicles per day.
Nearby interchanges include 580/680; Dougherty Rd.lHopyard Rd. and Hacienda Dr.
Interstate 680 is a six-lane north-south freeway connecting Dublin with local communities in the
Tri-Valley area and regional destinations north and south of Dublin.1Jli~, freeway accommodates
between 123,000 and 144,000 vehicles per day with interchanges at Alcosta Blvd., Interstate 580
and Stoneridge Drive.
Dougherty Road extends in a north-south direction east of the Specific Plan areas. A major
arterial roadway, Dougherty Road has four travel lanes north of Dublin Boulevard. South of
Dublin Boulevard, the roadway widens to six travel lanes as it crosses over 1-680, a full-access
interchange for eastbound/westbound traffic is located at Doughertyll-580. In the Dublin
Boulevard area, Dougherty Road provides access primarily to commercial and retail areas. North
of Dublin Boulevard, the road provides access to residential areas as it approaches Amador
Valley Boulevard.
Amador Plaza Road. is a north-south street extending from Amador Valley Boulevard south
through Dublin Boulevard. Between Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard, Amador
Plaza Road has two travel lanes and a two-way left-turn lane. South of Dublin Boulevard, the
roadway has two travel lanes and provides access to existing and new retail-commercial land
uses . Amador Plaza Road is planed to connect to the new 1-680 southbound on/off ramps
currently under construction.
.
.
Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west roadway through the south part of the Village Parkway
planning area. Dublin Boulevard has six travel lanes and raised medians from San Ramon .Road
to just east of Regional Street. As Dublin Boulevard approaches Golden Gate Drive, the roadway
narrows to four travel lanes and maintains this configuration east to Dougherty Road. Dublin
Boulevard is designated as a route of regional significant in the Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency's Congestion Management Plan.
. Golden Gate Drive is a short, two-lane roadway that extends south frol1J Duplin Boulevard.
Providing access to commercial areas, Golden Gate Drive is de~igned with two travel lanes.
. Regional Street extends south from Amador Valley Road through Dublin Boulevard. South of
publin Boulevard, Regional Street is a wide, two-lane road provides access to retail and
"commercial areas. North of Dublin Boulevard, the road has two travel lanes with a two-way left-
turn lane.
DUblIn Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 20
· Amador Valley Boulevard is located north of the project site and extends in an east-west
direction. East of San Ramon Road, Amador Valley Boulevard has four travel lanes with raised
landscaped medians and is a major arterial street. West of San Ramon Road, the roadway
narrows to two travel lanes.
...,
· Village Parkway extends from Dublin Boulevard north to Alcosta Boulevard. A major arterial
roadway, Village Parkway has four travel lanes with raised center .Iandscaped and hardscaped
medians. Between Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard, Village Parkway provides
access to commercial land uses. Continuing northward, this roadway provides primary access to
residential areas off of Tamarack Drive, Brighton Drive and Davona Drive. A new northbound on-
ramp to 1-680 from Village Parkway recently opened.
· San Ramon Road is oriented in a north-south direction west of the three Specific Plan areas. A
. major arterial roadway, San Ramon Road has six travel lanes and raised medians north of 1-580.
North of Amador Valley Boulevard, San Ramon Road narrows to four travel lanes. In the Specific
Plan areas, the roadway provided access to commercial and retail businesses. San Ramon Road
is designated on System (MTS) roadway by the Alameda County Congestion Management
Agency.
· Starward Drive extends from Amador Valley Boulevard north and has two travel lanes. It provides
access to residential areas north of the Specific Plan areas.
· Donohue Drive is oriented ina north-south direction and provides access to residential areas
north of Amador Valley Road. A two-lane residential street, Donohue Drive extends north from
Amador Valley Boulevard.
Clark Avenue extends between Village Parkway north across Dublin Boulevard to Maple Drive. A
two-lane roadway, Clark Avenue provides access to commercial areas south of Dublin Boulevard ""'wIf1
and residential areas north of Dublin Boulevard.
· Civic Plaza/Sierra Court. Civic Plaza is a wide, two-lane street extending south from Dublin
Boulevard providing access to Dublin City Hall and Police Department headquarters. Civic Plaza
is not a through street. Sierra Court extends northward from Dublin Boulevard (opposite Civic
Plaza) and is a two-lane road, The roadway provides access to light industrial and residential
areas.
· Dublin Court extends southeast from Dublin Boulevard and is located east of the Specific Plan
areas. A wide, two-lane road, Dublin Court provides access to retail and commercial areas.
· Lewis A venue is a short, two-lane street extending east-west between Village Parkway and
Portage Road. Lewis Avenue provides access to commercial and office areas off of Village
Parkway before accessing residential areas east of Village Parkway.
· Tamarack Drive extends in an east-west direction on both sides of Village Parkway. A wide, two-
lane road, Tamarack Drive provides access to residential areas. north of Amador Valley Road.
· Brighton Drive extends in an east-west direction on both sides of Village Parkway. A wide, .iwo-
lane road, Brighton Drive provides access to residential areas north of Tamarack Drive.
· Davona Drive extends between Village Parkway and Alcosta Boulevard. A tWo-:lane residential
street, Davona Drive also provides through vehicle access from Village Parkway areas to 1-680 .....",
via Alcosta Boulevard.
Dublin Planmng Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 21
~LP
! I
! The Livermore Amador Valley Tfansit Authority ("WHEELS") provides bus transit service through the
, , r Dublin area. Bus routE?S sE?fving the downtown Dublin area include Routes 3, 4, 10 and 201/202.
Regional transit to and from the Dubli"n area is provided by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART).
BART opened a Dublin/Pleasanton station in the latE? 1990's, located approximately one mile east of the
project site. A recent proposal has been submitted to BART toc:;onstruct apoVllJ1town Dubl.in ~tation
within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area at the terminus of Golden Gat~ Drive, approximately 1/2
mile south of this Specific Plan area.
Bikeways exist or are proposed on Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevi:!rd,. ..A..rni:!qPr,Yi:!lIey
Boulevard is presently designated for a Class II bikeway lane, which is designed with a one~way striped
lane for bicycle travel on the roadway. Dublin Boulevard is proposed for a Class 'II bikeway lane, to be
opened with the. completion of the roadway improvements. Public sidewalks have been constructed
adjacent to many of the streets within and adjacent to the Specific Plan areas.
The City commissioned a traffic consultant (Omni-Means, transportation consultants) to prepare a traffic
analysis regarding transportation and circulation impacts of approving and implementing the three
Specific Plans. .
General Plan Transportation PolicVF=~~me3~ork
The Generi:!1 Plan, measures and evaluates traffic congestion conditions of the roadway network by using
intersection level of service ("LOS") analysis. The LOS analysis describes the operational efficiency of
an intersection by comparing the volume of critical traffic movements to intersection capacity and
,..-"deterrninipg>average delays. LOS can range from "A," representing free-flowing conditions, to "F,"
t \ representing very severe congestion and intersection breakdown.
The General Plan adopts LOS D or better as the acceptable LOS for all routes of regional significance
, (these routes include: Dublin Blvd., Dougherty Rd., Tassajara Rd., and San Ramon Rd.). Development
'~and road improvements should be phased so that the LOS does not deteriorate below LOS D 0J/C .91
or greater) (General Plan Guiding Policies 5.1.1 B and C).
Sionificance Criteria
Based upon General Plan policies, an intersection impact is considered significant if it causes the overall
intersection LOS, or a movement LOS in the intersection, to fall below LOS D. .
Proiect Impacts
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? LS. Th~ proposed project would increase vehicle trips
and traffic congestion on the local roadway network, which could deteriorate existing levels of service
on some affected roadways. Table 1, summarizes existing traffic conditions in and around the
Specific Plan sites, which also includes anticipated traffic from approved but not yet constructed
projects. The table also shows anticipated traffic impacts for the same intersections at full build out of
maximum Specific Plan densities. For two of the intersections, Golden GatelDublin Boulevard and
A~ador Plaza/Dublin Boulevard, projected traffic would exceed City thresholds of significance. For
these two intersections, the Specific Plans require the installation of traffic improvements as part of
Specific Pian development to raise the future Level of Service to comply with City standards.
C'\
Additional roadway widening improvements would be needed with the projected traffic volumes.
Golden Gate Drive would require widening to four travel lanes with two-way left-turn lanes between
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 22
feet. Accordino to the City's traffic consultant. this would result in more traffic trips per day than the
residential use at the same location. Because of this, intersections in the vicinity may operate at'
LOS uD" rather than LOS "C". LOS "0" is oenerally considered an acceptable level of service. so
althouoh trips would increase, it would not be a sionificant increase and will be adequatelv addressed
bv the policies and proorams in the Specific Plans.
At their meetino on October 24. 2000. the Planninq Commission suqoested revisions to be included
in the Downtown Core Specific Plan, and also in the General Plan Amendments for the proiect. The
Commission suooested a chanoe in the FAR for a 2.55 acre Retail/Auto use property to reflect a
request by Kenneth and Marc Harvev of Dublin Honda for property on Amador Plaza Road. The
chanoe modifies the FAR from 0.20 (or 22,420 square feet with the existino development on the site)
to 0.79. resultino in a development potential of 87,750 square feet. This chanoe would provide for
consistency between the FAR of the Honda dealership property and that of the adiacent property.
former site of Shamrock Ford. at the corner of Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road. It is not
anticipated that traffic in the area would increase with this FAR increase as the existino use would
remain the same, and the additiona.1 square footaoe would be utilized for storaoe and office space
associated with that use. The policies and proorams in the Specific Plans should be adequate for the
proposed land use. Any land use chanoe application for this property in the future would require a
land use and traffic analysis to evaluate the impacts on the Specific Plan area.
'.,
..""
For the Village Parkway Specific Plan area, the City Council appointed a Task Force which met over
a six-month period to discuss and direct the revitalization of the business community along the
segment of Village Parkway between Amador Valley Boulevard to the north and Dublin Boulevard to
the south. To accomplish this revitalization effort, it was decided by the Task Force that slowing
traffic and providing better parking opportunities close to businesses would create a more pedestrian
and shopper friendly environment, thereby stimulating the economic growth of busines$es and
increasing the activity level in the area. Four different options for roadway improvements along
Village Parkway were evaluated during the specific plan development process, along with the
existing roadway configuration as shown in Exhibit 7 A of the Specific Plan. The following is a brief
description of each of the Village Parkway roadway alternatives considered. Exhibits illustrating the ..."
alignment and cross section of Village Parkway for each alternative are contained in Appendix A5 of
the Village Parkway Specific Plan.
Alternative 1: The Village Parkway Specific Plan Task Force reviewed the various options for the
roadway, all of which contained diagonal parking to bring people closer to business storefronts
and to change the streetscape in the area. Alternative 1, as shown in Exhibit 10A of Appendix
A5 of the Specific Plan, would provide four lanes of traffic on Village Parkway (two lanes in each
direction) combined with diagonal parking along the street frontage in selected locations. There
are approximately 60 existing parallel parking spaces along Village Parkway at this time, and 121
parking spaces could be provided with this alternative.
A four-foot class III bicycle lane would be located between the diagonal parking and the right
traffic lane. The sidewalk would be widened from five feet (existing right-of-way is eight feet) to
10 feet to provide enough space for increased pedestrian use. Two new crosswalks for
pedestrians would be provided in mid-block locations with caution signals. Each traffic lane
would be 12 feet and the center median would be reduced from 16 feet to 14 feet in width.
In the Consultant's Report of the Transportation Impacts for the Proposed Village Parkway,
Downtown Core,' and West BART Station Specific Plans prepared by Omni-Means for the
Downtown specific plans, the consultant determined that this alternative would create the least
potential roadway impacts of the four alternatives and recommended it for implementation. This
determination was based on the following: 1) four travel lanes would be maintained; 2) diagonal
parking would provide additional spaces close to business frontages; and, 3) bicycle traffic would
be provided on the street (however, this could create some conflicts between motorists backing
out of spaces and bicyclists). Some conflicts may occur between through vehicles and those.."",;
Dublm Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 24
~
r'\
t '
backing out of spaces; but the bike lane should provide a buffer zone, thereby reducing tne
potential for conflict.
The totalright-of-lNay (ROVV) required for this option would be 115 feet. As the roadway ROW is
currently 100 feet, an additional seven feet six inches of ROW on each side of the street would
need to be obtained from property owners. Implementation of this alternative would require a
public/private partnership, or joint partnership b~tween private property owners and the City to
balance the cost of improvements. This alternative requires a high degree of cooperation and
commitment by both the City and the property owners on Village Parkway to be successful. The
preliminary cost estimate for improvements related to this alternative is $2,005,000.
Alternative 2 - Alternative 2, as shown in Exhibit 7B of the Specific Plan (see attached disgram)
and Exhibit 10B of the appendix, would provide four lanes of traffic on Village Parkway (two lanes
in each direction) combined with diagonal parking along the street frontage in selected locations,
and the bicycle lane would share the sidewalk with pedestrian traffic. The sidewalk would be
widened t012 feet to provide enough space for the shared use. Two new crosswalks for
pedestrians would be provided in mid-block locations with caution signals. Each traffic lane
would be 12 feet and the center median would be reduced from 16 feet to 14 feet in width. The
total right-of-way (ROW) required for this option would be 118 feet. As the roadway ROW is
currently 100 feet, an additional nine feet of ROW on each side of the street wOLJldneed to be
obtained from property owners.
The consultant's report determined that this alternativ~ was _adequate for roadway circulation;
however, maintaining the bike lane on the sidewalk cpulq be problematic in the downtown retail
district due to pedestrian/bicycle conflicts on the adjacent sidewalks. Additionally, the alternative
does not provide a buffer area between the outside lanes, and vehicl~s, i:>acking out of the
diagonal parking spaces. This could be disruptive to traffic flows during peak hours of traffic.
Implementation of this alternative would require a public/private partnership, or joint partnership
between private property owners and the City to balance the cost of improvements. The
preliminary cost estimate for improvements related to this alternative is $2,170,000.
Alternative 3 - The alternative preferred by the Task Force was Alternative 3, as shown in Exhibit
10C, which would provide two lanes of traffic on Village Parkway (one lane in each direction)
combined with diagonal parking along the street frontage in selected locations. A total of 81
parking spaces could be provided with this alternative. A six-foot Class III bicycle lane would be
located on the roadway between the diagonal parking and the through traffic lane. Two new
crosswalks for pedestrians would be provided in mid-block locations with caution signals. Each
traffic lane would be 12 feet and the center median would, be reduced from 16 feet to ,14 f~etin
width. The Task Force also suggested that the median be reduced in height for better visibility
for pedestrians crossing the street.
The total right-of-way (ROW) required for this option would be 100 feet. A~the roac:lway ROW is
currently 100 feet, no additional ROW would need to be obtained from property owners. The
amount of ROW needed for this alternative is less than that., required for the other options
considered, but it would reduce the number of through traffic lanes from four to two, thereby
slowing traffic considerably. In slowing traffic on the roadway, Alternative 3 would also create
additional congestion on Village Parkway during peak hour periods, and traffic may be diverted to
Amador Plaza Road and streets with less capacity in the vicinity. With the existing level of traffic
plus approved projects' and BART's estimated traffic volume, the traffic consultant's estimate is
that the level-of-servic:e (LOS) on Village Parkway would operate at LOS F (unacceptable level),
decreasing from LOS C (acceptable level) with this alternative. Additionally, the LOS at the
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 25
intersections of Amador Valley BoulevardNillage Parkway and Dublin BoulevardNillage Parkway
would operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour, and LOS F during the PM peak hour
Implementation of this altemative would require a public/private partnership, or joint partnership """"
between private property owners and the City to' balance the cost .of improvements, but to a
lesser degree than Alternative 1 and 2. This alternative requires cooperation and commitment by
both the City and the property owners on Village Parkway to be successful. The preliminary cost
estimate for this alternative is $1,050,000, and is the lowest cost alternative when compared to
the other three alternatives.
Alternative 4 - Alternative 4, as shown in Exhibit 100, would provide four lanes of traffic on
Village Parkway (two lanes in each direction) and a four..:foot bicycle lane. Diagonal parking
would be provided along the frontage of businesses in selected locations, but it would be
separated from street traffic by narrow medians. A total of approximately 106 parking spaces
would be provided with this alternative along Village Parkway. Drive aisle entrances would
provide access to these separated parking areas. Two new crosswalks for pedestrians would be
provided in mid-block locations with caution signals. Each traffic lane would be 12 feet and the
center median would be reduced from 16 feet to 14 feet in width. The total right-of-way (ROW)
required for this option would be 128 feet. As the roadway ROW is currently 100 feet, an
additional 14 feet of ROW on each side of the street would need to be obtained from property
owners.
This alternative would increase the distance between roadway traffic and the businesses on
Village Parkway, and may not meet the objective of slowing traffic and providing a more
pedestrian oriented streetscape, as the width of the ROW would be substantially increased.
Implementation of this alternative would require a public/private partnership, or joint partnership
between private property owners and the City to balance the cost of improvements. The,.. '.'
preliminary cost estimate for this alternative is the highest. of the four alternatives at $3,130,000. ....."
Therefore, as the cost is extremely high and it would not meet the basic objective of providing
parking close to the street and businesses with better pedestrian access, it is not recommended
as a viable alternative.
Staff has several concerns reoardino narrowino Villaoe Parkway to two lanes of traffic and addinQ
diaoonal parkinQ. as preferred by the Task Force. Vehicle trip diversion may occur. as discussed in the
previous section. and adversely affect the adiacent neiahborhood to the east. This could affect the
quality of . life for that portion of the City residential area by creatinq. safety hazards for residents and
children attendino the neiqhborhood school. Noise levels could also increase in the area with' the
additional cut-throuoh traffic. Additionally. the Alameda County Fire Department and Dublin Police
Department have expressed concerns related to community safety, response time, and the creation of
roadway hazards in the event that Villaoe Parkway is reduced to two lanes of traffic with diaoonal
parkino within the existinQ rioht-of-way. Another option for the alignment of Village Parkway, which is the
staff recommended option (see attached diaoram), is to maintain the existing roadway without
expansion, and continue the use of parallel parking on both sides of the street. Improvements in the
streetscape and sidewalk could be provided as described in the section of this document on design to
encourage increased pedestrian use in the area. Additionally,' joint/shared parking should be
,encouraged between properties, with fences removed which impede pedestrian access. This option
would require less capital funds for implementation and would create less roadway impacts.
A letter has been' received from the Alameda County Conqestior.l ManaQement Aoency (ACCMA)
commentino on the transportation and circulation analysis prepared for the Specific Plans. The City's
traffic consultant has responded to these comments in a letter dated December 8. 2000. The ACCMA.. .
stated that the Dublin Specific Plans qualified for analysis usino the CountyWide Transporation Demand"'"
Dublin Planmng Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 26
qo
DO.85 C 0.78 D 0.87 D 0.89
A 0.36 A 0.54 A 0.48 C 0.79
A 0.28 A 0.48 B 0.68 E 0.91
B 0.62 CO.80
A 0.44 C 0.76 AO.58 F 1.02
A 0.50 00.83
A 0.47 A 0.60 A 0.47 B 0.66
A 0.40 A 0.51 A 0.42 A 0.53
A 0.35 A 0.51 A 0.36 A 0.54
A 0.37 BO.66 A 0.39 C 0.71
CO.74 D 0.90 CO.75 D 0.88
B 0.62 AO.58 B 0.62 A 0.56
C 0.73 DO.85 C 0.72 D 0.85
A A
A 0.56 B 0.61
A 0.41 A 0.45
Note: Italics text indicates volume to capacity ratio and Level of Service after implementation of Specific
Plan traffic improvements
d) Insufficient parking capacity on site or offsite? LS. Approval of the three Specific Plans and
construction of improvements based on the Specific Plans would increase the demand. for on-site
parking within each of the three areas. Parking demand would also be increased due to the planned
presence of the proposed West Dublin BART station, the development of which is not part of the
Specific Plan project. Requirements included in each of the Specific Plans require that all new land
uses proposed pursuant to a Specific Plan include on-site parking to meet current City of Dublin
parking'requirements.ExistinQ 'uses are assUmed to provide sufficient parkino, with, applicable City
standards on-site at the time of orioinal construction and development. The .Specific Plans provide
that ~xceptions to parkino reoulations may be allowed for shared use of parking facilities, or in
instances where the Plannino Commission or City Council find evidence based on a parkino analysis
that a reduced parkino ratio is apPr0priate due to the proximity of the use to public transit service.
The Specific Plans also provide that Provicion of additional parking facilities maybe reviewed and
reouiredwill bo rovimvcd as individual Site Development Review applications are submitted to the
City of Dublin for new construction projects. This review process will ensure that adequate parking is
provided and any parking impacts would be less-than-significant.
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Nt. The proposed Specific Plans would require
construction of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities to encourage non-auto travel modes. No impacts
are therefore anticipated.
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? Nl. Each of the Specific Plans require the installation of some new facilities to support
enhanced bus service to each of the three sites. However, the additional facilities would be within
areas presently served by transportation services. The new facilities would be consistent with
. adopted policies supporting alternative transportation as they would provide more opportunities to
use varying modes of transportation. Therefore, no impacts are foreseer..
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? Nl. The proposed project is not sited near operating railroad
facilities, near a navigable waterway or near an airport. Although the West Dublin BART Specific
Plan is located near the proposed West Dublin BART station, the intent of the Specific Plan is to
o
Dublin Plannmg Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 28
promote complementary land uses adjacent to the planned BART station. Therefore, no impacts are
anticipated.
~
VII. Biological Resources
Environmental Settinq
The Specific Plan project sites are located in highly urbanized areas. With the exceptions of County
drainage channels on the periphery of two of the Specific Plan areas, no wetlands or other bodies of
water exist in or near the site. Existing vegetation includes introduced ornamental landscaping within
planter areas.
Proiect Impacts
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals and birds) NI. The Specific Plan Areas are existing, urbanized downtown areas.
The majority of the properties within the plan areas are fully developed. No such species have been
observed in the project areas based on field observations conducted in July 2000.
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees). NI. No heritage trees are located on the site.
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat) NI. Only introduced,
ornamental vegetation associated with urban development is found on the site.
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? NI. No wetlands exist on the project site.
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? NI. The Specific Plans represent in-fill development within '...."
an existing urbanized downtown area. There are no wildlife or migration corridors on the site;
therefore, no impacts would occur to such resources
VIII. Energy and Mineral Resources
Environmental Settinq
Based on the previous geotechnical surveys of specific properties in the Specific Plan area, no known
deposits of minerals exist on the project site. The. Conservation Element of the General Plan does not
reference any significant mineral resources on the project site or in the general area.
Proiect Impacts
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? Nl. The proposed project will not conflict with
goals, policies or programs established in the Dublin General Plan regarding energy or energy
conservation.
b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Nl. The proposed project is not
anticipated to use resources in a wasteful manner. The project will be constructed in accordance with
the Uniform Building Code and Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, both of which require
stringent energy efficient construction methods, such as insulation, thermal pane windows and
installation of efficient appliances. Exterior landscaping will be governed by both AB 325 and Section
8.88 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, which requires "water budgets" for landscape material sand
methods of irrigation. Finally, the City is mandated by AB 939 to reduce the solid waste stream ".J
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 29
Q;r
generated by residences, business and industrial establishments by promoting recycling and similar
programs.
("'\
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the
region and residents of the State? NI. The project site is not located in an area designated by the
California State Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and G~Qlogy, as having sufficient
mineral resources that are suitable as marketable commoditi~s. No .impacts are therefore expected.
IX. Hazards
Environmental Settinq .
The Specific Plan areas are located in previously developed commercial. office and similar non-
residential areas. Existing uses within the West Dublin BART and Downtown Core Specific Plan areas
include automobile sales and service uses. Operation of these facilities use oil, grease, solvents and
other potentially hazardous materials. It is anticipated that some or all of these uses would remain in
business after adoption of the two Specific Plans; however, storage and handling of potentially
hazardous materials is controlled by the Alameda County Fire Department, Alameda County Health
Department, Regional Water Quality Control Board and other regulatory agencies..
Proiect Impacts
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances including but not limited to oil,
pesticides, chemicals, or radiation? NI. With the exception of auto-oriented uses, none of ,the land
uses permitted by the proposed Specific Plans would store, use or transport significant quantities of
hazardous substances. No impacts are therefore anticipated with regard to hazardous substances.
. r\
"
k b)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? NI. Future
site development plans proposed within the three Specific Plans will be reviewed by the Dublin
Police Department, Dublin Planning Department and Alameda County Fire Department to ensure
that adequate emergency evacuation is provided per City requirements. No impacts are therefore
anticipated.
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? Nl. Development of land uses and
other facilities pursuant to the three SpeCific Plans are not anticipated to generate significant health
hazards, since permitted uses would generally include commercial, office, entertainment, restaurant
and residential uses. No industrial or manufacturing land uses are proposed. No impacts are
therefore anticipated.
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? LS. Generally, new land uses in
the Specific Plan areas would include commercial, office, lodging, entertainment and similar uses,
none of which would involve creation of a health haz(lrd. New d~velopment that may be located near
automobile serving uses could have the potential to expose employees and visitors to health
hazards; however, the potential for exposure of people to health hazards from existing uses will be
reviewed during the Site Development Pian process to ensure compliance with all applicable health
and safety regulations. Less-than-significant impacts are therefore expected.
C'..
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees? LS. The proposed Specific Plan
areas are located in urbanized areas and existing uses have been constructed in compliance with
Uniform Fire and. Building Code requirements. Existing and future landscaped areas will be
permanently irrigated and maintained so that the potential for fire is reduced to a less-than-significant
level. .
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
page 30
X. Noise
,..",
Environmental Settinq
The General Plan identifies that the normally acceptable maximum outdoor Ldn noise level is 70 dBA for
commercial areas, while interior areas have a maximum noise level of 45 dBA.
The primary existing source of noise in the vicinity of the three Specific Plans is vehicle traffic, autos and
trucks, traveling on adjacent freeways and surface streets. It is anticipated that significant portions of all
three Specific Plan areas are subject to exterior noise in excess of 70 dBA.
Proiect Impacts
a) Increases in existing noise levels? LS. Approval of the three Specific Plan and construction of
improvements pursuant to the Plans is expected to incrementally increase noise levels in and
adjacent to the three planning areas. Noise increases would include temporary noise increases,
associated with construction activities and long-term permanent noise levels, associated with
additional vehicular trips and operational noise (mechanical noise, unloading of goods and similar
activities). Given the high levels of noise already on the site caused by nearby freeways, increases in
.noise levels are anticipated to be less-than-significant.
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? LS. The West Dublin BART and Downtown Core Specific
Plans both allow residential dwellings as permitted uses. Site specific review will be performed during
Site Development Review for residential projects to ensure compliance with City interior and exterior
noise standards. Noise studies may be required for individual projects. With adherence to City
noise standards, less-than-significant impacts would occur with regard to exposure of people to ...."
noise impacts.
XI. Public Services.
Environmental Settinq
The project site is served by the following service providers:
· Fire Protection. Fire protection is provided by the Alameda County Fire Department, under
contract to the City of Dublin, which provides structural fire suppression, rescue, hazardous
materials control and public education services.
· Police Protection. Police protection is provided by the City of Dublin Police Department which is
headquartered in the Civic Center. The Department, which maintains a sworn staff of 31 officers,
performs a range of public safety services including patrol, investigation, traffic safety and public
education.
· Schools. Educational facilities are provided by the Dublin Unified School District which operates
kindergarten through high school services within the community. Schools which would serve the
project include Dublin High School (grades 9-12) and Wells Middle School (graded 6-8). Grades
K-5 could be served by one of three elementary schools within the District.
.
Maintenance. The City of Dublin provides public facility maintenance, including roads,
street trees and other public facilities. Dublin's Civic Center is located at 100 Civic Plaza. .
Dublin Planning Department Page 31
Downtown Specific Plans
parks,
..,
q~
.
Other qovernmental services. Other governmental services are provided by the City of Dublin
including community development and building services arid related governmental services.
Library service is provided by the Alameda County Library with supplemental. funding by the City
of Dublin.
.(l
The City of Dublin has adopted a Public Facilities Fee for all new residential development in the
community for the purpose of financing new municipal public facilities needed by such development.
Facilities anticipated to be funded by the proposed fee would include completion of the Civic Center
Complex, construction of a new library, expansion of the existing senior center, acquisition and
development of new community and neighborhood parks and similar municipal buildings and facilities.
Future applicants for development pursuant to the Specific Plans would be required to pay this fee.
Environmental Impacts
a) Fire protection? LS. Approval of the three Specific Plans and future construction in compliance with
the Specific Plans would incrementally increase the demand for fire and emergency calls for service
since additional building square footage would be added to each site. As part of the site development
review process for individual buildings, specific fire protection requirements will be imposed to ensure
compliance with applicable provisions of the Uniform Fire Code. Such measures would include but
not limited to installation of new fire hydrants, fire extinguishers and similar features. Based on
standard City fire protection requirements, fire protection impacts would be less-than-significant.
b) Police protection? LS. Approval of the three Specific Plans and future construction in compliance
with the. Specific Plans would incrementally increase the demand for police calls for service since
additional building square footage would be added to each site. As part of the site development
review process for individual. buildings, specific security requirements will be. imposed to ensure
compliance with applicable provisions of the City's building security ordinance. Such measures would
include, but not be limited to, installation of appropriate locking devices, installation of security
lighting and similar features. Based on standard City security requirements, police protection impacts
would be less-than-significant:
c) Schools? LS. The West Dublin BART and Downtown Core Specific Plans each call for a residential
component. Although the size, type and orientation of dwellings that would be proposed for
development would likely generate a minimal amount of students to be served by the Dublin Unified
School District, there could be an incremental increase in the number of school-aged children. As
part of subdivision and site development review of future residenti(;il projects, coordination will occur
with school district officials to ensure that less-than-significant impacts would result,
. d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? LS. Approval of the Specific Plans and construction
of individual development projects pursuant to the Plans .would incrementi3lly increase the need for
maintenance of public facilities. Payment of pUblic facility fees to the City of Dublin by individual
projects would ensure that future maintenance impacts would be reduced to less:than..significant
levels.
e) Other governmental services? LS. Approval of the Specific P!;;lns would represent incremental
increases in the demand for general governmental services. Payment of the City's Public Facility Fee
by individual project developers would offset any impacts .caused by such projects, reducing any
impacts to a less-than-significant impact.
r-.
Dublin Plannrng Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 32
XII. Utilities and Service Systems.
Environmental Settinq
..."
The project site is served by the following service providers:
Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
· Communications: Pacific Bell and AT&T Cable.
· Water supply and sewage treatme-nt: Dublin San Ramon Services District.
· Storm drainage: City of Dublin and Zone 7.
· Solid waste disposal: Dublin-Livermore Disposal Company.
Environmental Impacts
a) Power or natural gas? NI. According to representatives from Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
adequate facilities exist in the vicinity of the project to provide power and natural gas service.
b) Communication systems? NI. Pacific Bell and AT&T Cable, communication facilities presently exist in
the near each of the three Specific Plan sites.
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution systems? NI. Water services are provided to the
area by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). According to representatives of the
District, adequate long-term water resources exist to serve future development envisioned in each of ....,
the Specific Plans. However, an upgrade to a 12"loop waterline from Regional Street to Amador
Plaza Road may be required with new development, but the District will need to evaluate the system
when specific projects are submitted.
d) Sewer or septic systems? LS. Sewer services are provided by DSRSD. Untreated effluent would
be transported to DSRSD's Regional Treatment Plant in Pleasanton for treatment prior to being
discharged into the East Bay Discharge Authority's outfall line for eventual disposal into San
Francisco Bay. DSRSD officials indicate that adequate capacity exists within the regional treatment
facility to accommodate the proposed Specific Plans. However, the District may need to replace the
8" sewer main line with a 12" line in Dublin Boulevard if development occurs at the intensity proposed
with the Specific Plan. This will also require further evaluation when specific projects are submitted.
Less-than-significant impacts would therefore result regarding sewer treatment facilities.
e) Storm water drairiage? LS. This topic was previously addressed in Section IV, Water.
f) Solid waste disposan LS. The City of Dublin contracts with livermore-Dublin Disposal Company to
collect solid waste from households and businesses and transport it to the Altamont Landfill, located
in eastern Alameda County. The Landfill currently has an anticipated capacity until the year 2005
and plans are underway to extend landfill capacity for an additional 50 years.
Livermore-Dublin Disposal Company also operates a curbside recycling service to ensure that the
City's waste stream complies with state requirements for reduction of solid waste. The most current
information available indicates that Dublin exceeds state requirements for reducing solid waste.
...,
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 33
qto
r\
Although approval of the proposed Specific Plans will incrementally increase the amount of solid
waste, any such increases will be insignificant because the existing facility would be able to be
accommodated given the existing solid waste facilities and resources. As stated in VIlI-b above, the
City is mandated by AB 939 to reduce the solid waste ,stream generated by residences, businesses
and industrial establishment by promoting recycling and similar programs.
g) Local or regional water supplies? NI. DSRSD staff indicate that adequate long-term water supplies
are available from Zone 7 and other sources to serve thE;l proposed project.
XIII. Aesthetics.
Environmental Settinq
The Specific Plan areas are located within existing urbanized areas and are not located adjacent to.
scenic highways.
Environmental Impacts
,r'
a) Affect a scen(c vista or vieW? Nt. The proposed Specific Plan includes development programs to
intensify existing land use patterns. Each Specific Plan contains height and bulk requirements to
ensure. that scenic vistas from surrounding areas would not be blocked. The Specific Plans establish
'a heiqht limit of six stories for the Downtown Core and Villaoe Parkway areas. . The Planninq
Commission has recommended a heioht limit of ten stonesforfneWestDublin BART Specific Plan.
area to the. City Council. which is common with development in most urban downtowns and
development near freeways. The City Council maY determine that ten stories is appropriate for this
area due to its location near the BART Station. a maior-transit facilitv. and the 1-580 and 1-680
freeways. Review of individual proiects in accordanc;evvith ,. the' desjon ouidelines related to
reduction. in bulk and quality of desion as detailed in the Specific Plan will result in less-than-
sionificant impacts on views.
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? NI. Each Specific Plan contains design guidelines to
ensure that new development projects occurring pursuant to an approved Specific Plan would result
in an aesthetically pleasing manner and would include additional landscaping. As part of the Specific
Plan programs, new public plazas, streetscape elements and other improvements would be
completed to improve aesthetic conditions. Therefore, no negative aesthetic impacts would be
created.
c) Create light or glare? LS. Proposed new uses constructed pursuant to the Specific Plans could
incrementally increase light levels in each of the Plan areas. New sources of light would include
street lighting, plaza lighting and building security lighting with new development projects and,
possible, extended hours of business. However, a significant. amount of exterior lighting has already
been installed within each of the Specific Plan areaS. Standard conditions of approval for individual
development projects will require that pole-mounted lights shall be equipped with cut-off luminaires.
Wall-mounted lights must also be equipped with cut-off lenses. Any additional light or glare created
would be therefore be minimalless-than-significant.
XIV. Cultural Resources
Environmental Settinq
r . The project site has been developed for a range of commercial and similar non-resid.ential areas. No
cultural resources remain on the graded surface of the site. Since surface improvements are less than
fifty years old or newer, no historic resources exist on the site.
Dublin Planning Department Page 34
Downtown Specific Plans
Proiect Impacts
a-d) Disturb paleontological, archeological, religious or cultural resources? LS. No cultural resources '.J
remain on the graded surface of the site. Any cultural resources buried beneath the ground surface
would be re-buried by individual development projects proposed to implement a Specific Plan. The
possibility exists that cultural resources including paleontological, cultural, historic or archaeological
could be buried on the site and discovered during excavation. Each individual project proposed
pursuant to a Specific Plan will be conditioned to protect buried archeological and paleontological
resources. With adherence to this condition, less-than-significant impacts would result to cultural
resources:
xv. Recreation.
Environmental Settinq
Each of the Specific Plan areas have been developed with commercial, office, entertainment, lodging
and similar uses. No parks or recreational facilities exist on any of the Specific Plan sites.
Proiect Impacts
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other _ recreational facilities? LS.
Construction of new residential dwellings pursuant to the West Dublin BART and Downtown Core
Specific Plans would incrementally increase the demand for local and regional parks and recreational
facilities. However, it is anticipated that the majority of new dwellings would either be oriented to
senior citizens or non-family households, typical of higher density, multi-family housing. Therefore,
expected park and recreational demand would be less-than-significant. Future builders of residential.....,
dwellings would be also be required to pay a Public Facility fee to the City of Dublin, which includes a
contribution toward construction of new parks in the city. Additionally, the plans call for some plaza
areas to be created in the three specific plan areas which could provide opportunities for outdoor
recreational activities.
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? NI. No recreational opportunities exist on the site that would
be affected by the project.
XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or.animal communny, reduce the number of or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory? NI. The preceding analysis indicates that adoption and
implementation of the Village Parkway Specific Plan, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the
Downtown Core Specific Plan would not have a significant adverse impact on overall environmental
. quality, including biological resources or cultural resources.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? Nl. The project represents an example of in-fill development near a proposed
major transit station which will be sited in an area surrounded by major regional transportation
corridors. No. long-term environmental impacts will occur. '.J
Dublm Plannmg Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 35
q~
c)
Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects). LS. Although incremental increases in certain areas can be
expected as a result of constructing this project, including additional traffic, short-term air emissions
and need for public services and utilities, the project site lies within an already urbanized area and
sufficient capacity exists within service systems to support the anticipated amount of development
planned as part of the three Specific Plans.
~.
f
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly? NI. Due to project design and site characteristics, approval and
implementation of the three Specific Plans involve no impacts that would adversely effect human
beings, either directly or indirectly.
Initial Study Preparer
Janet Harbin, Senior Planner
Jerry Haag, Consulting Planner
r\
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study:
City of Dublin
Eddie Peabody Jr., AICP, Community Development Director
Lee Thompson, Public Works Director
Kevin van Katwyk, Senior Engineer
T. Philipps, Alameda County Sheriff's Department
James Ferdinand; Alameda County Fire Department
. Dublin-San Ramon Services District
Bruce Webb, Senior Engineering Planner
References
Dublin General Plan, Revised September 1992
Dublin General Plan Housinq Element, June, 1990
Dublin Zonino Ordinance, Adopted September 1997
Draft Downtown Core Specific Plan. City of Dublin, September August, 2000
Draft Villaoe Parkway Specific Plan. City of Dublin, September /\ugust, 2000
Draft West Dublin BART Specific Plan, City of Dublin, September August, 2000
Consultant's Report on the Transportation Impacts for the Proposed Village Parkway, Downtown
Core and West BART Station Specific Plans, prepared by Omni-Means, LTD., August 28, 2000;
secondary revisions to the Omni-Means traffic analysis (September 22, 2000: memo from
Georoe Nickelson of Omni-Means dated November 13, 2000: and, December 8. 2000 letters
1" from Peter Gallowav of Omn'i-Means.
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 36
-i
III
1Il
':1:'
."
o.
a
III
';.lJ m
III ><
C"l I
o OJ
3 =i
3 -...J
~ OJ
Co
III
-
0'
:::l
~..
i~
0,
I -.; I r-___ /. . ;i
l I L ....j,
1('-; r' L._.J v;;;;;r / i (/^)
r--~=------___.. / I 7~~~.,> .I-'l
1 -------___.......~ \ ~
' A \! !
\____._ MADOR '-- ~---j
: '.".'.'i ----__ VALLEY -------------__
,i I ---- "- BL Vo
I i 1:-- \ . . _...
1 . .---, ~ J'- " It' I F,;' __..
I ; !\ \ (\ \\ : j! f! l r" ..--..---....__
I! I ~ ~\ \, ::: :: : ~" ..---......___
i L..J \ j 7~..v). D' '! 1':47~! r. \-~~r:>,\
I '.' ~ : t: l 0"0/ ./
\. 'V> ';:1 \//'
: :.-'''---1 r'''-; ~ i ~ ! ~ /
I: I . I: i I
: ; .! , : i : I----.~:;: ih \
I: : ._. ': i I; i.-h
i ~......._! '~-"-".l i l !~' L._.-J.-O ~~ \
i " -----..-'1 lit 1 II \ i.-'J t; r l ~
:i! 'I: 111 i ,---- I.
," I' . I --., ,
i 1 .! ; : I fM_- \ ll~
l~_ ., 01' I, J
II ~~~H .--.. '-\1:\ : ; ~I L._____ . ~ I \ ~
r.-.--i . : I: , I
~ l' I I I I \. I
Iii !: i \~---1 ii
: I .: < ! I : Il<-j I:
II I 1: '~,--------'
II" CJ'I !: : I i ~""l' :
..-..-..1 .;- i : j 1
; ____0: I ;---~._.-I i
! [T1 ~ ____________)
i . -.......-.. .-::'Q 1 ' /=--=-L~_WI_?_~ vf:;___""
1, 1"- .. )>: : 'j:f I
I :::0 _ I....i i ~ 1: ,--r-t,
I I-____.........____^_ I 1 ;l; L__.J \
; ~I 1 : ';:;, r---1 ;\
\ ):>...J ' !, j L~
\ :---..;;.:~~:<..l ~ \ l ~~
\ ,_---, L___..(~~__..~ !~\~, \~r:!r
I; J . . I
1: ! ' 1 I i I
d 1 ro.-- -'-1 -: : ~
I I 1 __.___~. 1 I : :
Iii -'-.j -1 'I i i "
,I. r---i
\~:.::=::_~~.:::.=.:.::::....-.....1 : ,l ' I j
J .: :: I: i I :
ii \ Ii j:1 I
L___._"'.-."-"'l 1 :: I i .\ J
'_.__'.'._'_==~I . ! I j : L=
l_.._.,._... ..__..._._J 11\,1\ II !~! L_rJ
._~ :: ; , 0::;;
: J I ". j----::.------l cO
. ~..-- ! 1 j '!:! i ?\3
: ::: 1___.__........J~g
MCDON/l.LD~~'.1 '! 1: i qi
.... : J ~F\W: : ^ r---.'
:-1 ,i / ~ 1 n 1 ~ L__J ""'1
,....,./, :::1 ::n ~ ~
------------ /~~ llll\! 1111'\ ( 0~~^' '0, '.
...:~\ r:../\ .;'
: DUa " s~,/ / ,.
!~--\ ___."_._ LI N \"~ '......../ ///
1 -- ",,/ /~
, :-----" () o'~ / /'
~ . \ UZZ/ ".''''~'-''\ ,/ / /,/
'-.... ; _. v;y ','v ,,/
IPAR . \ (" ',_, /?<) "'-, ( ./.
rV A "H " '- ' "_""
...:> ,..--, \, " ""
. l..... < \ 0'- "
~ ..--\ r== \ ----I c....)> ",- """
, r- 1 I -nA:J, ,
\.J
.."
ro:;;-i
! ~o I
lJ~..J
(~
'....
$;
Q)
c.a
CD
-a
Q)
~
^
~
tl,)
'<
)>
c.a
~
3
CD
~
;"":.J
-i
Q)
(J)
^
"
o
~
n
CD
:::0
CD
()
.0
3
3
CD
:::l
c..
Q)
--
o
:::l
r-j
I .
i
i f
C--l
o
F\
~
t
r\
:(1)
.-
~
~
"
,(I)
!~
,0
3
3
(I)
.::1
'0..
~
;~
;0.
;::1
m
x
:r
55
=i
....
)>
I
\
I
!
I
\
I
I
\
I
1
i
\
!
I
!
i
1
!
,'\
/. (" {
I ..., \ \ .
: ~.~ \ ,/ r--l
/ '!:.-Cb '
'1.- i 1
'L I I
\ -
-----:--------------
VALLEY
t 0-0--1
"'0 !
1~::JUl !
() -l .-1
'..':::_--'
[!
. I
i
I
I
j
Ai l
hi
;:,~
^~,..,-,..
)-v, ,
s'// /'
..'.'v...,..'
:~
0",,,,
/
./'
~,i'/.
/.
/
/
;:-., // /' /'
00 '_". / .'
-"-, U.( -"', / /'..
\, ('~,C\ '<>/ (' /
r_r.-.--) . \ ,,___, r r.() "-', '\,~/'
,.......---": ('-, . "-,
CAR " "" "
WASI,. i,~~ --"1\ < \ --l S; ",,- ".
! 1\ I '-:;0 ,
~.- I \ l ! 71
, -
(DO
:r><
CO' W
::Jco
3 CD
CD-o
::J w
--"""'I
'-"'"
:iE
w
'<
~
CO
::J
3
CD
::J
;T
~
w
=R
;U
CD
n
o
3
3
CD
::J
c..
~
'0'
::J
--
m
~.
en
~.
::J
(Q
RESOLUTION NO. 226 - 00
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
...,
* * * *.* * * * *
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR THE WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN, DOWNTOWN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN,
AND THE VlLLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN P A 99-054, P A 99-055, AND PA 99-056
WHEREAS, the City has'prepared and approved for adoption the West Dublin BART Specific Plal\
the Downtown Core Specific Plan, and the Village Parkway Specific Plan, which have been prepared
pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65450; and;
WHEREAS, the Specific Plans include permitted land uses, development standards, urban design
guidelines, transportation improvements and implementation programs to achleve the goals of the Dublin
General Plan; and, .
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to evaluate the impacts of the Specific Plans, the
repeal of portions of the 1987 Downtown Specific Plan, and the General Plan Amendments for consistency
with the General Plan. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared a draft Negative Declaration for the
project with the finding that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment, because all
mitigation is incorporated in the context of the Specific Plans; and,
WHEREAS, the Specific Pl?ll documents and a complete record of the project is available and on ~
file in the Planning Department; and,
WHEREAS, a 24-day public review period was held for the Negative Declaratiol\ from
September 2., 2000 to September 26,2000; and,
. WHEREAS, letters of comment on the Negative Declaration were received during the public
review period and fully responded to in writing and in the record; and,
WHEREAS, the Negative Declaration was revised on December 14, 2000 to reflect and address
the minor modifications in the Specific Plans.as recommended by the Planning Commission and City
Council; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on the project on
September 26, 2000 and October 10, 2000, at which time they reviewed and considered the Negative
Declaration and all reports, recommendations and testimony before them, and recommended approval to
the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a properly noticed public hearing on the project on
November 21,2000 and December 19, 2000 and at which time they reviewed and considered the Negative
Declaration and all reports, recommendations and testimony before them; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the above recitals are incorporated in this
resolution.
'<J
I I
IOd-
r, . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. that the Dublin City Council does hereby find that:
A. The Specific Plans and associated actions would not have a significant effect on the environment,
because mitigation is incorporated into the Plans as part of Plan implementation.
B. The Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with State and local environmental
laws and guidelines. .
C. The Negative Declaration is complete and adequate and reflects the City's independent judgment
and analysis as to the environmental effects of the proposed Specific Plans, General Plan Amendments and
repeal of portions of the 1987 Dovmto\VD. Specific Plan. . .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby adopt the Negative
Declaration for P A 99-054, Village Parkway Specific Plan; P A 99-055, Downtown Core Specific Plan;.
and, P A 99-056, West Dublin BART Specific Plan, including the Initial Study incorporated herein by
reference.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 19th day of December, 2000.
AYES: Councilmembers Lockhart, McConnick, Oravetz, Zika.and Mayor Houston
,-.~OES: None
,
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
~~It
Mayor
.dt-
K2/G/12-19-00/reso-SP-negdec.doc (Item 6.4)
G\Downtown $pecfic Plans\CCNDRES.doc
n
,
2
\05Sb
'8...,u
I ;
. '"- J
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL
Environmental Impact Report
for the
etlbJDx,/Pj'eas,aTJ"t:on B cRT St.atJDrJ
and t'8ln,s
VJl] ,Ejl"1,e ProJ,e'ct
, . ~. .' ~. . .
SCH:WOf)1042058
I
t
I
.J
I
1
..l.
:EDAW
I
J
November 2000
~~"i) (13:.1 . ~
,. c ".'IST %
,. i-2.. ~'+
-.
\0<1
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL
Environmental Impact Report
for the
~.
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station
and Transit Village Project
.~,..
Submitted to:
.IJ;
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
P.O. Box 12688
800 Madison Street
Oakland, CA 94604-2688
"
Attention:
John H. Rennels, Jr.
Senior Real Estate Officer
510/464-6893
and
Jones Lang LaSalle
One Front Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, California 94111
Attention:
Robert M. Russell
Vice President
415/395-7214
,.....
f
Submitted by:
-
EDAW, Inc.
2022 J Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Contact:
Douglas K. Brown
Project Manager
916/414-5800
November 30, 2000
r
EDAW
-
J '
IN OT012.01
,
.'
--
)0'::,)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter/Section
r-'.
~
"
-
i
I
,
I'"'""
~
.'
-
t
.
i
r:
l
Page
I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-1
1.2 Scope of the Supplemental EIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-3
1.3 Terminology Used in the Supplemental EIR . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-6
1. 4 Supplemental EIR Organization ................................... 1-7
1.5 Public Review Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-8
2 ExECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 Introduction................................................... 2-1
2.2 Summary of Project Description ................................... 2-1
2.3 Discretionary Actions and Project Approvals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-1
2.4 Areas of Controversy, Issues Raised, and AreaS Resolved in the EIR ....... 2-2
2.5 Summary of Environmental Certification Process ...................... 2-2
2.6 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
2.7 Project Alternatives ............................................. 2-3
2.8 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Project Location and Setting ...................................... 3-1
3.2 Project Characteristics ........................................... 3-5
3.3 Project IIistory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
3.4 Project Objectives .............................................. 3-8
4
ENVIRONMENTAL SETIING, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MFASURFS
4.1 Land Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.1-1
4.2 Hydrology and Water Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.2-1
4.3 Noise...................................................... 4.3-1
4.4 Air Quality. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.4-1
4.5 Transportation/Circulation ..................................... 4.5-1
4.6 Public Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.6-1
4.7 Public Health and Safety ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.7-1
4.8 Aesthetics................................................... 4.8-1'
4.9 Biological Resources .......................................... 4.9-1
4.10 Cultural Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.10-1
4.11 Population and Housing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.11-1
4.12 Energy Resources ........................................... 4.12-1
I'"'""
I
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
EDAW
Introduction
jO\..9
\4$1
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
i
..
Chapter/Section
Page
II
5
ALTERNATIVFS TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
4
.
5.1 Introduction to Alternatives Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
5.2 No Project Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
5.3 Different Use Alternative: Office Rather Than Residential ............... 5-8
5.4 Dublin Reduced Density Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11
5.5 Pleasanton Reduced Density Alternative ............................ 5-14
5.6 Alternatives Considered but Rejected from Further Consideration ........ 5-17
.
-1
..
6
CUMUlATIVE AND GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
..
6.1 Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . : 6-1
6.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-28
''4\
..,
7
REPORTPREPARATION ................................................ 7-1
iii
8 REFERENCES AND PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
8.1 References.................................................... 8-1
8.2 Personal Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8-4
III
wi
APPENDICES
..
A
B
C
Initial Study, Notice Of Preparation and Comments
Traffic Data
Parking Management Toolkit
..
..
,g
.
;\l1
Ilf
~
..
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
..
ii
EDAW
Introduction
.
r-'
l
,...;;. "
. ~
,
Table
~,
2-1
4.3-1
4.3-2
.-a
4.3-3
4.3-4
4.3-5
4.3-6
4.3-7
4.3-8
4.3-9
4.4-1
4.4-2
4.4-3
~
4.4-4
,...,.
\'
,
4.5-1
4.5-2
4.5-3
4.5-4
4.5-5
4.5-6
4.5-7
4.5-8
4.5-9
i;.
r
4.5-10
4.6.1
4.6-2
4.6-3
4.11-1
4.11-2
5-1
6-1
6-2
6-3
""
101
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Executive Summary ................................................. 2-5
City of Dublin - Land Use Compatibility for Community
Noise Environments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.3-5
City of Pleasant on - Land Use Compatibility for Community
Noise Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.3-6
BART Limits for Continuous Construction Noise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.3-7
Measured Ambient Noise Levels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 4.3-9
Existing Average Daily Traffic Noise Levels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.3-9
Noise-Sensitive Land Uses ......................................... 4.3-10
Noise Levels Generated by Typical Construction Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 4.3-12
Projected Traffic Noise Levels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.3-17
Projected Exterior Noise Levels ..................................... 4.3-19
Ambient Air Quality Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.4-5
Summary of Annual Air Quality Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.4-8
Predicted Maximum Carbon Monoxide Concentrations at
Roadway Intersections ............................................ 4.4-12
Predicted Maximum Carbon Monoxide Concentrations at Proposed
Parking Structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.4-12
Existing Conditions .............................................. 4.5-15
Pleasanton Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Existing Conditions .... 4.5-15
Dublin Peak Hour Intersection LOS - Existing + Approved Projects ........ 4.5-22
West DublinjPleasanton BART Station Mode Split and VehideTrip Generation 4.5-24
Dublin Trip Generation - Proposed Project ............................ 4.5-25
Dublin Peak Hour Intersection LOS - Existing + Approved + Proposed Project 4.5-33
Pleasanton Peak Hour Intersection LOS - Existing + Approved Projects. . . . " 4.5-45
Pleasanton Trip Generation - Proposed Project ......................... 4.5-46
Pleasanton Peak Hour Intersection LOS - Existing + Approved +
Proposed Project ................................................ 4.5-54
Estimated Parking Demand and Parking Supply. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.5-57
Estimated Water Demand for the Proposed Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.6-22
Estimated Flow Generation for the Proposed Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.6-31
Dublin Unified School District Enrollment, 1999 - 2000 School Year. . . . . . .. 4.6-33
Population Estimates and Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.11-1
Housing Estimates ...........................................,... 4.11-2
Financial Analysis of Project Alternatives ................................. 5-3
Dublin Peak Hour Intersection LOS - Existing + Approved + Project +
General Plan Buildout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7
Peak Hour Intersection LOS - Buildout Without Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-14
Peak Hour Intersection LOS - Buildout With Project ...................... 6-18
iii
EDAW
Introduction
,.-.
San Frandsco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
Exhibit
3-1
3-2
3-3
4.1-1
4.1-2
4.1-3
4.1-4
4.2-1
4.3-1
4.5-1
4.5-2
4.5-3
4.5-4
4.5-5
4.5-6
4.5-7
4.5-8
4.5-9
4.5-10
4.5-11
4.5-12
4.5-13
4.5-14
4.5-15
4.5-16
4.5-17
6-1
6-2
6-3
Ii
..
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Page
.
Regional Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
BART Station and Transit Village ...................................... 3-3
Conceptual Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
Surrounding Land Uses ............................................ 4.1-2
Dublin and Pleasanton General Plan Land Use Designations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.1-4
West Dublin BART Specific Plan Land Uses............................ 4.1-7
Dublin and Pleasanton Zoning Designations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.1-9
Regional Hydrology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.2-3
Common Indoor & Outdoor Noise Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.3-2
Surrounding Land Uses ............................................ 4.5-2
Vicinity Roadway Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.5-3
Existing Bus Transit Service ......................................... 4.5-8
Dublin Study Intersections ......................................... 4.5-13
Dublin Existing Turning Movement Volumes .......................... 4.5-14
Dublin Existing + Approved Turning Movement Volumes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.5-20
Proposed BART (Overall) Home-based Trip Distribution Assumptions ...... 4.5-26
West Dublin BART Station Home-based Trip Distribution Assumptions. . . .. 4.5-28
Residential and Hotel Trip Distribution Assumptions .................... 4.5-30
Dublin Existing + Approved + Project Turning Movement Volumes. . . . . . .. 4.5-31
Dublin Estimated Daily Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.5-35
Pleasanton Study Intersections ...................................... 4.5-38
Pleasanton Existing (2000) Turning Movement Volumes ................. 4.5-41
Pleasanton Existing + Approved Turning Movement Volumes ............. 4.5-42
Proposed Pleasanton BART Home-based Trip Distribution Assumptions . . . .. 4.5-48
Proposed Pleasanton Office Trip Distribution Assumptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.5-50
PleasantonExisting + Approved + Project Turning Movement Volumes ..... 4.5-51
Dublin Existing + Approved + Project + General Plan Buildout
Turning Movement Volumes .......................................... 6-4
Pleasanton Buildout (No Project) Turning Movement Volumes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9
Pleasanton Buildout (With Project) Turning Movement Volumes. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-13
.
.
11II
..
lIIII
..
...
,",
wi
.,
..
..
--
..
.
.
"
..
.
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
iv
EDAW
Introduction
.
r.
,
JDLt
.,.....
f
.
\'
1
INTRODUCTION
r'"
I
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REpORT
.r:--
,
This Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Supplemental EIR) has been prepared to evaluate
the environmental impacts associated with development of the West DublinjPleasanton BART Station
and Transit Village Project located in the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton. The proposed project would
include development of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) West
DublinjPleasanton Station; a 17 -acre transit village that would include a mix of residential, office and
hotel uses; parking facilities for the BART station and the transit village uses; pedestrian bridges over
Interstate to access the BART stati()n; and a bus intermodal facility.
..-.
i
On February 8,1990, BART certified the Environmental Impact Report for the DublinjPleasanton
Extension Project (DPX EIR) and approved the DPX project. The DPX EIR evaluated the
environmental impacts associated with extending the BART rail line through the Livermore/Amador
Valley area into the communities of Castro Valley, Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore. A specific
component of the DPX EIR included an evaluation of the environmental impacts associated with
construction of a West Dub1injPleasanton BART station and joint development on the adjacent parcels.
The joint development assumed for the West DublinjPleasanton station included either high-density
retail or office uses on the Pleasanton parcel and office uses on the Dublin parcel. The joint
development currently being proposed differs in density and type of land uses from that assumed ~ the
DPX EIR. Therefore, BART has prepared this Supplemental EIR in order to supplement, where
necessary, the environmental analysis included in the DPX EIR.
,......
I
This Supplemental EIR has been prepared by BART, as the lead agency in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) (Public Resources Code ~21000,et seq.) and
the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations ~15000, et seq.), as amended. An EIR
is a full dIsclosure, public information document in which the significant environmental impacts of a
proposed project are evaluated; measures to mitigate significant impacts are identified, when feasible;
and alternatives to the project that can reduce or avoid significant environmental effects are evaluated.
A Supplemental EIR is prepared when an EIR has already been prepared for a project and only minor
additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in
the changed situation. Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines describes the Supplemental EIR
process as follows:
........'
,
.
,
r
I;
r.
!
......
,f
~
fl
,
San Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
1-1
EDAW
Introduction
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
The Lead or Responsible Agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an ElR
rather than a subsequent ElR if:
Any of the conditions described in ~ 15162 (presence of new impacts or
impacts not previously considered) would require the preparation of a
subsequent EIR, and
Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous
EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed simation.
The supplement to the ElR need contain only the information necessary to make the
previous EIR adequate for the project as revised.
(1)
(2)
A supplement to an EIR shall be given the same kind of notice and public review as
is given to a draft EIR under Section 15087.
A supplement to an EIR may be circulated by itself without recirculating the
previous draft or fmal ElR.
When the agency decides whether to approve the project, the decision-making body
shall consider the previous EIR as revised by the supplemental EIR. A fmding under
Section 15091 shall be made for each significant effect shown in the previous EIR as
revised.
An ElR is an informational document used in the planning and decision-making process by the lead
agency (i.e., BART) and all responsible agencies. CEQA Guidelines defme the ''Lead Agency" as the
public agency with principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The term
"Responsible Agency" includes all public agencies, other than the Lead Agency, that have discretionary
approval power over aspects of the project. The purpose of an EIR is not to recommend either
approval or denial of a project; its purpose is to disclose objective information so that informed
decisions can be made. CEQA requires the decision-makers to balance the benefits of a proposed
project against its unavoidable environmental effects in deciding whether to carry out a project.
Mter reviewing the DPX EIR, this Supplemental EIR, and the project proposal, BART will decide,
through a majority vote in a public hearing, whether to approve, approve with modifications, or deny
the transit village uses (the BART station was previously approved by the BART Board). The
identification of environmental impacts as significant and unavoidable does not mean a project must
be denied; BART may still approve the project if it believes that economic, legal, social, technological
or other benefits outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts. If BART decides to approve the
project, the District would make CEQA-mandated "fmdings" with respect to each significant
environmental effect, pursuant to PRC ~21081(a). If feasible mitigation measures or alternatives must
be incorporated into the project to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. If such
mitigation measures or alternatives are infeasible, BART must fmd that specific overriding benefits of
EDAW
Introduction
1-2
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
/10
..
.'
IlIiI
.
..
-
..
III
..
..
.I
..
.
.
..
..
..
.
.
1 , I
,..-;.
~. i
,
the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment, and must state in writing the specific
reasons to support its action based on the ErR and other information in the record.
BART also intends for this Supplemental ErR, combined with the DPX ErR, to serve as the CEQA-
required environmental documentation for consideration of this project by other Responsible Agencies,
including, but not limited to, the City of Dublin, the City of Pleasant on, the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board and the California Department of Transportation.
1.2 SCOPE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
,.....
BART submitted the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of this ErR to the California Office of Planning and
Research onAprilll, 2000,~or distribution to int~rested~tate~gencies and mailed the NOP to other
potentially responsible agencies and interested parties. The NOP is a CEQA-required brief notice sent
by the Lead Agency to notify Responsible and Trustee Agencies, that the Lead Agency plans to prepare
an ErR and solicits guidance regarding EIR scope and content. Upon distribution of the NOP, which
included an Initial Study that was prepared to identify potential project environmental issues, a 30-day
comment period began. The NOP and the comments received are found in Appendix A.
.r
\
On May 4,2000, BART held an ErR scoping meeting for the proposed project at the City of Dublin's
Council Chambers. The intent of the scoping meeting was to provide the public with an opportunity
to identify issues that should be evaluated in the draft Supplemental ErR. Written comments received
during this scoping meeting are included in Appendix A.
Based upon an understanding of the project, the. commeIlts. .received on the NOP, and the public
scoping meeting, BART has determined that the proposed project has the potential to result in
significant or potentially significant impacts in the following environmental issue areas, which are
L...... ,', ,..,...._" _,.:" . '., ,.,
addressed in this ErR:
r;
I
'l
..
land use
hydrology and water quality
..
r"
f
~
..
nOlse
.. air quality
.. transportation/circulation
.. public services
.. public health and safety
.. aesthetics
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
1-3
EDAW
Introduction
,-.
!'
~
biological resources
ctiltural resources
~
~
poptilation and housing
~
energy resources
cumtilative and growth-inducing impacts
~
IlL-
.
iii
..
.
This Supplemental ErR includes a detailed evaluation of the impacts on these resources, with relevant .'
information from the DPX ErR summarized, where appropriate.
The DPX ErR identified environmental effects that wotild not be considered significant. This
Supplemental EIR need not address in detail effects found not to be significant. A brief explanation
is provided below, as supported by the DPX ErR and the Initial Study prepared for this project,
indicating the reasons why the following effects were determined not to be significant, as required by
State CEQA Guidelines ~15128.
Agricultural Resources. The project site is not located on Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance, as identified by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
of the California Resources Agency. Also, the project site has not been used for agricultural production
within the recent past and is completely isolated from agrictiltural areas within the region. Therefore,
the proposed project wotild have no effect on agrictiltural resources.
Earth Resources. The DPX ErR identified and evaluated the earth resource impacts that wotild be
anticipated with development of the project site, including seismic shaking, surface fatilt rupture, and
ground failure. The DPX EIR concluded that the potential effects on the project site associated with
earthquakes and fatilt offset or rupture wotild be considered significant. In order to minimize these
potential impacts, detailed mitigation measures were included in the DPX EIR. These measures
included the following:
.
The potential impact of groundshaking wotild be mitigated by structural and
foundation design incorporated into the [mal engineering design. Design standards
wotild be specified to withstand groundshaking of O.62g. Depending upon the degree
of conservatism adopted, the design features may include bracing and/or guying
systems to minimize swaying of support columns, and extra heavy-duty connections
between the support columns and the support beams. The potential for liquefaction
can be mitigated by extending the base of each support pier down to a non-liquefiable
material, by removing soft zones in the upper soil profile, and by monitoring for
EDAW
Introduction
1-4
Son Froncisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
~
..
iii
'jI
III
.
III
wi
Ii
.
Ii
;~
..
..
..
.
..
r-,
,;
,
.~
,
!
-
J
r
t
, I;
r-
1
.......
;
,
\ \~
settlement of tracks on grade or on embankments. Additional subsurface investigation
would be required for major structures, such as overheads. Dewatering and temporary
. support of excavations may be needed. All final design standards and features would
be included in a mitigation monitoring plan for the project.
.
The station at West DublinjPleasanton could be placed on piles to protect it from
liquefaction, or the alluvium could be densified by grouting or dynamic deep
compaction. The foundations for any overhead structures could be extended down into
a non-liquefiable geologic horizon. These design recommendations would be
considered duriIlg fmal engiIleering.
l'he ])P:x~IR. evaluated the earth resource impacts that would be anticipated with joint development
of theW est DublinjPleasanton Station. The D PX EIR concluded that the commercial, residential and
parking structures associated with joint development would be subjected to the same geologic hazards
identified for the station sites (DPX Draft EIR, pg. 5-49). The DPX EIR assuined that with
implementation of the mitigation measures identified above, the earth resource impacts associated with
joint development of the West DublinjPleasanton Station would be reduced to a less-than-significant
level. Because the development proposed with the proposed project would not differ substantially from
the joint development evaluated in the DPX EIR, the earth resource impacts of the proposed project
remain less than significant with implementation of the above identified mitigation measures.
Therefore, no additional analysis of earth resource impacts is necessary in the EIR.
Mineral Resources. The project site is not located in an area of aggregate resources (Pleasanton
General Plan,'p. VII-26). Therefore, the project would have no effect on mineral resources of value
to the region.
Recreation. Numerous existing recreation facilities exist within the vicinity of the proposed project.
Within the City of Dublin, recreation facilities in close proximity to the proposed project site include
Mape Memorial Park, Dolan Park, and Shannon Park. Within the City of Pleasanton, recreation
facilities in close proximity to the project site include Moller Park, Muirwood Park, and Pleasanton
Ridge Regional Park. In addition, numerous gymnasiums and sports fields exist within the project
area, iIlcludiIlg the Dub1i.i1 Sports Grounds, located at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Civic
Plaza, which has existing facilities for baseball, softball, soccer, and nature walks. Although the
residential component of the proposed project could result in an increase in the use of these
neighborhood, community, and regional parks, it is not expected that future residents would utilize
these facilities such thats'::lbst~I1.tialphysical deterioration of the facilities would occur.
San Frandsco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
1-5
EDAW
Introduction
1.3 TERMINOLOGY USED IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
) l~l
..
.
The Supplemental ErR includes the following terminology to denote the significance of environmental ..
impacts of the proposed project:
~
Less-than-Significant Impact: A less-than-significant impact is one that would not
result in a substantial and adverse change in the environment. This impact level does
not require mitigation measures.
~
Significant Impact: CEQA Guidelines ~15382 defmes a significant impact as a
substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by
the project. Levels of significance can vary by project, based on the change in the
existing physical condition and the substantial body of opinion that considers the effect
to be adverse. The Initial Study checklist included in Appendix G of the State CEQA
Guidelines provides additional guidance regarding impacts that would normally be
regarded as having a significant effect on the environment. This Supplemental ErR
uses the CEQA definition of significant impacts. Mitigation measures or alternatives
to the proposed project must be provided in an attempt to reduce the magnitude of
significant impacts to less-than-significant levels.
~
Potentially Significant Impact: A potentially significant impact is one that, if it were
to occur, would be considered a significant impact as described above; however, the
occurrence of the impact cannot be immediately determined. For example, while the
EIR may provide evidence that buried archaeological resources could be found in a
particular location, the actual discovery cannot be determined until the time of project
construction. For CEQA purposes, a potentially significant impact is treated as if it
were a significant impact (i.e., mitigation is developed when feasible).
~
Significant and Unavoidable Impact: A significant and unavoidable impact is one that
would result in a substantial adverse effect on the environment, but could not be
mitigated to a less-than-significant level. A project could still proceed with significant
unavoidable impacts, but BART would then be required to prepare a Statement of
Overriding Considerations (see discussion in Section 1.1)
~
Threshold of Significance: A criterion established by the lead agency to defme at what
level an impact would be considered significant; i.e.) if an impact exceeds a threshold,
it would be considered significant. A criterion is defined by a lead agency based on
EDAW
Introduction
1-6
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
.
'.
..-
.Jll
.
.
-
.
..
...
iii
.
II'
-
.
,
..
1(1I
'.
/'
\ \ ';:)
r
t
..
examples found in CEQA or the State CEQA Guidelines, scientific and factual data
relative to the lead agency jurisdiction, views of the public in affected areas, the
policy/regulatory environment of affected jurisdictions, and other factors.
State CEQA Guidelines ~15370 defmes mitigation as:
a. avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
b. minimizing impacts by 1.iill.itiIlg the degree or magnitlideof the;ction';rld its
implementation;
c. rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment;
d. reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operatioI1S during the life of the action; and
e. compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or
environments.
1.4 SUPPLEMENTAL EIR ORGANIZATION
This Supplemental EIR is organized into chapters, as identified and briefly described below.
Chapters are further divided into sections (i.e., Section 4.2, Earth Resources).
Chapter 1, Introduction: Regulatory background, context for, and organization of, the
Supplemental EIR.
,-.
t
Chapter 2, Executive Summary: Table-style summary of potential environmental impacts,
,; ....:- "-i"_: -'c':':','" ....,'" ;...... "'.:, <. ',:.:: " ..':".'-'",.... .. .. ',.". :.::' , ...._.::...,..:.... ': .:. _""'" .. -',:',:':""":': ',', ,::, ':,.;-,,/',', :', '-,',,-.<-." :' :.-:, ,":,' ',:'.Jt:',-:_';
mitigation measures, and.level of significance after mitigation (as fully described in Chapter 4) with
introductory discussion.
.,-
,
~
Chapter 3, Project Description: History of the project site, full description of the proposed
project, and project objectives.
Chapter 4, Environmental Setting. Environmental Impacts. and Mitigation Measures:
Evaluation of the change in environmental conditions that would occur with implementation of the
proposed project, thresholds applied to and subsequent determination of levels of significance of
impacts, mitigation measures and their effectiveness, and levels of significance after mitigation.
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
1-7
EDAW
Introduction
Chapter 5, Alternatives to the Proposed Project: Comparison of environmental impacts of
alternatives that could reduce potentially significant impacts of the proposed project while meeting
the lead agency's basic objectives for the project.
Chapter 6, Cumulative and Growth-Inducing Impacts: CEQA-mandated sections including
cumulative impacts and growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project.
Chapter 7, Report Preparation: Identification of the lead agency, responsible agencies,
consultants, and others involved with preparation of the Supplemental EIR.
Chapter 8, References and Personal Communications: List of references and personal
communications used in preparation of the Supplemental EIR.
I \ V
..
"~
"i
.
..
.
..
~
..
III
Appendices: Various technical reports, letters, official publications, etc., summarized or otherwise
used for preparation of the Supplemental EIR..
1.5 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
A 45-day review period has been established for the draft Supplemental EIR in accordance with the
requirements of State CEQA Guidelines ~15106. Comments regarding the adequacy of the EIR may
be made on the draft Supplemental EIR in writing before the end of the comment period or may be
presented orally at the public hearing. Following the close of the public comment period, responses
to substantive written and oral comments on the draft Supplemental EIR will be prepared and
published as a separate document. The draft Supplemental EIR, together with the DPX EIR and the
responses to comments document, will constitute the fmal EIR. The fmal EIR will be considered by
BART prior to any action taken on the proposed project.
Written comments on the draft Supplemental EIR must be sent to:
John H. Rennels, Jr.
Senior Real Estate Officer
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
P.O. Box 12688
800 Madison Street
Oakland, CA 94604-2688
EDAW
Introduction
1-8
Son Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
..
"
..
J
!III
-
.:';:j
..
;i!iJ
-
.
"lij
.
.,
.
\ \ '1
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 INTRODUCTION
r
This Executive Summary section is provided in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines ~15123. As
stated in the State CEQA Guidelines ~15123(a), "[a]n EIR shall contain a brief summary of the
proposed actions and its consequences. The language of the summary should be as clear and simple
as reasonably practical." State CEQA Guidelines ~15123(b) states, "[t]he summary shall identify: (1)
Each significant effect with proposed mitigation measures and alternatives that would reduce or avoid
that effect; (2) Areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by agencies and
the public; and (3) Issues to be resolve~, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how
to mitigate the significant effects." Accordillgly, thiS summary includes a brief synopsis of the proposed
project and project alternatives, environmental impacts and mitigation, areas of known controversy, and
issues to be resolved in the environmental impact report (EIR). Table 2-1 (at the end of this section)
presents the summary of potential environmental impacts, their level of significance without mitigation
measures, mitigation measures, and levels of significance with mitigation measures.
r
f
t
2.2 SUMMARY OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project\Vould include development of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
(BART) West DublinfPleasanton Station; a 17-acre transit village that would include a mix of
residential, office and hotel uses; parking facilities for the BART station and the transit village uses; and .
a bus intermodal facility. The BART station would be located in the median ofI-580. Office uses
would be located adjacent to and south of the station in Pleasanton; hotel, residential uses, and the bus
facility would be adjacent to and north of the station in Dublin.
2.3 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS AND PROJECT ApPROVALS
BART has the primary approval authority over the proposed transit village uses (the BART station was
previously approved by the BART Board). The Supplemental EIR is to be certified by the BART
~.- - -'" - .....,..,,--, .. "" ,
Board of Directors prior to the Board taking action on the proposed transit village uses. Following
certification of the Supplemental EIR, the transit village uses will be considered for approval,
conditional approval, or deriial by the Board.
This Supplemental EIR is also rntended to be used by responsible agencies that may have some ~ther
authority over the project. Responsible agencies for this project include the California Department of
r
f
I
!
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and T ronsit Village
2-1
EDAW
Executive SUl1]ffiory
Il~
""
.
;~'I
Transportation, the City of Dublin, and the City of Pleasanton. Approval of the proposed project .-
would require, at a minimum, the following discretionary actions from responsible agencies:
~
Issuance of an encroachment permit by the California Department of Transportation
in order to construct the pedestrian bridges over Interstate 580 that would connect
both parcels to the BART station, as well as for construction of the BART station in
the median ofInterstate 580.
~
Approval of a Planned Development Zoning District Stage 1 Development Plan and
a Tentative Map by the City of Dublin. f ~ z.. ;> [:)
Approval of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and conforming amendments to
the Dublin General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
~
~ Approval of a new Planned Unit Development and Tentative Map by the City of
Pleasanton. -. '.of "'::?.
~ /2&- ev;;t:l~~~ ~ f)5EJL Po Ul~t....J q ;~.""<~
~ Issuance of grading affd building permits by the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton.
2.4 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY, ISSUES RAISED, AND AREAS RESOLVED IN
THE SUPPLEMENTAL ElK
BART submitted the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of this Supplemental EIR to the California Office
ofPlancing and Research and public agencies and the public on Aprilll, 2000. The purpose of the
NOP was to solicit comments from public agencies on issues germane to that agency that should be
considered in the draft Supplemental EIR. The public review period for the NOP ended 30 days after
public distribution of the NOP. All of the issues raised in the NOP comment letters (Appendix A) have
been addressed in the draft Supplemental EIR. No apparent significant areas of controversy have been
identified in these letters.
2.5 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION PROCESS
BART, in its review of the proposed project and determination for action, will consider the entire
environmental assessment contained in this Supplemental EIR. Upon completion of the environmental
review process, BART will have the option to certify that the fmal Supplemental EIR: 1) has been
completed in compliance with CEQA; 2) was presented to the decision-making body of the Lead
Agency (i.e., the BART Board of Directors ), which reviewed and considered the information contained
in the fmal Supplemental EIR prior to approving the project; and 3) reflects the lead agency's
EDAW
Executive Summary
2-2
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasonton BART Station and Transit Village
.
..
.
d
""
,~
.
r.
..
~
.
..
..
..
.
II
.
.
:j
..
..
.
\ \q
r
~. independent judgement and analysis (State CEQA Guidelines ~15090). If the Supplemental EIRis
certified, BART will determine in a separate action whether the proposed transit village uses will be
denied, approved, or conditionally approved.
~
.~ 2.6 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
.,...., Chapter 4 of this Supplemental ErR describes in detail the environmental impacts that would result
t
t from implementation of the proposed project. Cumulative and growth-inducing impacts of the
proposed project are discussed in Chapter 6 of this Supplemental EIR. A summary description of the
environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation is presented in
Table 2-1, at the end of this chapter.
r
r-
I""'"
J
.,
t"""'
t
r
2.7 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Section 15126(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, mandates that all ErRs include a
comparative evaluation of the proposed project with alternatives to the project that are capable of
attaining most of the project's basic objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the
significant effects of the project. CEQA requires an evaluation of a "reasonable range" of alternatives,
including the "no project" alternative. Section 5 (Alternatives to the Proposed Project) of this.EIR
provides an analysis of the c{)mparative impacts anticipated from four alternatives to the proposed
project and associated mitigation measures: 1) the no-project alternative, consisting of construction
of the approved West DublinjPleasanton BART station with associated parking but no transit village
uses; 2) a different-use alternative, consisting of office uses in place of proposed residential uses on the
Dublin parcel; 3) a Dublin reduced-density alternative, consisting of a 38 percent reduction in the
number of hotel beds and a 13 percent increase in the number of residential units on the Dublin parcel
with no changes on the Pleasanton parcel; and 4) a Pleasanton reduced-density alternative with the
elimination of office development on the Pleasanton parcel and no change on the Dublin parcel.
2.8 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Section 4 of this Supplemental EIR provides a description of the potential environmental effects of the
proposed project, as well as proposed measures to mitigate project effects to the extent feasible. Section
6 provides a discussion of cumulative impacts. Mter implementation of the proposed mitigation
measures, the majority of the adverse effects associated with the proposed project would be reduced to
a less-than-significant level. The following impacts, however, would remain as significant and
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
2-3
EDAW
Executive Summary
unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project after implementation of the identified mitigation
measures.
CONSTRUCTION NOISE
If construction activities occur on the Dublin parcel following occupation of either the hotel or
residential buildings, the noise levels would likely exceed 80 dBA and would result in an increase of
greater than 3 dBA over existing conditions. Because mitigation measures would not significantly
reduce these noise levels, this potential noise impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
The expected exterior noise levels at the proposed hotel on the Dublin parcel would exceed acceptable
levels identified in the City of Dublin's General Plan. Because feasible mitigation measures are not
available to reduce these existing noise levels to less-than-significant levels, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
CUMULATIVE TRAFnc IMPACTS
Following implementation of the identified mItigation measures, significant and unavoidable
cumulative traffic impacts would be anticipated at the intersections of 1-680 Southbound
RampsjStoneridge Drive (No. 346),1-680 Northbound RampsjStoneridge Drive (No. 347), and
Johnson DrivejStoneridge Drive (No. 348) if the West Las Positas interchange is not constructed. If
the interchange is constructed, the identified mitigation measures would reduce the cumulative traffic
impacts at these intersections to less-than-significant levels.
EDAW
Executive Summary
2-4
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
)7-0
wi
11
III
'11
.
.
..
-~
1.1
.
.'~j
'III
.
till
III
"
..
J
--.~
..
.
.
iQ
.
..
.
~"l
'~~-l,
'-'~~
"-1
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Level of Significance with Mitigation
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
--
~
Executive Summary
Mitigation Measure
Impact
LAND USE
(Section 4.1)
No mitigation measures are necessary.
4.1-1: Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses
Dublin Parcel. The proposed project would include a
residential complex, a hotel, and associated parking facilities
on the Dublin parcel in an area surrounded by commercial
and office uses as well as the Cor-O-Van warehouse building.
These surrounding uses only operate during the day and,
thus, would not be expected to generate noise or traffic
during the nighttime hours that could disrupt residents and
hotel guests (Noise is evaluated separately in Section 4.3).
There is no direct access to the warehouse building through
the site. In addition, the proposed design for the residential
complex is focused toward Golden Gate Drive with parking
located to the rear in order to provide a pedestrian
orientation within a commercially-developed area.
Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-
significant land use compatibility impact related to
development on the Dublin parcel.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
4.1-2: Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses
Pleasanton Parcel. Land uses surrounding the parcel
include office buildings to the west and east and the
Stoneridge Mall and associated parking facilities to the
south. Development of the proposed project would be
consistent with these surrounding land uses. Therefore, no
impacts related to compatibility with surrounding land uses
would be anticipated.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
4.1-3: Consistency with General Plan - City of Dublin.
The proposed hotel and residential uses would be
inconsistent with the current Public/Semi-Public land use
designation and the Light Industrial and Regional
Page 2-5
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Impact
Level of Significance with Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Commercial zoning designations for the site. These
inconsistencies with existing land use plans would be
removed if the proposed West Dublin BART Specific Plan
and related changes to the City of Dublin General Plan,
Downtown Core Specific Plan, and zoning designation of the
project site are adopted as proposed. If the proposed West
Dublin BART Specific Plan is not adopted, the Dublin
General Plan, Downtown Core Specific Plan and zoning
designation for the site must be amended to accommodate
the residential and hotel uses. In either case, the residential
and hotel uses shall not be constructed on the Dublin parcel
until these changes to existing land use requirements have
been adopted. Accordingly, this impact would be less than
significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
No mitigation measures are necessary.
4.1-4: Consistency with General Plan - City of
Pleasanton. The Retail/Highway/ Service Commercial,
Business and Professional Offices land use designation for the
Pleasanton parcel was designed specifically for commercial
and office type development near major highway centers.
Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this
land use designation. No impacts related to consistency with
the Pleasanton General Plan would be anticipated with
development of the Pleasanton parcel
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
(Section 4.2
-
~
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
No mitigation measures are necessary.
4.2-1: Stormwater Discharge. Development of the
proposed project would result in the construction of
impervious surfaces within the project site and may increase
runoff. The DPX EIR concluded that the hydrologic impacts
associated with development of the project site would be less
than significant because of the relatively small total area of
Executive Summary
I;i
.~
I
kii:t
I
I
.
I,
I.
.
Page 2-6
I.~
.
I&<
.
Dublin/Pleosonton BART Station and T ronsit Village
..
.
.
&ii.
I,"
West
I
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
'-~l
--~1
Level of Significance with Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Impact
the site when compared to the overall drainage area served
by local flood control channels. Because the proposed
project would develop the same area on the site as assumed
in the DPX EIR, no new significant stormwater drainage
impacts would be expected. This would be considered a less-
than-significant impact.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Notice ofIntent (NOI) must be filed with the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in order to
obtain coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction
Permit for discharges of stormwater associated with
construction activities.
4.2-2: Effects on Water Quality. Construction activities
and operational site uses associated with the project could
result in degradation of water quality in nearby surface water
bodies and groundwater reservoirs by reducing the quality of
stormwater runoff. This would be considered a significant
In addition, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention
(SWPPP) shall be developed and implemented
proposed project site. An SWPPP should include Best
Management Practices (BMPs) designed to reduce
potential impacts to surface water quality through the
construction and life of the project. An SWPPP shall be
prepared such that, when properly implemented, it will
reduce or eliminate impacts to surface water quality from
all phases of the project. Required elements of the SWPPP
include
Plan
for the
impact.
Construction Stormwater Manaeement Controls. These
controls shall include practices to minimize the contact of
construction materials, equipment, and maintenance
supplies (e.g., fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, adhesives)
with stormwater. The SWPPP shall specify properly
designed centralized storage areas that keep these
materials out of the rain.
-
~I
Executive Summary
Page 2-7
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
West
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Level of Significance with Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
An important component of the stormwater quality
protection effort is knowledge of the site supervisors and
workers. To educate on-site personnel and maintain
awareness of the importance of stormwater quality
protection, site supervisors shall conduct regular tailgate
meetings to discuss pollution prevention. The frequency of
the meetings and required personnel attendance shall be
specified in the SWPPP.
The SWPPP shall specify a monitoring program to be
implemented by the construction site supervisor, and must
include both dry and wet weather inspections. City of
Dublin and City of Pleasanton personnel will conduct
regular inspections to ensure compliance with the SWPPP
(this is already standard procedure).
Erosion and Sediment Control. BMPs designed to reduce
erosion of exposed soil may include, but are not limited to:
soil stabilization controls, watering for dust control,
perimeter silt fences, placement of hay bales, and sediment
basins. The potential for erosion is generally increased if
grading is performed during the rainy season as disturbed
soil can be exposed to rainfall and storm runoff. If grading
must be conducted during the rainy season, the primary
BMPs selected shall focus on erosion control to keep
sediment on the slopes. End-of-pipe sediment control
measures (e.g., basins and traps) shall be used only as
secondary measures. Entry and egress from the
construction site shall be carefully controlled to minimize
offsite tracking of sediment.
-
\"
.J:.-
Lone~Tenn Stonnwater Manaeement. This refers to
measures taken to prevent stormwater pollution associated
with operational uses at the developed site. Prior to site
Executive Summary
. I",.
I
I
I"
.
I
I
I,
Page 2.8
L,
I
I,
.
Impact
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
I I I . . .
'~."'l
_. ""'l
.;......-1,
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Impact
Level of Significance with Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
occupation, the project applicant shall develop a surface
water pollution control plan (Le., parking lot sweeping
program and periodic storm drain inlet clearing) to reduce
long-term surface water quality impacts. The plan may
include the installation of oil, gas, and grease trap
separators in parking lots for BART patrons as well as
those for commercial, office, and residential uses. Project
plans shall incorporate, if appropriate, catch basin inserts
and filters along with cleaning schedules.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
No mitigation measures are necessary.
4.2..3: Flooding. The project site is not located within a
100-year or 500-year flood hazard area, as delineated in the
general plans for Dublin and Pleasanton. However, within
the vicinity of the proposed project, the 100-year and 500-
year flood hazard zones extend east ofI-680 pastHopyard
Road. These flood hazard areas are located downstream of
Dublin Creek and runoff from construction or operational
activities on the project site could contribute to downstream
flooding. However, this contribution would not be
substantial given the relatively small total area of the site
when compared to the overall drainage area of the region.
This would be considered a less-than-significant impact.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
No mitigation measures are necessary.
4.2-4: General Plan Consistency - City of Dublin, City of
Pleasanton. Development of the proposed r;>roject would
result in changes to surface water runoff volumes and quality.
Through City grading permit processes, the proposed project
would be subject to site-specific review and conditions
imposed by the cities, which would be expected to reduce
these effects. In addition, this EIR provides mitigation
measures to reduce impacts associated with water quality
impacts to a less-than-significant level (see Mitigation
Measure 4.2-2). With normal City permit processing
procedures and ErR mitigation, the proposed project would
-
(\J
U\
Executive Summary
Page 2.9
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
West
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Level of Significance with Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Impact
be consistent with water quality policies and programs
outlined in the City of Dublin General Plan and the City of
Pleasanton General Plan. This would be considered a less-
than-significant impact.
NOISE
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE
Noise-generating activities associated with construction of
the proposed land uses shall be limited to daytime hours of
operation Monday through Saturday.
(Section 4.3
Noise from Construction Activities in the Project
Construction activities within the project area would
generate intermittent and temporary increases in ambient
noise levels that would exceed significance thresholds. This
impact is considered significant.
4.3;1
Area.
All construction vehicles or equipment, ftxed or mobile,
would be equipped with properly operating and maintained
mufflers and acoustical shields or shrouds, in accordance
with manufacturers' recommendations.
Stationary noise-generating construction equipment (e.g.
generators, cranes, compressors, and mixers) would be
centrally located on the project site or within equipment
staging areas at the greatest distance possible from
occupied building(s)
To the maximum extent possible, construction of the
proposed land uses shall be phased to minimize the
occurrence of construction activities after completion and
occupancy of the proposed noise-sensitive land uses on the
Dublin parcel (i.e., the residential dwellings and hotel)
-
~
~
Executive Summary
L
14
I
.
L.
I...
I
I
1....iIli
Page 2-10
L""
I
I
',ii,.
Village
I
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit
.
I
I.,
I
West
I
-"}
-,
'~1
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
""""~J
.~l
Level of Significance with Mitigation
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Mitigation Measure
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Impact
4.3-2: Increases in Area and Stationary Source Noise.
On-site area and stationary sources of noise associated with
the proposed land uses would result in only minor and
intermittent increases in ambient noise levels, which would
occur primarily during the day and evening hours and less
frequently at night. Noticeable increases in ambient noise
levels (Le., 3 dBA, or greater) at nearby noise-sensitive
receptors are not anticipated. Therefore, this impact would
be considered less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
No mitigation measures are necessary.
4.3-3: Increases in Traffic Noise Levels on Area
Roadways. The project generated traffic would not result in
a noticeable increase (Le., 3 dBA, or greater) in traffic noise
levels at any existing noise-sensitive receptors. Therefore,
this impact would be considered less than significant.
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE
The developer shall utilize an acoustical professional, such
as a Licensed Engineer or Licensed Architect with
experience in acoustics. The acoustician shall develop
noise attenuation measures to be incorporated into the
design and construction of the proposed residential, hotel,
and office building that will produce a composite building
sound transmission control (STC) rating of 30 (or higher)
individually computed for the walls and for the floor/ceiling
construction. Suggested measures include: wall
construction with resilient channels, staggered studs, or
double-stud walls, use of dual glazed windows with
laminated glass, limitation of the number and size of
windows along walls located within close proximity to
major noise sources, and ensuring that all exterior
construction joints are either grouted or caulked air-tight.
Additional measures include locating on-site stationary
noise sources (Le., heating and air conditioning units,
emergency-use generators, building mechanical equipment,
4.3-4: Compatibility of the Proposed Land Uses with
Projected On-site Noise Levels. Projected noise levels at
the Dublin and Pleasanton parcels would exceed the
"normally acceptable" thresholds established by each
respective jurisdiction for the proposed land uses. As a
result, this impact is considered significant.
-I
U
Executive Summary
Page 2-11
Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
West
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mitigation Measure
Impact
Level of Significance with Mitigation
etc.) in enclosures or shielding them from within line-of-
sight of the proposed residential dwellings.
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations requires the
preparation of an acoustical analysis for multi-family
residences that demonstrates how interior noise levels will
achieve a 45 dBA CNELlLdn, where the exterior noise
levels exceed 60 dBA CNELlLdn. As a result, a Title 24
analysis shall be prepared as part of the final design of the
proposed residential dwellings. To the extent necessary,
noise control measures shall be designed according to the
type of building construction and specified sound rating for
each building element to achieve an interior noise level of
45 dBA CNELlLdn.
AIR aUALITY
(Section 4.4)
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Construction activities associated with the proposed
project would result in significant short-term air quality
impacts. To mitigate this impact, applicable BAAQMD
B~sic and Enhanced Control Measures shall be
implemented during construction. Specific controls to be
implemented include the following:
4.4-1: Construction-Related Air Emissions. Construction
activities associated with the proposed project would
temporarily produce emissions of NO x' RaG, co, and PMlO.
Emissions would vary substantially from day to day and could
potentially produce substantial amounts of PM 10. These
construction emissions would be considered a short-term
significant air quality impact.
active construction areas at least twice daily.
Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose
materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two
feet of freeboard.
Water all
~
~
~
~
Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-
toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,
and at construction sites
~
Executive Summary
->, ."
~..~< .i.~;
.
Ie
L
I
I
t"
staging areas
I
Page 2-12
I,
parking areas
.
I
.
Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
&.
.
.
&'"
I",
West
I
~~l
;~~
--~l
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
Level of Significance with Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access
roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction
sites.
~
Impact
if visible soil
Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers
material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
~
soil stabilizers to
(non-toxic)
inactive construction areas.
Hydroseed or apply
~
Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic)
soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand; etc.)
~
Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
~
measures to
Install sandbags or other erosion control
~
prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as
possible.
~
The use of watering twice daily for dust control in
construction areas is estimated to reduce dust emissions by
at least 37 percent. Covering haul truck loads or
maintaining at least 2 feet of freeboard is e~!!!!~t~J!Jg,,__. )A'""o.) /J1lJ
reduce dust emissions by approxima~eI1'1l:0 2 percent> -)
Paving or applying water twice daily~tQhauLroad&"'i-s-~--/'
estimated to reduce dust emissions by approximately 3 to 7
percent. Enclosing, covering, or wat.~ng,!ioil piles twice
daily can reduce dust emissions by [1.6 perc~. To reduce
the demand for water associated withreguhlr watering of
the project site, an appropriate dust palliative or
suppressant could be used as an alternative.
~
Executive Summary
Page 2-13
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
West
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Level of Significance with Mitigation
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
~
tY
Q
-
Executive Summary
I"l Ii" Ie I",,", I, Ii.,"
Mitigation Measure
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Impact
4.4-2: Localized CO Concentrations-Area Roadways.
Occupation of the proposed project would increase CO
concentrations at nearby intersections due to increased
vehicular traffic to and from the project site. However,
predicted CO concentrations at affected intersections would
not exceed
state or federal ambient air quality standards.
this is considered a less-than-significant impact.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Therefore,
4.4-3: Localized CO Concentrations-Proposed Parking
Structures. Operation of the proposed project would result
in CO concentrations within the proposed parking garages.
However, projected CO concentrations would not exceed
applicable thresholds. As a result, this impact would be less
than significant.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
4.4-4: Regional Air Quality Impact. The proposed project
would generate regional emissions primarily associated with
increased vehicle use related to the transit village uses.
Additional emissions associated with the use of natural gas-
fired appliances,landscape maintenance equipment, and
consumer products would also be generated. However,
approval of the proposed project would facilitate construction
of the approved West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station.
The use of this new BART Station would substantially
reduce automobile travel on the local roadway network by
providing a public transportation option for commuters. The
result would be a net reduction in regional emissions.
Therefore, this impact would be considered less than
significant.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
4.4-5 Consistency with the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan.
The development of the proposed land uses is consistent with
the growth projections for the cities of Dublin and
Pleasanton. Development of the proposed transit facility has
I
I
.
Page 2-14
."h
I
I
.
Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and T ronsit Village
.
I
I
I
.
West
I
-~'~"1
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
.....,
';";'~~-.-
1
"'...,'"
Level of Significance with Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Impact
been included in the Transportation Improvement Plan and
is consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan of the
nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. As a result,
development of the proposed project is not anticipated to
conflict with the projections contained in the Bay Area '97
Clean Air Plan. This impact is considered less than
significant.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
(Section 4.5)
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The eastbound and westbound approaches of the St.
Patrick Way/Golden Gate Drive intersection shall be
restriped to each include an exclusive left-turn lane. This
measure would improve the intersection operations from
LOS F to LOS C.
4.5.1 City of Dublin Intersections. Existing Plus
Approved Projects Plus Project Scenario. Under the
Existing plus Approved Projects plus Project scenario, two
intersections would operate unacceptably. These
intersections include Dublin BoulevardlDougherty Road and
St. Patrick Way/Golden Gate Drive. However, the proposed
project would actually improve the level of service at the
Dublin BoulevardlDougherty Road intersection from LOS F
to LOS E. Therefore, the proposed project would not
significantly affect this intersection. With the project's
contribution to the St. Patrick Way/Golden Gate Drive
intersection, the intersection would operate at LOS F during
the p.m. peak hour. This would be considered a significant
project impact.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
No mitigation measures aremecessary.
4.5.2 Dublin Parcel
proposed project design provides adequate site access
circulation on the Dublin parcel to accommodate the
proposed uses. Therefore, no significant access or circulation
impacts would be anticipated.
and
The
Access and Circulation.
-
OJ
-
Executive Summary
Page 2-15
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
West
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Level of Significance with Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Impact
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
A free right-turn lane on the westbound Stoneridge Drive
approach to the Stoneridge Mall Road/Stoneridge Drive
intersection shall be installed. With this improvement, the
intersection would operate acceptably at LOS C with and
without the West Las Positas interchange.
4.5-3 City of Pleasanton Intersections - Existing Plus
Approved Projects Plus Project Scenario. Under the
Existing plus Approved Projects plus Project scenario without
the West Las Positas interchange, three intersections would
operate unacceptably. These intersections include Hopyard
Road/Stoneridge Drive (No. 313), Stoneridge Mall
Road/Stoneridge Drive (No. 345), and 1-680 Southbound
Ramps/Stoneridge Drive (No. 346). With the
implementation of planned future improvements and
anticipated City improvements, the Hopyard
Road/Stoneridge Drive and 1-680 Southbound
Ramps/Stoneridge Drive intersections would operate
acceptably. However, the Stoneridge Mall Road/Stoneridge
Drive intersection would continue to operate unacceptably
with the contribution of project traffic. With the
construction of the West Las Positas interchange, this
intersection would continue to operate unacceptably with
the contribution of project traffic. The unacceptable
operation of this intersection would be considered a
significant traffic impact.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The following measures are required to improve access to
the Pleasanton parcel
To improve traffic operating conditions at the shared
project driveway, the intersection shall be signalized.
An eastbound left turn lane into the driveway shall be
striped on Stoneridge Mall Road. A westbound left-
turn lane already exists into the Nordstrom driveway.
~
4.5-4 Pleasanton Parcel Access and Circulation. Access
to the Pleasanton parcel would be from two driveways
located on Stoneridge Mall Road. Based on the level of
service analysis, vehicles exiting the project driveways onto
Stoneridge Mall Road would experience long delays. In
addition, the shared project driveway would meet the
Caltrans peak hour volume signal warrant. This would be
considered a significant project impact.
--
lY
~
The shared project driveway shall also accommodate
one entry lane and two exit lanes. In addition, the
driveway depth shall be no less than the existing 200
~
Executive Summary
&'.
Ie.,""
I.~
.
.
..
~ll
I,
.
.
Page 2-16
~
&.
..
.
.
West Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
L
IJitii
.
I
.
I,
.V~'~J,
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
of Significance with Mitigation
Level
waiting to
Mitigation Measure
feet to provide storage space for vehicles
exit onto Stoneridge Mall Road.
Measures shall be implemented to improve traffic
operating conditions along the project frontage on
Stoneridge Mall Road associated with the intersection
signalization. Due to the proximity of the Nordstrom
parking lot driveways to the proposed signal, vehicles
turning left from the parking lot could be a hazard to
vehicles traveling on Stoneridge Mall Drive. Two
options have been identified to address this concern.
The first option would restrict access along the
northern boundary of the Nordstrom parking lot by
constructing a barrier (e.g., a concrete planter)
generally between the shared driveway and the BART
Station driveway. This would require the
reconfiguration of the Nordstrom parking lot and the
removal of approximately 12 parking spaces. The
second option would include constructing a concrete
median within Stoneridge Mall Road, also generally
between the shared driveway and the BART Station
driveway. Because adequate storage area would not
be available on Stoneridge Mall Road for vehicles
turning left from the BART Station driveway and
excessive vehicle stacking within the driveway could
occur with this option, the BART Station driveway
would be restricted to right turn in, right turn out
only. The project applicant shall coordinate with the
City of Pleasanton to implement one of these
improvement options to ensure the safe, efficient
operation of this intersection.
~
--
~
The BART Station driveway shall accommodate one
entry lane and two exit lanes. In addition, the
driveway shall be no less than 50 feet deep to provide
~
Executive Summary
Page 2.17
Impact
West Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Impact
Level of Significance with Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
waiting to exit onto
storage space for vehicles
Stoneridge Mall Road.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
If parking charges are implemented at the West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, a monitoring program
shall be designed to determine whether substantial parking
spillover into adjacent private parking lots occurs as a
result of the parking charges. BART will conduct the
monitoring program, which will consist of:
A baseline survey of parking conditions in the vicinity
of the West DublinlPleasanton BART Station prior to
the commencement of operations at the station. The
baseline survey will establish parking conditions in the
vicinity of the station during weekday morning hours.
~
Monitoring during the first six months of operation of
the station to verify if spillover parking is occurring
within a quarter mile radius of the station. Such
monitoring will be based on field surveys and any
complaints received by BART and local parking
authorities. In addition, under-utilization of the
BART parking garages will be monitored to determine
whether any increase in the use of adjacent private
parking is related to a disincentive to use BART
parking due to parking charges. (After the first six
months of operation of the station, BART Community
Relations staff will respond to parking complaints and
BART will investigate such complaints to verify
parking concerns.)
~
4.5.5 Dublin and Pleasanton Parki~g Supply and
Demand. The hotel and residential components in Dublin
would have a surplus of 37 spaces for the hotel and 156
spaces for the residential use during the peak parking hour.
The office component in Pleasanton is estimated to have a
surplus of 157 spaces during the peak parking hour. The
parking demand for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station would be accommodated entirely by the proposed
BART parking facilities. No deficit in parking spaces would
be anticipated. Therefore, the project's parking demand
would be considered a less-than-significant impact.
However, if BART implements a parking charge program,
spillover parking onto adjacent lots may occur. This would
be considered a significant impact.
If spillover parking is identified as a problem, BART
will assist local parking authorities in implementing
appropriate parking control measures. Such measures shall
staff
-
().\
..i-
Executive Summary
I
'-L
I
a
a.
I
.
I.~
I
Page 2-18
lil,~i~:
&.
I
"
Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
.
I
I
L
I.
West
I
~
"~'1
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Level of Significance with Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
be based on BART's Parking Management Toolkit for the
BART-SFO Extension Station Areas. This Toolkit,
attached as Appendix C to this report, was developed for
the BART San Francisco Airport Extension Project. It
identifies a detailed process for understanding local parking
issues, evaluating parking conflicts, and implementing
specific parking control measures. BART staff will assist
local authorities to ensure that such parking control
measures, adopted as appropriate for site-specific
conditions, are implemented and are achieving the
necessary effect. BART staff will also continue discussions
as necessary with local authorities to help adjust any
parking control measures in response to issues that may
arise during implementation of such measures.
Impact
PUBLIC SERVICES
{Section 4.6
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Police Protection
4.6-1a: Increased Demand for Police Services - BART
Police Department. Development of the proposed project
would increase the demand for police protection services in
the project vicinity. Based on BART police records, the
increased demand would be primarily associated with auto
thefts and burglaries within the station parking areas.
However, this increased demand would not result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered police protection
facilities. Therefore, the proposed project's impacts on the
BART Police Department would be considered less than
--
l}l
U\
Executive Summary
Page 2-19
significant.
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
West
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mitigation Measure Level of Significance with Mitigation
.. -
No mitigation measures are necessary. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
No mitigation measures are necessary. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
No mitigation measures are necessary. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
.../---
-
OJ
~
- - - - - -
Page 2-20 Executive Summary
I I", 1,." .~" I, ILLL' ' &.i"'L- L",,,, & I, k:~'; &'" L~
Impact
4.6;lb: Increased Demand for Police Services; Dublin
Police Services. Development of the proposed project
would increase the demand for police protection services in
Dublin. Department police records indicate that the transit-
related incidents most likely to occur would include auto
thefts and burglaries within the station parking areas.
However, this increased demand would not result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
:provision of new or physically altered police protection
facilities. Therefore, the proposed project's impacts on the
Dubiin police services would be considered less than
significant.
4.6;lc: Increased Demand for Police ServIces;
Pleasanton Police Department. Development of the
proposed West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and
Transit Village would increase the demand for police
protection services in the project vicinity. However, the
Pleasanton Police Department anticipates that existing staff
levels would be adequate to serve the proposed project
without substantially affecting the ability to provide police
services elsewhere. Therefore, the proposed project's impacts
on the Pleasanton Police Department would be considered
less than significant.
4.6;ld Consistency with General Plan; City of
Pleasanton General Plan. The Pleasanton Police
Department anticipates that their existing staff levels would
be adequate to serve the Pleasanton parcel of the proposed
project without substantially affecting the ability to provide
police services elsewhere. Therefore, the proposed project
would be consistent with the City of Pleasanton General Plan
policy to maintain and enhance the level of police equipment
I
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
IL
I
.
L.
,
1
Level of Significance with Mitigation
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
--
<.,\1
:=J
Executive Summary
"""1
-
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mitigation Measure
No mitigation measures are necessary.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Page 2-21
Impact
and personnel necessary to protect the community. No
impacts related to General Plan consistency would occur.
Fire Protection
4.6.Za: Increased Demand for Emergency Response
Services - BART Safety Department. Development of the
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station would increase the
demand for emergency response services on BART property.
BART's Control Center may have to adjust staffing levels to
accommodate this increase in workload. However, this
increase in workload is not expected to be substantial.
Therefore, this impact would be considered less than
significant.
4.6-Zb Increased Demand for Fire Protection Services in
the City of Dublin - Alameda County Fire Department
(ACFD). Development of the proposed project would
increase the demand for fire protection services in the City of
Dublin. ACFD currently has a station located on Donahue
Drive in Dublin that is adequately staffed to provide service
to the project site in approximately 1.5 minutes. The project
applicant Oones Lang LaSalle, or their successor in interest)
would, however, be required to pay a negotiated fire impact
fee to offset equipment costs that may be incurred as a result
of project implementation. The increased demand for fire
protection services associated with the proposed project
would be considered a less.than.significant impact.
4.6.2c
the City of Pleasanton
Department (LPFD). Development of the proposed project
would increase the demand for fire protection services in the
City of Pleasanton. LPPD currently has a station located
in
Increased Demand for Fire Protection Services
Livermore Pleasanton Fire
Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
West
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Impact
Level of Significance with Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
immediately south of the project site that is adequately
staffed and equipped to provide service to the project site
within 5 minutes. Therefore, the increased demand for fire
protection services associated with the proposed project
would be considered a less-than-significant impact.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
No mitigation measures are necessary.
4.6.2d: Consistency with City of Pleasanton General
Plan. Response Time. Due to its proximity to Station #2,
the Pleasanton parcel of the project site can be served by the
LPFD within 5 minutes, which is consistent with Policy 10 of
the Public Safety Element. No impacts related to
consistency with desired response times would occur.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
No mitigation measures are necessary.
4.6.2e: Consistency with City of Pleasanton General Plan
. Design Plans. The Pleasanton Public Works Department
and LPFD review development plans prior to approval and
issuance of a building permit by the Building Inspection
Department. All plans must be designed with adequate fire
access, fire hydrants and water system designs in order to be
approved for construction. Projects that do not meet LPFD
requirements will either be denied or have conditions to
mitigate potential impacts prior to approval. Compliance
with these requirements would ensure that the proposed
project would be consistent with General Plan Public Safety
Element Fire Hazard Policies 12 and 13 and Programs 4.4,
8.2. 11.2. 13.2. and 13.3. No impact would be anticipated.
~
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Water Supply
4.6.3a: Adequacy of Water Supply. Dublin San Ramon
Services District (DSRSD). The proposed project would
increase the demand for water in the DSRSD service area,
which includes the City of Dublin. Adequate supply is
Executive Summary
I~,
au
I.
1,-
I~Jk~
a...
I
.
.
Page 2.22
.~,.
Ii""
I
I,
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
I.
I,
~
I,.
'i
West
I
Level of Significance with Mitigation
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
----
tP
JJ
Executive Summary
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mitigation Measure
No mitigation measures are necessary.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Page 2-23
r'
i
available to meet this demand. Therefore, no impacts on the
DSRSD's water supply would be anticipated
Impact
r----:J
4.6-3b: Adequacy of Water Supply - City of Pleasant on.
The proposed project would increase the demand for water in:
the City of Pleasanton. Adequate supply is available to meet
this demand. Therefore, no impacts on the City's water
supply would be anticipated.
4.6-3c: Adequacy of Water Storage and Distribution
System - DSRSD. The proposed project would increase the
demand for water storage and distribution services within the
DSRSD service area. Several DSRSDwater storage and
distribution facilities that could adequately serve the
proposed project are located in close proximity to the project
site. Therefore, no significant impacts would be anticipated.
4.6-3d: Adequacy of Water Storage and Distribution
System - City of Pleasanton. The proposed project would
increase the demand for water storage and distribution
services within the City of Pleasanton. Several City water
storage and distribution facilities that could adequately serve
the proposed project are located within close proximity to the
project site. Therefore, no significant impacts would be
anticipated.
4.6-3e: Provision of Fire Flows - DSRSD, City of
Pleasanton. DSRSD indicates that a minimum fire flow for
commercial and residential development is approximately
3,500 gallons per minute at a pressure of 20 psi. Adequate
wat,er supply is available from DSRSD and the City of
Pleasanton to meet the fire flow requirements for the
proposed project. No significant impacts related to the
provision of fire flows would be anticipated.
Village
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit
West
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Level of Significance with Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Impact
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
No mitigation measures are necessary.
4.6-3f: General Plan Consistency - City of Dublin, City
of Pleasanton. The Dublin General Plan and the Pleasanton
General Plan both contain policies to ensure that future
developments in their respective cities are served by
adequate water supplies. Both DSRSD and the City of
Pleasanton have indicated that they have adequate water
supplies to serve the proposed project. Therefore, no
significant impacts would be anticipated related to General
Plan. consis tency.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Wastewater Service and Treatment
4.6-4a: Adequacy of Wastewater Collection System,
DSRSD. The proposed project would increase the demand
for wastewater collection services within the DSRSD service
area. Several DSRSD collection facilities are located within
close proximity to the project site. According to DSRSD,
these facilities could serve the proposed project. Therefore,
no significant wastewater collection impacts would be
anticipated with the proposed project
-
t
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
No mitigation measures are necessary.
4.6-4b: Adequacy of Wastewater Collection System, City
of Pleasanton. The proposed project would increase the
demand for wastewater collection services within the City of
Pleasanton. The City's wastewater collection facilities within
the vicinity of the project site include an 8-inch sewer main
located under Stoneridge Mall Road. An additionallO-inch
sewer main under Stoneridge Mall Road will be completed by
the summer of 2001. According to the City of Pleasanton,
these facilities could adequately serve the proposed project.
Therefore, no significant wastewater collection impacts
would be anticipated with the proposed project.
Executive Summary
L
&;,
&.L
I.
L
.
11
Ii...
I.
Page 2-24
I,~.
I.",
i<t
I
i~:'
I,
Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
. hi ..,,; I~ I..
West
I
Level of Significance with Mitigation
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
-
-+--
-
Executive Summary
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mitigation Measure
No mitigation measures are necessary.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Page 2-25
Impact
4.6.4c: Adequacy of Treatment Capacity. The proposed
project would generate approximately 66,500 gpd of .
wastewater. The DSRSD wastewater treatment facility in
Pleasanton is currently expanding its operations to .
accommodate a final capacity of 17 mgd in the year 2003.
Since current flows to the plant are only averaging 10 mgd
(for 1999), the plant will have adequate capacity to serve the
proposed project. The proposed project's effects on
wastewater treatment capacity would be considered less than
significant.
4.6.4d: Adequacy of Export Capabilities. The proposed
project would generate new wastewater flow demand on the
existing LA VWMA wastewater conveyance facilities. The
LA VWMA export pipeline is currently operating at 100% of
capacity. However, the export pipeline is currently being
expanded to meet project demands. With the proposed
expansion, the proposed project's effects on LA VWMA
wastewater conveyance facilities would be considered less
than significant.
4.6.4e: General Plan Consistency. City of Dublin, City
of Pleasanton. The Dublin General Plan and the Pleasanton
General Plan both contain policies to ensure that future
developments in their respective cities are served by
adequate wastewater treatment and export services. Both
DSRSD and LA VWMA are currently expanding their
facilities to provide the additional capacity necessary to serve
planned developments within the cities of Dublin and
Pleasanton. Therefore, no significant impacts would be
anticipated related to General Plan consistency.
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
West
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Impact
Level of Significance with Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Schools
4.6-5a: Increased Demand for School Services - City of
Dublin. The proposed project would increase the demand
for school services within the Dublin Unified School District
(DUSD). Because a new elementary school is opening in the
Fall of 2000 and a new middle school is anticipated to open
in the Fall of 2004, the DUSD would have sufficient capacity
to serve the students generated by the proposed project. No
significant school facility impacts would be anticipated.
PUBLIC HEALTH and SAFETY
(Section 4.7)
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
In order to determine the extent of soil and groundwater
contamination on the site, field sampling prior to the
commencement of construction activities shall be
conducted. This sampling shall be consistent with the
field sampling for the project site outlined in the Field
Investigation Work Plan prepared for the DPX Project
(Bechtel Environmental, Inc., 1991) and shall consist of
soil borings and groundwater monitoring wells located
throughout the project site. In addition, a Health and
Safety Plan shall be developed that outlines safety
procedures to follow in the event of accidental spills or the
unearthing of contaminated soil or groundwater during
construction activities. This Health and Safety Plan shall
also be consistent with the safety guidelines set forth in the
Field Investigation Work Plan.
4.7 -1: Potential Human Exposure to Soil Contaminants.
The proposed project would be located within an area that
has numerous reported incidents of hazardous materials
contamination. Project construction could potentially
expose construction workers and sensitive receptors to
hazardous materials in the area. Site residents and hotel
occupants could also be exposed to soil contaminants, both
identified and unidentified, in the project vicinity. This
would be considered a potentially significant impact.
-
...+:-.
\'
If contaminants are identified on the site, a remediation
plan shall be developed consistent with applicable local,
state, and federal regulations. Remediation of any site
contaminants shall be completed prior to the issuance of
Executive Summary
I.,
."
I..."
a
.."
I
I
I,
I.
Page 2-26
I ....
1."
I
&.
Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
I" Iii", 'LL L
West
A'
I
'-,.~] '""=1 ",,,,,'}
- -
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- -
Mitigation Measure Level of Significance with Mitigation
-
building permits for the proposed project, consistent with
applicable regulations.
No mitigation measures are necessary. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
No mitigation measures are necessary. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
No mitigation measures are necessary. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
&
Page 2-27 Executive Summary
r'--,
4.8-1: Visual Changes -Dublin Parcel. Development of
the proposed project would alter the visual character of the
Dublin parcel by constructing a multi-story hotel, residential
complex, and associated parking on land that is currently
undeveloped. However," this development would not
substantially obstruct the background views of the
surrounding hillsides and would be consistent with the
commercial character of the area. Therefore, the visual
impact of project development on the Dublin parcel would be
considered less than significant.
Impact
l'
AESTHETICS
{Section 4.8}
4.8-2: Visual Changes - Pleasanton Parcel. Development
of the proposed project would alter the visual character of
the Pleasanton parcel by constructing a multi-level office
building and associated parking on land that is currently
undeveloped. This development would be visually
compatible with the surrounding areas and would not
substantially obstruct the background views of the
Pleasanton Ridgeline. Therefore, the visual impact of project
development on the Pleasanton parcel would be considered
less than significant.
4.8-3: Increased Light and Glare. Development of the
proposed project would create new sources of light and glare
in the project area. However, light and glare would be minor
and consistent With the appearance of the surrounding area.
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
West
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Level of Significance with Mitigation
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
-.....
R
~
- -
Executive Summary
. . . . . .
Mitigation Measure
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Impact
4.8'4: Consistency with General Plan, City of Dublin.
According to the Dublin General Plan, the City of Dublin
shall exercise design review of all projects within Dublin that
are visible from a designated scenic route. The City's
implementation of design review would ensure that the
proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan.
No impacts related to General Plan consistency would be
anticipated.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
4.8,5: Consistency with General Plan, City of
Pleasanton. Land Use Policy 12 of the Pleasanton General
Plan stipulates that scenic hillsides within the City shall be
preserved. Project development on the Pleasanton parcel
would not conflict with this policy. No impacts related to
General Plan consistency would be anticipated.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
(Section 4.9}
No mitigation measures are necessary.
4.9.1: Loss of Biological Resources. The development of
the proposed project would result in the loss of 17 acres of
grassland habitat. Because all biological habitat on the
project site was previously assumed to be removed in the
DPX ErR, no increase in biological resource impacts would
be anticipated. In addition, recent database and field surveys
confirm that the biological resources existing on the project
site have not significantly changed since the DPX ErR was
prepared. Therefore, the biological resource impacts of the
proposed project would be considered less than significant.
I
L.
L....
Page 2-28
Ii
I,
I",,,,,,
&
Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
I L, & I I..
West
I
C"~l
--l
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Level of Significance with Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Impact
CULTURAL RESOURCES
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(Section 4.10}
4.10-1: Disturbance of Historic Resources. Because the
project area does not contain any identified historic
resources, development of the proposed project would not
disturb any such resources. No impacts related to the
disturbance of historic resources would occur.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
To reduce the potential degradation of unidentified
cultural resources on the site, the following measures shall
be implemented.
If any prehistoric or historic artifacts, or other
indications of cultural resources are found once
project construction is underway, all work must stop
within 20 meters (66 feet) of the find. A qualified
archaeologist shall be consulted for an immediate
evaluation of the find prior to resuming ground-
breaking construction activities within 20 meters of
the find. If the find is determined to be an important
archaeological resource, the resource shall be either
avoided, if feasible, or recovered consistent with the
requirements of g 15064.5 of the State CEQA
Guidelines.
~
4.10-2: Disturbance of Unidentified Cultural Resources.
Development of the project site would include the removal of
vegetation and surface soils through grading activities..
Because there is a possibility that Native American and
historic cultural resources could be present in soils on the
project site, these grading activities could cause the
disturbance of these resources. The disturbance of previously
unidentified subsurface cultural resources would be
considered a significant project impact.
In the event of discovery or recognition of any human
remains in anyon-site location, there shall be no
further excavation or disturbance of the site or any
nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent
remains until the County coroner has determined, in
accordance with any law concerning investigation of
the circumstances, the manner and cause of death and
the recommendations concerning treatment and
~
~,
(ji
\
Executive Summary
Page 2-29
Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
West
Table 2~ 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mitigation Measure
Impact
of Significance with Mitigation
Level
disposition of the human remains have been made to
the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or
her authorized representative.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
{Section 4.11}
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
No mitigation measures are necessary.
4.11-1: Increased Population - City of Dublin. The
residential component of the proposed project would increase
the population within the City of Dublin by approximately
320 persons. This project-related population growth would
represent less than 1 % of Dublin's current population and
approximately 1.9% of the projected growth over the next 5
years. Because project-related growth within the City of
Dublin would not be substantial, this impact would be
considered less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
No mitigation measures are necessary.
4.11-2: Increased Housing Demand. The increased
demand for housing resulting from the proposed project's job
creation is anticipated to be accommodated by existing
vacant units in Dublin, Pleasanton, and Alameda County, as
well as by proposed residential development on the Dublin
Therefore, this would be considered a less-than-
parcel
significant impact.
--
~
~
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
No mitigation measures are necessary.
4.11-3: Consistency with Dublin General Plan. The
proposed project would develop 160 housing units in Dublin,
which currently has a very restrictive housing market with a
vacancy rate of 2. 75%. This residential development would
be located in a highly developed commercial area that has
extensive services available for project residents and
employees. No impacts related to General Plan consistency
would be anticipated.
Executive Summary
lIli I
I~.
&"
L,,,,
L~
I...,,,,
.
I
Page 2-30
~,.
I
I.
I,,,,,,
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
. I, I, . I,
West
I
: 1
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Level of Significance with Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Impact
ENERGY RESOURCES
(Section 4.12)
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
No mitigation measures are necessary.
4.12-1 Use of Energy Resources. The proposed transit
village uses would increase energy use on the project site.
However, the transit-oriented design of the proposed project
would minimize the use of fossil fuels when compared to
similar non-transit projects. Also, implementation of the
requirements in Title 24 of the California Administrative
Code would minimize the ongoing operational demand for
electricity and natural gas. When combined with the
relatively small size of the proposed project, the anticipated
increase in energy use would be considered a less-than-
significant impact.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
(Section 6)
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The following mitigation measures are identified to
improve cumulative traffic conditions to acceptable levels
of service:
-
-C.--
--1
Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive In response to
cumulative traffic growth, the addition of a second
exclusive northbound left-turn lane on Golden Gate
Drive shall be installed to improve the level of service
from LOS E to LOS D. The City of Dublin shall be
responsible for implementing this improvement and
Jones Lang LaSalle, or their successors in interest,
shall contribute their fair-share portion through the
payment of the City's Traffic Improvement Fee, which
shall be calculated based on the vehicle trips
generated by the transit village uses, exclusive of the
..
6-1 City of Dublin Intersections - Existing Plus Approved
Projects Plus Project Plus General Plan Buildout
Scenario. Cumulative traffic growth in the region would
result in the unacceptable operation of Dublin
Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive, Dublin Boulevard/Amador
Plaza Road, Dublin BoulevardlDougherty Road, and San
Ramon Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps intersections in the
p.m. peak hour and the unacceptable operationof St. Patrick
Way/Golden Gate Drive in both the a.m. and p.m. peak
hours. With the exception of Dublin BoulevardlDougherty
Road and San Ramon Road/l-580 westbound ramps, the
traffic generated by the proposed project would contribute to
the unacceptable operation of these intersections. This
would be considered a significant cumulative traffic impact.
Executive Summary
Page 2-31
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
West
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mitigation Measure
Level of Significance with Mitigation
parking garages.
portion through a separate payment to the City of
Dublin, which shall be calculated based on the vehicle
trips generated by the BART Station and parking
garages.
vehicle trips generated by the BART Station and
BART shall its fair-share
contribute
Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road - In response
to cumulative traffic growth, an exclusive northbound
right-turn lane and an exclusive southbound right-
turn lane on Amador Plaza Road shall be installed to
improve the level of service to LOS D. The City of
Dublin shall be responsible for implementing this
improvement and Jones Lang LaSalle, or their
successors in interest, shall contribute their fair-share
portion through the payment of the City's Traffic
Improvement Fee, which shall be calculated based on
the vehicle trips generated by the transit village uses,
exclusive of the vehicle trips generated by the BART
Station and parking garages. BART shall contribute
its fair-share portion through a separate payment to
the City of Dublin, which shall be calculated based on
the vehicle trips generated by the BART Station and
~
parking garages.
St. Patrick Way/Golden Gate Drive - In response to
cumulative traffic growth, a traffic signal shall be
installed at this intersection. The installation of a
traffic signal would improve the intersection level of
service from LOS F to LOS A during both peak hours.
The City of Dublin shall be responsible for
implementing this improvement and Jones Lang
LaSalle, or their successors in interest, shall contribute
their fair-share portion through the payment of the
--
~
0\\
Executive Summary
. .
I
L.
L..,..
L.,..
I;'h
L.
L_~
Page 2-32
I~ ..
~
L.
I.
Impact
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
Ie I~ I L L ..2.lL I..
";,..-,,
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Level of Significance with Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
City's Traffic Improvement Fee, which shall be
calculated based on the vehicle trips generated by the
transit village uses, exclusive of the vehicle trips
generated by the BART Station and parking garages.
BART shall contribute its fair-share portion through a
separate payment to the City of Dublin, which shall be
calculated based on the vehicle trips generated by the
BART Station and parking garages.
Impact
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The following mitigation measures are identified to
improve cumulative traffic conditions to. acceptable levels
of service:
The roadway segments of Amador Plaza Road south of
Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive between
Dublin Boulevard and St. Patrick Way shall be
widened (restriped) to four lanes (two in each
direction). The City of Dublin shall be responsible for
implementing this improvement and Jones Lang
LaSalle, or their successors in interest, shall contribute
their fair-share portion through the payment of the
City's Traffic Improvement Fee, which shall be
calculated based on the vehicle trips generated by the
transit village uses, exclusive of the vehicle trips
generated by the BART Station and parking garages.
BART shall contribute its fair-share portion through a
separate payment to the City of Dublin, which shall be
calculated based on the vehicle trips generated by the
BART Station and parking garages.
~
6-2 City of Dublin Roadway Segments - Existing Plus
Approved Projects Plus Project Plus General Plan
Buildout Scenario. Cumulative traffic growth in the region
would result in traffic volumes on the roadway segments of
Amador Plaza Road south of Dublin Boulevard and Golden
Gate Drive exceeding their capacity. This would be
considered a significant cumulative traffic impact.
........
Z
-..,[)
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE
are recommended to
of service:
The following mitigation measures
improve conditions to acceptable levels
6-3 City of Pleasanton Intersections - Existing Plus
Approved Projects Plus Project Plus General Plan
Buildout Scenario. Cumulative traffic growth in the region
would result in the unacceptable operation of six study
Executive Summary
Page 2-33
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
West
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Impact
Level of Significance with Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Southbound 1-680 Ramps/Stoneridge Drive (No. 346)
- In response to cumulative traffic growth, the planned
and anticipated improvements identified under the
Existing plus Approved Projects scenario, restriping
the southbmmd 1-680 off-ramp to convert two right-
turn lanes and two left-turn lanes into one right-turn
lane and three left-turn lanes, and the widening the
westbound Stoneridge Mall Road approach to provide
three through lanes and a free right-turn lane onto the
1-680 southbound on-loop, shall be implemented. The
City of Pleasanton shall be responsible for
implementing this improvement and Jones Lang
LaSalle, or their successors in interest, shall contribute
their fair-share portion through the payment of the
City's Traffic Improvement Fee, which shall be
calculated based on the vehicle trips generated by the
transit village uses, exclusive of the vehicle trips
generated by the BART Station and parking garages.
BART shall contribute its fair-share portion through a
separate payment to the City of Pleasanton, which
shall be calculated based on the vehicle trips
generated by the BART Station and parking garages.
~
intersections on Stoneridge Drive between and including
Stoneridge Mall Road and Hopyard Road (Nos. 313 & 345
349) and the intersection of San Ramon Boulevard/I-580
Westbound Ramps (No. 901). With construction of the
West Las Positas interchange, four of these intersections are
projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service
including Stoneridge Mall Road/Stoneridge Drive (No. 345),
1-680 Southbound Ramps/Stoneridge Drive (No. 346), 1-680
Northbound Ramps/Stoneridge Drive (No. 347), and San
Ramon Boulevard/I-580 Westbound Ramps (No. 901). The
traffic generated by the proposed project would contribute
significantly to the unacceptable operation of three of these
intersections. These include 1-680 Southbound
Ramps/Stoneridge Drive (No. 346), 1-680 Northbound
Ramps/Stoneridge Drive (No. 347), and Johnson
Drive/Stoneridge Drive (No. 348). This would be considered
a significant cumulative traffic impact.
This intersection would operate acceptably with
implementation of these improvements and
construction of the West Las Positas interchange.
However, without construction of the WestLas
Posit as interchange, this intersection would continue
to operate unacceptably even with implementation of
the intersection improvements.
Northbound 1-680 Ramps/Stoneridge Drive (No. 347)
- In response to cumulative traffic growth, the
eastbound Stoneridge Drive approach to the 1-680
~
~
Executive Summary
at',;': .
I
L..
L
.:c.
~;Li
L.,..
L,..
I".~
Page 2-34
L,;J..
L,;
L....
L~
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and T ramit Village
.1- &i L,. L.."" L~" 1,,1&
]
1
"
'"1
-'1
Table 2-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Level of Significance with Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
northbound loop on-ramp shall be widened to provide
a free right-turn lane. The City of Pleasanton shall be
responsible for implementing this improvement and
Jones Lang LaSalle, or their successors in interest,
shall contribute their fair-share portion through the
payment of the City's Traffic Improvement Fee, which
shall be calculated based on the vehicle trips
generated by the transit village uses, exclusive of the
vehicle trips generated by the BART Station and
parking garages. BART shall contribute its fair-share
portion through a separate payment to the City of
Pleasanton, which shall be calculated based on the
vehicle trips generated by the BART Station and
parking garages.
Impact
This intersection would operate acceptably with
implementation of these improvements and
construction of the West Las Positas interchange.
However, without construction of the West Las
Positas interchange, this intersection would continue
to operate unacceptably even with implementation of
the intersection improvements.
Johnson Drive/Stoneridge Drive (No. 348) - This
intersection would operate acceptably with
implementation of the West Las Positas interchange.
However, without construction of this interchange,
this intersection would operate unacceptably. No
feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce
this impact to a less-than-significant level.
~
-
~
For a discussion of other cumulative impacts anticipated
with the proposed project, please refer to Chapter 6,
Cumulative and Growth-Inducing Impacts, of this report.
Executive Summary
Page 2-35
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
West
t' > ~.
'"
/5d--
3 PRDJECT"'DESCRIPTIOl\T
the San Franc. isco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) and Jones Lang LaSalle are proposing the
.' .' "'-""'-" " .', ". ". '. _......' ..
development of a BART Station, 17. I-acre transit village, and associated parking located in the cities
o.f.. D..u.....?lin. and.... P..I~.as.... an.t...on in.Al.ameda.County. T.h. e BART Statl...on. woul.. d be locate. d in the medi..an.. of
Interstate 586 <lIld theremainlng development would. be contained within 2 parcels adjacent to either
side of the station. The Dublin parcel is located north ofInterstate 580 and contains 9.75 acres; the
Pleasanton parcel is located south ofInterstate 580 and contains 7.35 acres. Both parcels are owned
by BART.
3.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
REGIONAL SETTING'
The proposed project is located within the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton, approximately 30 miles east
of San Francisco and approximately 8 miles west of Livermore. Dublin and Pleasanton are both located
withiIltlle southern.A.lamecla COunty portion of the '''Td-Valley'' area. The Tri-Valley area includes
the town of Danville, the citiesofbublin, Pleasanton, Livermore and San Ramon, and unincorporated
portions of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Dublin and Pleasanton are both bordered to the west
by ridgelands that separate the San Francisco Bay Area from the Tri- Valley area (Exhibit 3-1). To the
east, Dublin is bordered by the Camp Parks Military Reservation and the Dougherty Hills, while
Pleasanton is bOUIld byhills to th~.s~uth~ast."Tht~b'<lIl~re~sc,fb(,thcities are predominately lc,cated
on the flat valley floor. Regional access is provided by Interstate 580 (1-580), which forms the
southern boundary of Dublin and the northern boundary for Pleasanton, and Interstate 680 (1-680),
which generally bisects the cities along a north-south axis.
LOCAL SETTING
The project site is located. on 17:1 acres that encompass two parcels and a portion of the median of
Interstate 580 (Exhibits 3-2 and 3-3). The site is located approximately 0.2 mile west of 1-680 and
approximately 0.3 mile east of FoothilljSan Ramon Road.
The northern 9.75-acre parcel, located within the City of Dublin, is identified on the United States
Geological Service (USGS) topographic map as containing a drive-in theater, although the site contains
no buildings and has been empty for years.
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
EDAW
Project Description
3-1
0)
UJ
.
1
~'t
i.:.,_, Ii
'j,,~" ' ~k~,
~i
I
I".
I
I
.
I
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit
IN OT012.01 8/00 ',' ..
I" I I" I. I, .le,;',
I
I
........
~
""'7'1
-
~
2
z
0
B
z
::;
g
~ Project Site
Source: wee, 1989.
BART Station and Transit Village
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit
IN OT012 8{00
r
-
~ 3-2
0' 300' 600' rn~ mDI
,-
._.~
DUBLIN BOOLEV"RD
PLEASANTON
DUBLIN
n
, ~"l
parklng
STONERIDGE
MALL
Village Project
Parking
~1
Jii
..
.
..
11III
..
;;~
iA~
.
..
..
..
...
-
..
..
,.
..
..
IJIi
Conceptual Site Plan
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project
IN OT012.01 11/00
..~
~ 3-3 .i
rn~1IiD1
11III
/s-~
.....
"
The Dublin parcel is surrounded by chain link fencing and includes short grasses and shrubs over most
of the site. Large portions of the parcel have been disturbed by prior site uses (e.g., construction
staging, Christmas tree lot). Dublin Creek abuts the ''L-shaped'' Dublin parcel to the south, while a
large warehouse owned by Cor-O- Van forms the western site boundary. A truck parking area used for
Cor-O- V an trailers forms the northern boundary of the Dublin parcel with an office building occupied
by Washington Mutual further to the north. The eastern portion of the Dublin parcel is paralleled by
Golden Gate Road, the Golden Gate Business Park, and the Enea Retail Plaza. Local access to the
Dublin parcel is provided by Golden Gate Road.
r
~
I
~.
The 7.35,.-acre Pleasanton parcel includes non-native grasses and dense areas of ornamental trees
dominated by black locusts. The parcel is bordered to the north by 1-580 with the remainder of the
site surrounded by parking areas for Stoneridge Mall to the south and adjacent office buildings to the
east and west. Local access to the Pleasanton parcel is provided by Stoneridge Mall Road. Utility
connections are present throughout both parcels including numerous electrical conduit boxes, water
valves, and fire hydrants. The Pleasanton parcel also includes a BART electrical substation that provides
electricity to BART's operating line.
The project site is located within the Dublin Creek watershed. Dublin Creek conveys runoff from the
hills to the west and flows east, paralleling the Dublin parcel's southern boundary and Interstate 580.
The creek continues east and then south flowing into Arroyo de la Laguna, Alameda Creek and
eventually into the San Francisco Bay. This creek has been charmelized through much of the local area.
3.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
r-i
,
.
The proposed project includes several elements, including the completion of construction of the West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station approved by the BART Board of Direct~rs as part of the
DublinjPleasanton Extension Project (DPX) on February 8,1990. On the Dublin parcel, a 240-room,
eight-story hotel and 160-unit, four-story residential buildings are proposed to be constructed. The
hotel is proposed to be located closest to the freeway with 251 parking spaces, of which 71 would be
accommodated as shared parking within the BART parking garage. The residential portion of the
development is proposed to be located furthest from the freeway and would include 297 parking spaces,
some located at the surface level and some at the one-half level under the residential buildings. In
addition, a 713-stall, six-story parking garage for BART patrons is proposed to be constructed on the
eastern portion of this parcel. A pedestrian overcrossmg wollld connect the BART parking garage to
the BART station. .. An intermodal transfer station is proposed to be incorporated into the parking
garage and would include eight bus stalls for public transit transfers to the BART station.
r
t
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
3-5
EDAW
Project Description
The proposed shared parking between the hotel and BART parking garage would optimize the use of
available parking spaces. Shared parking is possible because the hotel's peak demand for parking spaces
occurs at a different time than the peak demand for parking by BART patrons. BART reserves 10%
of its parking spaces for persons arriving after 10:00 a.m. These spaces would be available for use by
hotel patrons until 10:00 a.m. Mter 10:00 a.m., these spaces would be vacated by the hotel users and
available for BART patrons. An agreement between BART and the hotel developer would be executed
outlining the specific shared parking details. Hotel management would most likely be responsible for
managing the use of the parking spaces and ensuring they are vacated by 10:00 a.m. This shared
parking approach would be consistent with Objective 14.3 of the proposed West Dublin BART
Specific Plan, which encourages the use of shared parking among nearby land uses to satisfy parking
demand for individual land uses and to reduce the amount of land needed for parking.
On the Pleasanton parcel, a 170,000 gross square foot office building with five stories is proposed to
be constructed. A total of 560 parking spaces would be provided at grade on the site (3.5 stalls per
1,000 rentable square feet). The office building may include some ancillary retail uses. A 419-stall,
five-story parking garage is proposed to be constructed in the northeastern portion of this parcel for
the use of BART patrons. One bus stop located on Stoneridge Mall Road would be provided for
public transit transfers to the BART station. A pedestrian over crossing would connect the BART
parking garage to the BART Station.
The BART station area would be located between the east- and westbound lanes of Interstate 580
within the Caltrans median. Foundations for this station were constructed when the line from Castro
Valley to East DublinjPleasanton was constructed, limiting the amount of construction activity
necessary for the new station.
PROPOSED FINANCING STRUCTURE
In order to finance the estimated $44 million public portion of the project (i.e., the BART Station with
ancillary parking, bus intermodal facility and pedestrian walkways from the station to either side of
Interstate 580), a Joint Powers Authority would be created between BART and the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG). The Joint Powers Authority would issue bonds for construction of the
public facilities. The amount of bonds needed to construct the public facilities would be reduced by
the pre-payment of ground rent generated by private use of BART property. Repayment of the bonds
would be through a combination of contributions from the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton of tax
revenues to be generated from the private development and BART revenues generated by the station
and other potential funding sources. Funding of the private development would be implemented with
conventional financing and would not involve any BART or other public funds.
EDAW
Project Descri ption
3-6
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
/51
.II
-
..
IIIiil
i
,iii
till
.
..
..
III
,;ll!
..
..
;(,&
..
):k
.
,~
..
';~
.
"~
;..,ilJ
'j
-
.I
.,j
"
.II
.Ii
r": JS'B
:k "
3.3 PRO.JECT HISTORY
r;
~.
~.
In the early 1970s, in an effort to connect outlying communities with business centers, BART initiated
a rail system that links Daly City, Richmond, Concord, and Fremont with San Francisco and points
in between. The system serves portions of Alameda and Contra Costa counties on the east side of the
bay and San Francisco County on the west side. Concurrent with implementation of the original
. BART rail system, planning commenced for an extension into the Livermore/Amador Valley. The
l)ublilljPleasantonExtenslon, or Dt>X; was proposed to extend along the lnterstate 238 and' 580
corridor through the communities of Castro Valley, Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore. The planning
for the DPX extension continued into the early 1980s in response to continued growth and land use
changes. Numerous studies were completed in concert with extensive community review. These
evaluations considered and eliminated from further review various corridors, routes, modes, and station
sites, refmed the extension proposal, and ultimatelyiclentifiecl a preferred route.
In November 1986, Alameda County voters demonstrated their support to extend BART to eastern
Alameda County by approving Measure B. Measure B called for increasing the sales tax: half a percent
to provide funding for transportation improvements. One of the specific mandates of Measure B was
a rail transit extension from the BART Bay Fair station to DublinjPleasanton.
14.
~
\
~.
In September 1989, a draft EIR was completed that evaluated the bpx Project. The project evaluated
in the draft EIR included the 12-mile extension of the existing rail system from the Bay Fair BART
Station to the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton. From the Bay Fair station platform, the project
alignment was proposed to parallel the existing track southerly to Interstate 238 where it turns east
diverging from the BART Fremont line. Following the Interstate 238 corridor, the line was proposed
to join the median of Interstate 580 and continue to a station in Castro Valley. From here, the
alignment was proposed to extend approximately eight miles through Dublin Canyon to a station in
DublinjPleasanton.
.,
~
.
Five alternatives were evaluated in . the dra.tt EIR: 'illduding no action, a third station in East
DublinjPleasanton, East Dublin/Pleasanton as the second station terminus, existing line tie-in design
options, and joint development alternatives for the three stations along the extension (Bay Fair, Castro
Valley and West DublinjPleasanton).
ri
.
.
r-
f
t
The fmal EIR was released in December 1989 and the BART Board of Directors certified the EIR on
February 8, 1990. Following certification, the Board adopted the alternative that included a third
station in East Dublii1jPleasamon as the project. Following project approval, BART commenced
construction of the adopted project. Because of funding constraints, only two of the three approved
stations were constructed along the DPX extension (i.e., Castro Valley and East Dublin/Pleasamon).
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District EDAW
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village 3-7 Project Description
~.
f'
/sq
J
;,:1
The foundations for the West Dublin/Pleasanton station were put in place but the station was never ""
completed.
In an effort to fmance construction of the West Dublin/Pleasanton station, BART released a Request
for Proposals to develop the 17-acre area adjacent to the station. Mter completing a competitive
proposal process, BART entered into exclusive negotiations with Jo.nes Lang LaSalle on February 25,
1999, to assess the overall fmancial feasibility of a mixed-use development on BART property at the
West DublinjPleasanton BART Station. The mixed-use development would include construction of
the station and associated transit facilities. This initiated the public/private effort involving BART,
Jones Lang LaSalle, and the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton that addressed the following:
.
DefInition of the private development project, including incorporating a City of Dublin
and City of Pleasanton vision for the station area;
Review and refmement of all costs and revenues;
Assessment of overall project fmancial viability; and
Assessment of funding and debt service mechanisms.
.
.
.
3.4 PRO.JECT OB.JECTIVES
BART's and Jones Lang LaSalle's objectives for the proposed project include the following:
.
Create a transit-oriented development that uses the site's unique location along the
existing BART line to support public transit uses and reduce single-occupant vehicle
trips.
.
Implement a public-private partnership that combines multiple fInancing sources in
order to construct the public portions of the proposed project. These fmancing
sources would including long-term leases of BART property, contributions from the
cities of Dublin and Pleasanton of tax revenues to be generated from the private
development, BART revenues generated by the station, and other potential funding
sources.
.
Develop an intermodal facility that includes both rail and ground transport that
supports anticipated transit ridership growth and improves mobility and BART
system accessibility along the Interstate 580 corridor.
.
Complete construction of the West DublinjPleasanton BART Station in order to
fulfill the public mandate issued in November 1986 when Alameda County voters
EDAW
Project Description
3-8
San Froncisco Bay Area Rapid T ronsit District
West DublinlPleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
*
'IIi
..
~
.~
.
..
..
..
..
..
~
..
:~
.
.
..
~~
.
",j
..
..3
'.
o
~j
..
-
/(QO
approVed Measure B. One of the specific mandates of Measure B was a rail transit
extension from the BART Bay Fair station to Dublin/Pleasanton.
. Meet the objectives of BART's Strategic Plan to encourage transit-oriented
development.
. Capitalize on the investment already made in the corridor, including the foundation
already built for the station and the properties purchased to support the station.
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasonton BART Station and Transit Village
3-9
EDAW
Project Description
jUJ/
4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Sections 4.1 through 4.8 contain a discussion of the environmental setting, thresholds of significance,
environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation. The issues
evaluated in these sections consist of the significant and potentially significant environmental issue areas
identified for review in the Notice of Preparation (NOP), found in Appendix A. These sections are
organized into the following major components:
Existing Conditions: This subsection presents the eXlstmg regional and local environmental
conditions, in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines ~15125. The "Existing Conditions"
subsection describes the baseline conditions against which the environmental impacts associated with
the proposed project are assessed.
Environmental Impacts: This subsection presents thresholds of significance used in the Draft EIR
and discusses potential significant effects on the existing environment associated with the proposed
project, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines ~~15126.2(a) and 15143. The thresholds of
significance are presented at the beginning of each subsection. Project impacts are numbered
sequentially throughout these sections. That is, impacts in Section 4.2 are numbered 4.2-1, 4.2-2, 4.2-3,
ete. Impacts identified in Section 4.3 are numbered 4.3-1, 4.3-2, and so on. A bold font impact
statement precedes the discussion of each impact and provides a summary of each impact and its level
of significance. The discussion that follows the impact statement includes the substantial evidence upon
which a conclusion is made as to whether the impact would be significant or less than significant. A
discussion of cumulative impacts is provided in Chapter 6, Cumulative and Growth-Inducing Impacts.
Miti~ation Measures: This subsection provides mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant
effects associated with the proposed project to the extent feasible, in accordance with State CEQA
Guidelines ~~15002(a)(3), 15021(a)(2), and 15091(a)(1). The mitigation nuasures are numbered
corresponding to the impacts that they address. For example, Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 would mitigate
Impact 4.2-1.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: This subsection describes whether mitigation measures
would or would not reduce an impact to a less-than-significant level. This s~ction is presented in
accordance with State CEQA Guidelines ~15126.2(b), which requires identification of significant
unavoidable impacts. Significant unavoidable impacts are also summarized in Section 2.7 (Significant
and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts).
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
4-1
EDAW
Environmental Setting
r:
~
t
r
~
'ii,
..-
~ .
~
r-
r
......
t
t
f
4.1 LAND USE
Thissection contains a discussion of the existing land uses and planning setting within the proposed
project site and surrounding areas as well as an analysis of potential land use and planning impacts
associated with the proposed project.
4.1.1
EXISTING CONDITIONS
ON-SITE AND SURROUNDING LAND USES
DUBLIN PARCEL
The L-shaped Dublin parcel co~ists of10 acres (lv~cant laIld.locatedd.rrecrly north of In.terstate 580
(I-58?) b~~ee~ Interstate 680 (I -680~ ~~ .~.~.~~?nltoa~'1\ltl1?~ghtl1e D~blin Parcel is ~e~~y
vacant, the USGS 7.5-minute Dublin Quad.rangle map (1961, photorevised. 1980) id~nti1ies thesit~
as containing a drive-in theater. This drive-in theater existed on the Dublin parcel in the 1960s, and
remnants ofit are still evident ont:he northern portion of the parcel. For example, wooden posts\vit:h
electrical ourlets protrude approxiffiately 2 feet from the ground in this area. These wooden posts are
evenly spaced in rows, about 4 to 5 posts to a row, and were probably used as ourlets for speakers at
the drive-in theater. The eastern portion of the parcel is currenrly being used as a temporary gravel
parking lot for approximately 20 to 30 vehicles from an adjacent commercial building. Most of the
DribIID parcel, which issurronnded by chain link fencing except for access to the temporary parking lot,
is covered with short grasses and shrubs.
,.-,. -.._,," -. -', . ,-. . .
Dublin Creek, which is channelized through the project area, abuts the parcel to the south, while a large
Cor-Q-Van warehouse forms the western site boundary. A truck parking area used for Cor-Q-Van
trailers forms the northern boundary of me Dublin parcelwitll a Washington Mutual office building
further to the north. The eastern L-portion of the parcel is paralleled by the site access road (Golden
Gate Drive), the Golden Gate Business Park, and the Enea Retail Plaza (Exhibit 4.1-1).
The Pleasanton parcel consists of7 acres of undeveloped land, located direcrly south ofI-580. Most
of the Pleasanton parcel is covered with non-native grasses and dense areas of ornamental trees
dominated by black locusts (Robina pseudoacacia). The USGS 7.5-minute Dublin Quadrangle map
indicates that four structures existed at this location by 1961.
San Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin!Pleasonton BART Station and Transit Village
EDAW
land Use
4.1-1
) (fJ a-
- · - Project Site Boundary
Base Map Source: NBBJ. 2000.
Surrounding Land Uses
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project
IN OT012.01 11/00
NO SCALE
III
'I
iii
~ 4.1-1
~~1BiJII
iii
-'
r-
f
,
t
r,
t
r
,
,
." "
r-
f
!
r
I
L ,
r
,
r
I
~
r;
i
,
,
r
r-
r
,....
..-
t
)&'-1
Earlier topographic maps indicate thanhree of these structures existed by 1953, but apparently none
were there in 1940. The only structure currently on the property is an electrical substation, which is
'oWned and operated by BART, located on the eastern portion of the parcel. Access to this secure
substation is provided by a gravel road that traverses the Pleasanton parcel.
The Pleasanton parcel is bordered to the north by f.S80 and to the south by parking areas for the
Ston,eridge Mall complex. Office buildings and their associated parking areas border the site to the east
and to the west (Exhibit 4.1.-1).
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
The State of California requires each City and county to prepare a general plan to guide 'au physical"
, planning within their jurisdiction. General plans must contain maps, descriptions of existing and long-
term plans and goals, policies, andI~pie~~~t~ti<:>d pr6gi~~<:>racri<:>l1S. Local generalplan poli~ie;~'
as they relate to the proposed project site, are summarIzed in this section of the report.
:;. .... ,,' ->'-:i_,-.:-,': . .::...., _,......,..,. _<:C'" ':"". ':-,- -..' ,.-..:, >,',
':':";'-:",:,";"'-<.>::..: ,":'- -,'-,'.:-:"',"
CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
The City ofDublil1 General Plan, revised July 7, 1998,ideIltilies goals, policies, and programs forland
within its Primary and Extended Planning Areas. The Primary Planriing Area consists of the
inc:of}JOratedCity limits, while the EXtended PlcirmiD.g.A.fea encompasses the areasiffilliediaiely to the
east anclwest oft:h~ iIicorporatedCity 1iIIJ.its.Tl1e Eastern Extended Planning Area extends easmrard
,approximately 2 miles from Tassajara Road to the 1-580-Fallon Road Interchange. The Western
, EXt:~IidedPlaImh1g Area extends westward approrimat~iy41I1ilesfrom theCitjr of DiiblinhoU1J.darie~
to Eden Canyon. The proposed project site is located within the City limits, and more specifically,
within the Downtown Intensification Area.
Theqensral Plan has 14 land "use ca~~gories that establish consistent land uses. All projects proposed
within the City's General Plan Primary and Extended Planning Areas must conform to the land use
designation specified on the General Plan Map. The General Plan land use designation for the Dublin
parcel is Public/Semi-Public Facility (Exhibit 4.1-2). This land use designation incorporates the entire
Dublin parcel as well as a portion of land immediately north of the parcel.
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West DublinlPleasonton BART Station and Transit Village
EDAW
land Use
4.1-3
J Lo :::;
.,J,
~;
-
.
.
....,
..
..
,;~
...
III
..
d
...
..
5
~
..
..
..
..
-. - Project Site
Boundary
City of Dublin
I. : . : . : .] Public/Semi-Public Facility
k' ,,' " "I Retail/Office
!0;,'\... ~ '\1 Retail/Office & Automotive
City of Pleasanton
Public Health and Safety
Retail/Highway/Service Commercial,
Business and Professional Offices
..
Sources: NBBJ, 2000; Dublin General Plan, 1998; Pleasanton General Plan. 1996.
..
Dublin and Pleasanton General Plan Land Use Designations
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project
IN OT012.01 11/00
~ 4.1-2
..
NO SCALE
~SIliBl
..
juLt
Areas designated Retail/Office surround the Dublin parcel to the north, east, and west, while a small
area designated Retail/Office & Automotive lies to the north (Exhibit 4.1-2). These land use
designations are defined by the General Plan as follows (City of Dublin, 1998):
Public/Semi-Public Facility: This designation identifies areas where governmental or
institutional type uses are anticipated, excluding parks owned by a public agency. These uses
must also be of sufficient size to warrant differentiation from adjoining uses. Development of
housing on a site designated on the General Plan as semi-public is considered consistent with
the General Plan. Determination as to whether housing should be permitted on a specific semi-
public site and the acceptable density and design will be through review of a Planned Unit
Development proposal under the Zoning Ordinance. Floor Area Ratios (F ARs) are intended
to be greater than 0.25 but not exceed 0.40. The appropriate employee density is 590 square
feet per employee. Examples ofland uses designated as Public/Semi-Public Facility iii the
General Plan include public and private schools, churches, the Civic Center, and BART parking
at the proposed project site.
Retail/Office: Shopping centers, restaurants, business and professional offices, motds, service
stations, and sale of auto parts are included in this classification. Residential use is excluded
except in the Downtown Intensification Area. FARs should be greater than 0.25 but not
exceed 0.50. The appropriate employee density ranges from 200-450 square feet per employee.
Retail/Office & Automotive: This classification includes all retail/office uses and adds auto
dealerships, auto body shops, and similar uses. Residential uses are not permitted. F ARs
should be greater than 0.25 but not exceed 0.50. The appropriate employee density ranges
from 220 to 490 square feet per employee.
PROPOSED WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
. . . . _,", :,: ..... ;__:_.:.::::..:.0""<:':>"":. .:.:,', ,'::.:..", .,,:./";"-'._.,' ::<:...>:::;.-:..,.....:.(:..,.....f.'.....:,i ..
The proposed West Dublin BART Specific Plan is one of three specific plan documents developeclfor
the central urbanized area of the City of Dublin that address the future development in the downtown
area of the City. Two other specific plan documents, the Downtown Core Specific Plan and the Village
Parkway Specific Plan, have also been developed to address other sections in the downtown area. The
Specific Plans are intended to direct the use of land, the design of public improvements, and the design
and appearance of private and public development, including buildings, parking areas, signs and
landscaping. Goals and objectives are included in the planning document to assist in fulfilling the intent
of the Plan. Design Guidelines are also established in the context of the Plan to assist in guiding the
design quality of the area's development.
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
4.1-5
EDAW
Land Use
The proposed West Dublin BART Specific Plan has not yet been adopted by the City of Dublin. The
adoption of the proposed West Dublin BART Specific Plan by the Dublin City Council will require
a General Plan Amendment to accommodate the proposed land use changes proposed within the
Specific Plan Area. Additionally, the portions of the previously adopted (1987) Downtown Specific
Plan located within the proposed West Dublin BART Specific Plan will require amendment to account
for the new Specific Plan designation. Following Plan adoption, amendment of the City's Zoning
Ordinance will be necessary for consistency with the General Plan (in order to ensure consistency
between the new land use designations and parcel zoning).
The proposed West Dublin BART Specific Plan area is generally located between 1-580 to the south
and Dublin Boulevard to the north (Exhibit 4.1-3). San Ramon Road lies to the west of the area, and
properties on the west side of Golden Gate Avenue are included in the plan area. The area consists of
approximately 70 acres of commercial, office and light industrial land uses. The West
DublinfPleasanton BART Station and Transit Village project is central to the Plan Area.
The proposed West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area is intended to be a high-intensity mixed-use area,
capitalizing on regional transit linkages provided by both the BART line and supported by nearby
freeways (1-580 and 1-680). Within the proposed West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area, a mixture
of low-rise and mid-rise buildings housing residences, offices, specialty retail, lodging, restaurant and
similar uses are planned that are consistent with a transit-oriented area. In some instances, single land
uses are located on a single site; however, thete are many mixed use developments. The proposed West
Dublin BART Specific Plan Area also offers an opportunity to create a "window" into the City of
Dublin. The proposed West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area, the Downtown Core Specific Plan Area
(directly contiguous to the north) and the Village Parkway Specific Plan Area (to the east) represent
what remains of the original "downtown" commercial area of the City of Dublin. The maximum
amount of development in the proposed West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area is anticipated to be
1,750,055 square feet of non-residential space and 491 residential dwellings.
THE CITY OF PLEASANTON GENERAL PLAN
The City of Pleasant on General Plan, adopted August 6,1996, identifies goals, policies, and programs
for land within its Planning Area. The General Plan Planning Area includes the City of Pleasanton's
27,200-acre Sphere of Influence (SOl), the 14,300-acre incorporated City limits, and areas within the
jurisdiction of Alameda County that have been given land use designations on the Pleasanton General
Plan Map. The Sphere of Influence represents "the probable ultimate physical boundary and service
area" of the City of Pleasanton and contains unincorporated lands over which Alameda County has
zoning control (Sphere-aI-Influence for the Amador Valley, Alameda County Local Agency Formation
EDAW
Land Use
4.1-6
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
/ !..o I
-<f'iit
..
iii
~
..
,.
.i
;;t
..
.
.I
III
lIIIi
~
..
~
.
'-~
...
III
...
.
..
.II
..
.
-- ~
r-. -~ I
L--~ ~
J _ ~
~i
..l-/, ."".--: ~\.
~ \ i
! ~1 \ \~ ~~
(U ~ \--1.._1.-
'--
COM B)
(0)
(RIO)
LEGEND
~
l
i
I
\
,
....---;
~\
1"-,1 !
DUBUN
\
i
\
. \
~
($
(COM A)
J(P8
\------'
. \. \ \ .......
~:~ \ t \ .~
\ j \ fl, Q~ \ -----L--,..-
~\ L-.l -~ \..
,
,
,
(0)
BOULEVARD
=
(0)
.-/ .--."
\ r
~ .
~
(RJA)
.... FUTURE ST. ...
. @
( (COMB) J
- - -- SPECIAC PLAN BOUNDARY
( > USE N3 NOTED
* POTENTIAL PLAZA LOCAllON
~ OPPORTUNITY SITE
(P) PARKING) MIXED USE
(L) HOTEL
".........
(MU)
(COM B)
(0)
(RIO)
(R)
(RIA)
(COM A)
(8.)
(RIO)
(L)
.
(P)
I~ I I;: HSTAT.E..b.8.0
~
---:,
, '.
".
'"
.....,,~
MIXED USE
COMMERCIAL B
OFFICE
RETAlUOFFICE
RESIDENTIAL
RETAlUAUTO
COMMERCIAL A
Land Use Designations, West BART Portion of Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area
~ 4.1-3
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project
IN OT012.01 11/00
NO SCALE ~ ~ IIiIII
Commission). The City of Pleasanton exercises zoning control and provides public services to areas
included within the City limits. The proposed project is located within the City limits.
The General Plan has 14 land use categories that establish consistent land uses. All projects proposed
within the City's General Plan Planning Area must conform to the land use designation specified on
the General Plan Map. The Pleasanton parcel's General Plan land use designation is Retail/
Highway/Service Commercial, Business and Professional Offices (Exhibit 4.1-2). This land use
designation surrounds the Pleasanton parcel to the east, west, and south, while Public Health and Safety
areas are found near the I-580 interchanges with I-680 and Foothill Road (Exhibit 4.1-2). These land
use designations are defmed by the General Plan as follows (City of Pleasanton, 1996):
Retail/Highway/Service Commercial, Business and Professional Offices: Floor Area Ratios
(FARs) not to exceed 0.6, except for hotels or motels which should not exceed 0.7, and projects
within the Central Business District (CBD), which should not exceed 2.0. Certain uses, such
as warehouses, where employee density and traffic generation are minimal, may be allowed with
higher FARs provided they are submitted as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and meet
all other City requirements.
Public Health and Safety: Land set aside for the protection of the public health due to
geologic, topographic, fire, or other hazards. No development is allowed in these areas other
than one single-family unit on existing lots of record as of September 16, 1986, which meet
City requirements for access, building site, and architectural design, ete.
ZONING DESIGNATIONS
CITY OF DUBLIN
Zoning for the Dublin parcel is governed by the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, adopted in
September 1997. The zoning designation for the majority of the Dublin parcel is M-l (Light
Industrial) (Exhibit 4.1-4). East of Golden Gate Drive, the Dublin Parcel is zoned C-2 (Regional
Commercial). The M-1 zoning district surrounds the Dublin parcel to the north and west, while the
C-2 designation surrounds the site to the east (Exhibit 4.1-4). The C-1 (Commercial) zoning district
can be found further west of the site. These zoning designations are defined by the City Zoning
Ordinance as follows (City of Dublin, 1997):
EDAW
Land Use
4.1-8
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
10q
~
..
11III
"'1/
,.
11III
III
.~
..
.
.If
iii
~
iii
...
;~
..
..
:~
III
J
..
...
.II
~
..
.
r-
-. - Project Site
Boundary
City of Dublin
r> > >1 C-1 r .: " ~ I P-D
~C-2
I- _ - . - .1 M- 1
City of Pleasanton
1:-: -: -: -: I C-R (m)
C-R (p)
PU D-C-O
Sources: NBBJ, 2000; Dublin Zoning Ordinance, 1997; Pleasanton Zoning Ordinance, 1960; Ordinance No. 1014, 1982.
r
f Dublin and Pleasanton Zoning Designations
~ 4.1-4
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project
IN OT012.01 8/00
NO SCALE
rn~1mDI
M-l (Light Industrial): The M-l wning district is intended to provide for the continued use,
expansion, and new development of light industrial use types in proximity to major
transportation corridors, and to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential and commercial
uses. Use types permitted in this zoning district include: ambulance service; laboratories;
offices; light industrial; printing or publishing; storage of petroleum products for on-site use;
and warehouse and distributing. Open areas used for parking and loading of vehicles shall be
enclosed by a solid wall or fence not less than 6 feet in height. All open storage and parking
areas shall be paved with an all-weather paving and adequately watered and maintained. A
landscape buffer 10 feet wide shall be provided along all roadways which shall be adequately
watered and maintained. The M-l zoning district is consistent with the Business
ParkjIndustrial and Industrial Park designations of the General Plan.
C-l (Commercial): The C-l wning district is intended to provide for the continued use,
expansion, and new development of general commercial use types along major transportation
corridors and intersections, and to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential and
commercial uses. Use types permitted in this zoning district include: banks and fmancial
services; eating and drinking establishments; offices; parking lots and garages for commercial
uses; and retail services. All use types permitted in the C-l zoning district shall be conducted
entirely within a building with the exception of parking lots and garages for commercial
purposes. The C-l wning district is consistent with the Retail/Office and General Commercial
designations of the General Plan.
C-2 (Regional Commercial): The C-2 wning district is intended to provide for the continued
use, expansion, and new development of general commercial use types along major
transportation corridors and intersections, and to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential
and commercial uses. Use types permitted in this wning district include: automobile
brokerage, rental, repairs and service; banks and fmancial services; building materials sales;
eating and drinking establishments; health services/clinics; offices; parking lots; retail services;
and commercial schools. All use types permitted in the C-2 zoning district shall be conducted
entirely within a building with the exception of the automobile-related use types and parking
lots. The C-2 zoning district is consistent with the Retail/Office, Retail/Office and
Automotive, and General Commercial designations of the General Plan.
Following adoption of the Proposed West Dublin BART Specific Plan, the wning designations for the
site would be changed to reflect the new land use designations for the site.
EDAW
land Use
4.1-10
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid T ramit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
II I
i~
.
J
','I
.
~
.
,:1
4
..
Ii
lIIIill
..
,~
.
J
..
..
..
iii
:~
...
,.
.
iii
.II
.
..
/ I c;...
CITY OF PLEASANTON
Zoning for the City of Pleasanton is governed by the City of Pleasanton Zoning Ordinance, adopted
in April 1960. The zoning designation for the Pleasanton parcel is governed by Ordinance No. 1014
(January 1982), which approved the rezoning of a 91.5-acre site from High Density Residential
(HDR) and Open Space (OS) to Planned Unit Development-Commercial and Offices (PUD-C-O).
This site, which is bounded by Stoneridge Drive, Stoneridge Mall Road, 1-580 and 1-680, includes the
entire Pleasanton parcel as well as the land directly southeast of the site (Exhibit 4.1-4). Two
commercial zoning designations border the Pleasanton parcel to the west, C-R (m) (Commercial-
Regional (enclosed mall)) and C-R (p) (Commercial-Regional (peripheral area)). The PUD-GO, C-R
(m), and GR (p) zoning designations are defmed by the City Zoning Ordinance and Ordinance No.
1014 as follows:
PUD-C-O (Planned Unit Development-Commercial-Office): Ordinance No. 1014 specifies
the applicable zoning guidelines for the 91.5 acre site that incorporates the entire Pleasanton
parcel. The Daon Corporation applied for the rezoning of this site for the development of an
office/commercial/residential complex. Although the Daon Corporation no longer owns the
area referred to in this EIR as "the pleasanton parcel," the zoning guidelines set forth by
Ordinance No. 1014 for the PUD-GO zoning district are still applicable to the entire 91.5 acre
site, including the Pleasanton parcel of the project site. Ordinance No. 1014 states that "all
buildings (proposed on the subject property) and all individual site landscaping and parking
shall require approval by the Design Review Board prior to issuance of building permits." In
addition, no buildings shall be over five stories in height. Use types permitted within this
zoning district, subject to approval by the Design Review Board, include commercial buildings,
office complexes, and residential developments.
C-R (m) (Commercial-Regional (enclosed mall)): The purpose of this designation is to
provide a large site at an appropriate location for a major shopping center drawing trade from
the entire Amador-Livermore Valley as well as to ensure that a major center will be developed
in accordance with high standards of site planning, architecture, and landscape design. The (m)
designation is intended for uses that are part of a completely enclosed mall complex, for which
all activities take place entirely indoors. Permitted uses include: Appliance sales and repair; art
galleries; automobile rental, sales, and supply stores (not service shops); beauty shops; bowling
alleys; department stores; and photographic studios and supply stores.
C-R (p) (Commercial-Regional (peripheral area)): The purpose of this designation is to
also provide a large site at an appropriate location for a major shopping center drawing trade
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
4.1-11
EDAW
land Use
from the entire Amador-Livermore Valley as well as to ensure that a major center will be
developed in accordance with high standards of site planning, architecture, and landscape
design. The (p) designation is intended for uses on peripheral sites physically separated from
a central enclosed mall. Permitted uses include: automobile sales and service shops; bus depots;
laboratories; office buildings; variety stores; and wholesale establishments.
RELEVANT GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
The following City of Dublin General Plan Land Use and Circulation Policies are relevant to the
discussion of land use:
Policy 2.2.1-A:
Intensify Downtown Dublin. Provisions will be made to accommodate a
future transit station (BART) in the downtown area.
Policy 2.2.1-C:
Provide a downtown BART station that will serve customers and workers
with and without cars. Add offices and apartments within walking distance
and eventually over BART parking.
Policy 2.2.1-D:
Encourage mid-rise office/apartment buildings and parking structures with
ground floor retail space. Create store-lines pedestrian connections between
existing shopping centers.
CITY OF PLEASANTON GENERAL PLAN
The following City of Pleasant on General Plan Land Use Policy and Programs are relevant to the
discussion of land use:
Policy 6:
Encourage industrial, commercial, and office development which is compatible with
environmental constraints in Pleasanton.
Program 6.1: Monitor the effects of commercial and industrial development on an ongoing basis
to measure compliance with City standards and conditions of development approvaL
Program 6.2: Encourage business parks and large employers to provide on-site child care facilities.
EDAW
land Use
4.1-12
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
/13
:,~
..
III
...
..
iii
J
..
..
..
J
..
*
..
,r~' ."
,
..
.i
IIIli
1l
III
III
..
...
..
/I~
Program 6.3: Promote the location of business services in Pleasanton to support industrial,
commercial, and office complexes.
4.1.2 Environmental Impacts
Thresholds of Significance
The proposed project would have a significant impact on land use if it would:
~ physically divide an established community; or
~ conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or roning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact.
PROJECT IMPACTS
ComTJatibilitv with SurroundinR Land Uses - Dublin Parcel. The proposed
project would include a residential complex, a hotel, and associated parking
facilities on the Dublin parcel in an area surrounded by commercial and office
uses as well as the Cor-Q-Van warehouse building. These surrounding uses only
operate during the day and, thus, would not be expected to generate noise or
traffic during the nighttime hours that could disrupt residents and hotel guests
(Noise is evaluated separately in Section 4.3). There is no direct access to the
warehouse building through the site. In addition, the proposed design for the
residential complex is focused toward Golden Gate Drive with parking located to
the rear in order to provide a pedestrian orientation within a commercially-
developed area. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-
significant land use compatibility impact related to development on the Dublin
parcel.
Impact
4.1-1
The Dublin parcel is currently surrounded by a Cor-O- V an warehouse building to the west, a parking
area used for Cor-O- Van trailers to the north, and commercial and office buildings located further
north and to the east (See Exhibit 4.1-1). The proposed BART parking structure would be located on
the easternmost portion of the site, near existing parking areas for commercial and office-related uses.
Both the residential complex and the hotel would be developed in close proximity to the Cor-O- Van
warehouse building; however, no significant land use compatibility issues would be expected. No
access road to this building exists within the project site, so trailers transporting merchandise to and
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
4.1-13
EDAW
Land Use
from the Cor-O-Van warehouse would not create a substantial noise or traffic-related disturbance for
residents. In addition, the proposed design of the residential complex is focused toward Golden Gate
Drive with parking located to the rear in order to provide more of a pedestrian orientation within the
surrounding commercial area. Also, the central courtyard design of the building would provide a more
residential setting for the occupants than what currently exists in the local area and would shift their
focus away from the adjacent warehouse building and truck parking lot.
The siting of the hotel development near 1-580 would encourage hotel guests to utilize BART's system
of public transportation. Although hotel guests might be affected by traffic noise on 1-580, this
potential impact would be considered noise-related and is discussed in further detail in Section 4.3. The
commercial and office buildings located to the north and east of the project site only operate during
the day, so operational noise and traffic generated by these uses would not be expected during the
nighttime hours when people are more sensitive to noise. In addition, there are no adjacent industrial
uses or sources of hazardous materials that would directly affect the compatibility of the proposed
residential uses within the surrounding area. The proposed project, therefore, would have a less-than-
significant land use compatibility impact related to development on the Dublin parcel.
Compatibility with Surroundinf! Land Uses - Pleasanton Parcel. Land uses
surrounding the parcel include office buildings to the west and east and the
Stoneridge Mall and associated parking facilities to the south. Development of
the proposed project would be consistent with these surrounding land uses.
Therefore, no impacts related to compatibility with surrounding land uses would
be anticipated.
Impact
4.1-2
The Pleasanton parcel is surrounded by office buildings to the west and east and the Stoneridge Mall
and associated parking facilities to the south (See Exhibit 4.1-1). The development of a 5-story office
building on the Pleasanton parcel would be consistent with the office type uses that currently surround
the project site. The proposed parking facilities for the Pleasanton parcel (i.e., the BART parking
structure and the parking lots for the office building) would be located near existing parking facilities.
Therefore, the proposed land uses for the Pleasanton parcel would be consistent with existing land uses
surrounding the project site. In addition, developing a BART Station within walking distance from
the Stoneridge Mall would encourage patrons and employees of the mall and offices to utilize public
transportation, which in effect, would reduce traffic congestion within the area. No impacts related
to land use compatibility would be anticipated with project implementation.
EDAW
land Use
4.1-14
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
I-IS-
..
III
..
''>'I
1
III
:~
..
III
..
III
,"
c-lj!
.II
IIii
i
:g
IlII
...
.J~
..
'lI
III
III
.~
..
..
j
wi
. ~
lllIi
Impact
4.1-3
/,l{J
Consistency with General Plan - City of Dublin. The proposed hotel and
residential uses would be inconsistent with the current Public/Semi-Public land
use designation and the Light Industrial and Regional Commercial zoning
designations for the site. These inconsistencies with existing land use plans
would be removed if the proposed West Dublin BART Specific Plan and related
changes to the City of Dublin General Plan, Downtown Core Specific Plan, and
zoning designation of the project site are adopted as proposed. If the proposed
West Dublin BART Specific Plan is not adopted, the Dublin General Plan,
Downtown Core Specific PTan and zoning designation for the site must be
amended to accommodate the residential and hotel uses. In either case, the
residential and hotel uses shall not be constructed on the Dublin parcel until
these changes to existing land use requirements have been adopted.
Accordingly, this impact would be less than significant.
The Dublin parcel is currently designated Public/Semi-Public Facility by the Dublin General Plan. This
land use designation was assigned to the Dublin parcel with the intent of developing future BART
parking facilities at this location. A parking structure for BART patrons is, indeed, proposed on the
l)ublirlParcel as ""ell.as (l160~1.11ritf(~sid~ntial~omplex and a 240-room hotel. According to the Dublin
General Plan, the Public/Semi-Public Facility designation is intended for uses owned by a public
agency, other than parks, that are of sufficient size to warrant differentiation from adjoining uses.
Although the parking facilities would be consistent, the residential and hotel land uses would not be
considered compatible with the Public/Semi-Public designation. This inconsistency would be removed
if the proposed West Dublin BART Specific Plan and related changes to the City of Dublin General
Plan, Downtown Core Specific Plan, and wning designation of the project site are adopted as
proposed. If the proposed West Dublin BART Specific Plan is not adopted, the Dublin General Plan,
Downtown Core Specific Plan and wning designation for the site must be amended to accommodate
the residential and hotel uses. In either case, the residential and hotel uses shall not be constructed on
the Dublin parcel until these changes to existing land use requirements have been adopted.
Accordingly, this impact would be less than significant.
Impact
4.1-4
Consistency with General Plan - City of Pleasanton. The Retail/Highway/
Service Commercial, Business and Professional Offices land use designation for
the Pleasanton parcel was designed specifically for commercial and office type
development near major highway centers. Therefore, the proposed project would
be consistent with this land use designation. No impacts related to consistency
with the Pleasanton General Plan would be anticipated with development of the
Pleasanton parcel.
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
4.1-15
EDAW
Land Use
1/1
;$
...
The Pleasanton parcel is currently designated RetailjHighwayjService Commercial, Business and
Professional Offices. This land use designation was specifically designed for commercial and office type
development, including parking structures, located near major highways. The proposed project would
develop a 170,000-square-foot office building and parking facilities on the Pleasanton parcel directly
south of 1-580. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the Pleasanton General Plan.
In addition, the proposed office uses and parking structure would be developed with the appropriate
Floor Area Ratios (FARs) for this land use designation (FAR not to exceed 0.6). No impacts related
to consistency with the Pleasanton General Plan would be anticipated with development of the
Pleasanton parcel.
..
~~
.
..
.
4.'1.3 MITIGATION MEASURES
.
No mitigation measures would ne necessary.
;~
IliiI
4. '1.4 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
,04
.
No significant land use impacts would be anticipated with implementation of the proposed project. ..
..
,1ll
till
'I~
..
III
~'
j~
III
..
!III
..
EDAW
land Use
III
4.1-16
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
~
lIIIlIiI
/78
4.2 HYDROLOGY Al\TDWATER QUALITY
The discussion of hydrology and water quality issues within the project area was developed through
a review of existing literature pertinent to hydrology in the local area as well as a review of the DPX
EIR and the Water Resources Technical Report conducted for the DPX Project (Woodward-Clyde
Consulting, 1989).
4.2.1
EXISTING CONDITIONS
.,
...
CLIMATE
The climate of the Livermore- Amador Valley is characterized as Mediterranean, with cool wet winters
and warm dry summers. The average annual temperature of the area ranges from a low of 42 degrees
(Fahrenheit) to a high of 73 degrees. The mean annual rainfall in the vicinity of the project site, the
majority of which falls between October and April, is approximately 17 inches. Analysis of long-term
precipitation records indicates that wetter and drier cycles lasting several years are common in the
region. Severe, damaging rainstorms occur at a frequency of about once every 3 years.
SURFACE WATER
The project site is located on the western margin of the Livermore-Amador Valley hydrologic region.
The site is relatively flat, with the predominant topographic features consisting of several 5- to 10-foot-
high soil mounds located on both parcels. Ground surface elevations range from a low of
approximately 340 feet above mean sea level along the eastern edge of the site to approximately 350
feet above mean sea level along the western edge of the project site. Because of the flat character of
both parcels, precipitation generally infiltrates into the site's soils during storm events. On the Dublin
parcel, the stormwater that does drain off the site generally flows to the east into existing storm drains
within Golden Gate Drive and to the south into Dublin Creek. Dublin Creek is. an open channel that
forms the southern boundary of the Dublin parcel. Dublin Creek drains an area of approximately 3.7
square miles, with a design peak flow of 1649 cubic feet per second (Woodward-Clyde Consultants,
1989). Dublin Creek is the on1y sUrface water feature located adjacent to the project site. On the
Pleasanton parcel, any stormwater discharge flows east either into existing storm drains within the
adjacent parking lots or into a small drainage culvert paralleling the southbound ramp connecting
Interstate 580 and Interstate 680. This stormwater evenmally flows into the local creek system.
Dublin Creek conveys runoff from the Donlan and Devaney hills to the west, and flows east through
the project area until its confluence with Alamo Creek east of the 1-580/1-680 Interchange. From this
r
t
San Froncisco Boy Area Rapid T ronsit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and T ronsit Village
4.2-1
EDAW
Hydrology and Water Quality
confluence, Alamo Canal, as it is referred to in this area, flows south into Arroyo de la Laguna and
Alameda Creek. Water flowing in these creeks eventually discharges into San Francisco Bay through
the Coyote Hills Alameda County Flood Control Channel. Hydrologic features of the area, including
the creeks and nearby flood-prone locations (discussed below), are identified in Exhibit 4.2-1.
In an undeveloped setting, when rainfall intensities exceed the infiltration capacity of surface soils, run-
off flows over the ground surfaces toward established natural drainage channels. Stormwater runoff
is then conveyed away from the area in creeks and streams. In a developed setting, an increased portion
of the natural soils would be covered with impervious surfaces (i.e., roads, driveways, and roofs),
increasing amounts and altering flow patterns of runoff. In developed portions of Dublin and
Pleasanton, storm drainage is conveyed in underground pipes, channels, and, to a lesser extent, swales.
New development is required to install adequately-sized storm drains, connected to the cities' systems,
to accommodate increased runoff volumes.
FLOODING
The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area, as delineated on the IOO-year flood
zone maps included in the general plans for the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton. According to these
maps, peak stormwater flows would remain within the defmed channel of Dublin Creek within the
project area. Slightly northeast of the project site, the 500-year floodplain extends beyond the flood
control channel. This area does not include the project site and should not affect the proposed
development on the Dublin parcel (Exhibit 4.2-1).
Within the vicinity of the proposed project, the IOO-year and 500-year flood hazard zones extend east
of 1-680 past Hopyard Road (Exhibit 4.2-1). These flood hazard areas are located downstream of
Dublin Creek and are predominately associated with the Alamo and Chabot canals located east of 1-
680.
GROUNDWATER
The project site is located within the Livermore Valley groundwater basin, which covers an area of
approximately 582 square miles. It extends from San Ramon on the north to just north of the southern
EDAW
Hydrology and Water Quality
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
4.2-2 West Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
Jt C;
.
..
IIIIi
..
'11
...
...
.I
iii
...
.i
..
..
..
J
.:I
,i
..
;j
..
J
;,~
..
..
-:~~~"
'0'-""
.71
"-\~CZ'
, " 0
\\_'1 ~
_~.lJtlsta ,~,o'
-~i:>
- 97 = .::::::=l -,;:_ _J:;;::=:;. _ ~ === ___ rn-T- - _.::::;:;:; _ ,,:;:::;r; _ _ ~ _,~ ~
;~' , ,--:i..-:;I\ )~-- 7\~ ~-~ ';')"'"'"7 ... \'..::\~ '1,.;:s '\1,"'. ,(-,~,__ r;'#, -?(/~/~ -'"^> 'It> ~
c:-"_ --... ~-' \;( ....:, ?.?o'J \ -') ) t,....-:: 1_ -" ~\ ~oo ',' I, ( ,i. I /1 r ) I/<$>o r---?_ "\
o'~~r ,/ -" 6'11"" \. J J ./ ~\~L '1 > \ 1// ~__I,_~) \ ./,'1/11'/' (\ ~.<:."~l')\\)"
.;.c.,;'/~.,';<}.:, ,~~ ,,> h)!i~~"P ~-',(~ :,,- '{5;'}:<-:, ,J.>!i( "<" I '.:~'.',,~.
~'''~'~....Ci_ /1' I ll/~_ ',',\ ,~__ 1/./ ~f(!,:fSphngs.~/)/ (\\,,~ '
. '.-,:-;;.~',"q~,,(::,,,,-' ", li~.( /~:; '" I. di~"'<\. ~<,'~,i'-),:!, ,.' ," "'~" I 117
,:.:{.:: 'Si : ~i-J ;' >~~:';I .J I ' . ';,'j-;;-J2~< "'iJ,/ ,:, '~' \' . - '/ . ,I ~
ii, '''I, ,~Il>', ,,' '", " 'f" ';", "1 ~",., ,\,'~" .', J '\
,-_;(-;_1:::>[' 3 ,J l:~":' ,: . "7.. 'I;J r ~ \ II} ,.t// r,'5$~" 'I )_,:. -\,~ ~ (
\ \ \..,,- . 0 1\ ,;'--.., \ 11ft. ;)"11) "\: ' \~ Ii':' j} I! '" - ,:-111 )~ -=~ ') ) \/s~~'--J
\ ~ -" 1 ~ .. 1.,1 (' ~~ ..,,,,~ 'I '\ #, - /'f.)" \
", - "",' ,,' /}, I ~~'f"- '" .' " "/;; ,__, ,"(,
) ~'>I '."\' ,>1" ,"'/~~/--::I\<>'~\1~f:~,(~hl''',___ i/"'~(~-:=-~~i/-,-~,J?\.
^ 1 " ) "I" I I , ., , ~~' L) I "o~,.o.,_ ." 1 \ \ \.,! r ' _
'--;" Q r /1 '-'i- ..I) ~i! ; ~,,;j "'\::,,~\ \,,'-_~I '/00\' .
, 0; \ ' ~-f - ;.:1 \,'~I ,,(, \/,/C. \', ~'O"'~NI~/~~ ~
.' \:' '~ ,-k' ,,\"~ I' ,:' )):%"'1.C,"/c6>;' l'k~-D ,1'/, ,\\
' ,/P '~~" r '-;\c/l, rJ, ',- ,: ,/I..-",h, ll?;lQ...... 'U~'f) I ,...1 it!
1""'" ----"" )) <~ ~f" ~,/' '-- -/1 J/.tJ~;...>:::"\V_' 11 fIr; (1; ~I
':'/-\-::\-"f>.'~-'--':-';SL~ /''-'""1,, /\ I. ~~/'i]\\' Ii;,' ~:J}IJ,'I\t'l
\((,:-;'1\<, (~i) ~.,. .," / \<",~.,,/ho.. - -fl.-i(:;', ';"'-:~)i\ ))',I/In.'k'~'\
,~((C~~~~\> ~~ o<<~''"l \i,/~!.-:: Q~~l /~'~ '~:I;:' ~""H!) \'/',?;Y:/r,{,~!l~-)~)\
~ ~' - \ )ll\!.. lL--H r -:~ ^}//';''''4:''",~ JI ",-~o \"J~I'\ l "/.'> ~\" \' ~
" J~--'~\"L~ ~"'-;'Lf{ / "'~::~r'<"-",-J':'" \\ 1\1 \\,j<;--;:- OJI\(
v"~fi"j),,~\", )1"~: \ ". ,l :>';\",,'J ,',,/1(,,,,/ +riifil
, \"-"%"07 .., I' A ~ I' ' ~,,;::....='" ,.
~ ,.',:I,R . "'M V' N ~ "'):"/', /,..\ h",'\
II' 1_'1 'l~.../!il ~ _ ""#, 1,1 )\:~ ";7/-:'_"'J?~\"","",,
';, I(A'M,P'-,D0) .;;;). .)/ ";11' ( \)1(7',\ (,/',::")'
'" . -. 1/ ~ ('. n ,) i1\TASSAJAR~EEk'.
" " ~ '/~' "",.o,,e.'.>,A I i\'I P -1'/ \ \ '; <~ ;,"rJ~( '~\J /."
n mon-" ! ! IIal . Il" ~ . cA I( ,J ! r / C,! ( {!(~.,.
~l!age "'''' '~Lz : : .~^J^"'~ ~'oo~:;~OOI-:1 ) J,I"" ) \_~~~ '~,~,'t
\"' ",:)~,,,~ ~;; _ ., \i:r: - (, '/I~ ',11, ,j
\J3j J. -7 :. _ ~" ::., r- \,;8') --.--,J',I
'l '. ,I . ~ I r..... ' I -J '
'-' I w ;.7 .' ,-/((./)1
- I - ' '< :~k:
f-., .~
(J. L' II ''''J.,------=. ~
: r..~=== .". "'~ao___
1, /
, "
"
" ...,,,,,,,""\
'. ~\. . .......; \
\~\- '''0 I ;1'
~ '-- ~ / -, "', ~ // ..
Z;-.......-'":~ '), le...- ' .\O[~ \ '.01 . ~\
--;- ~-", J~ /I-d I
. C,,' :~~~ '~,";\1~ it\' '"
,j <,>" > .:~/:::: ~, J
'i\~;;"f:::::?~;;~j ~~--,
~?':~~>:-:,.) ^'?6~,), .....~
;~~; ;c" );}'~fr~
',;'::"~j
~'~(~~ {
\, t'~;,,,,,,," ~ '?':.:':~i'i:'t ',~
II . "'if" 'S:,I~: ~;;.:;:Lo;jj ~;j ~~I F\ ,.:e~",,:,c~~:.
~ ~.,;,1 !ic;' ~ ,.~ ",%;,.;1 ? I,' K;;.. ,'",,; "
,~~~:~ /-:;- ~:~ i~-N- ",. r .' I ~.: /::p:f2K,:;'
'~:,~l~l "/1( ~~'~l(it ,,,,:-jJ
.'.' m I ',.
l,~ l~ ~~:
'," 'J'i '"v;~,r. ",-., ,,-. '..,., (I ... -:-:<-:
'~ ~"i'\'( ,,: ir'/% :::(. ~ ' I. .,' ,:~ .... .., .
...~l:.:.,,' :"::'" ','-'. '~.~ :.:r'I, '1 .. .. ....
<.,. :- .... ....,. .J,. 'r:~' y/ .,....... ...;........~.
i .fC-.; )i~~" ..c;..;'>-........ .
:~>';Q---;{:'( _o.::~4 ~o.).6.i:l '~,' I; .,:~\t~\I~' .~ < ',." J. >;~,.~~I:-?<~
Ii ~,\~ I""J. ""/:'S-~'j?:IL ',-. ,e;, .)/!{;";;;.;~J'i 1; ~"i;~:.'.../ .. ~ .. ,II, :::
iH."i,l":O:.' .'~' '\. ;':i...;; 1,)}{iyj(1 :,.";,,>; ";~,> ~..Ai;~:A:<~:~~>::'~~. ~ri~)..
""';'~ ;~::~ /1'.:dP<."-. ( ",.", ,I,' . ~"~ . . . . . " : '1' . . ..
~~'~K.~~' ~ " ~'_':;'~TW!;;:\ i, "t2 ill b{:t~;~~i: .':' .., .~~:~:::~~,:':::::~it::::t~.....::.
;,~ 02.....t~,~ I Project Site ~ i~ J'f< ." . .'., ':,-:<':-:-:-:~'~l:~:':W:-:-.i';>.'
:,;,~Gt-"~"(f:';O.?:)'" F9 ::::::::::::::: ~ i;jS \1~j~\;~.. ....'(:..:I.::::L;~,;<:7:::!i:;(2:;.j .A
.<' ..... ~:i~i~:m (~<>~( (~( ,'..' .. . . . ~ .. ... . t........... .. ..,
(,;;, ,;; :,Y" ':~:,o:~':~:~::::~~,'::::~~j," ~r ~}~;;~i \\)~>, :1. ,\: ~\: ~::r"'" ,. .t~~: ~\~1.~
",ii'- ':..) ;::> '.,"',\\,:"\'~",~\._,,., " .~ i/..,.,.....;"I!,i"i:,~. .\1 :.\.'....,s. ~\. ;, . _ .. .' ," i ,~"".. _ I:, n".~q".
-
~ <~:-:
?-:,'~)/' J
~, \ ''-:~
)),_, ", ) \ ...).".o.1/}
~~~~~\i~
8} "', '.-". 0-:.- \ ~ '..
I~i:~~~~~',
~-:-::;)J'~ -'. .,.",,'t\'>1k'" ,:>;~>''''---'-' \",/ )
J<~~ "',,,,, ;',i,~s~~:~~~;l~~~~" '. '..\:.
I~~~';:':/).... . ,t\''i:;\:;K;!:.': ,!,l;,l..- ,{~:,,-,. '.. i \ ..
I~~~~~:~,~~r~."~:~:)\~:\~~~~~:? ~t:\'>:..",
i110;;~ \,\~\~.~ ,'."' " ",'.
)1:\'(' . '::';:0:0::000' fI \ \~..- '<::" .:.,) '1.<<' .
~~~~\\ ",:7t:ijr~~~~~\~ ~}~~:;~~~'~i>>~~:~' ; i
~Ji/ 'f~'':;'',''>'''~\~ 'j\ '. t. '-
?~;~~0~~~~A/;~~\':1~i~~~:~f.:"~'~~~t) "
:~ 1""\\'" 'eI,,",\. ,--. ..,.....:")j'.\ ,,\ (.I:, .
~"<.. .,~' "~.. "~'~~i' '~\' ,,~....::.c,)n i,i., .-
,\" \ \'>:"!~ :-.. --' ;!' .<;;_... '. ',"
~-~" '\':~,,~<;,\,~~~' -.~~':~-'J;.-~:,::},,}~~~-'II~l\I:}rJ;
:f.~ - ./ i I \ ~d"<~::-..... ~ ...J j.: .., I jl \ ~i
~~},~:~~ -7/x~~~~~_6'!..O __ )~1-;, "'-...{ r\-t
~,,~~~~""":::::: ~,~ /; 0 :;r~~~..::. ,1/... \"" ) \
:.~~~~' /) ::.) J) li,)2_~~~~~:-...:..,_- 1\:, }
.<-~'c'~'j ''';' ~"<"~l ;.0-7'" ',')'t"".~,::,~, I
, '-'-0 I '~--'(lr,\')!___"\"'.""(/
~~ ,~~ :t}.."~~~) ..... ", ~(C\~ ~.... )// _~-~~,.::
\\\;~ ,.:&,~~, - ....,'\ -:"Ir: ):..../ \ l_~-......
,\\\ '\'-/"'.....,,~----.,>-:/ i<i;'p.", ,,(, '- -? ','-
, ,\ \ \ 1_.L-_ "0 ,;...:: ) ( / '-
~" If',) "~""_-/"-,"
\\.1.\ ~/;::--"rr ~\.:~-./~:-7 ",
~ \1"\ '__~/" '';>'~ "':". ;'
%:J ~j..-;:,_I//I,....~": ~\ J' ~~~\~;~~-~.'~~;
~" ,I r" If,) ~~J'~'/~
~'r~ ,l, r"""'-...'.... ~',
, "~r DUb/" J.-;: <, ,
....~ . c;:!':~~~ ..11), Q -...
~ >'''';,;;~ '--'?;~
11 ';'~:3'.'
..IHI
lIil
.
I; /"
'6Jl1
/..."'"
.
~\.:.
lUjlIDI ~:-
. -.
<<1
"0
" .II ,
1:-_---::- __~.
U I'.
r ~~ =-~~== r.~==.,.l =
'1lI
...
I'"':
,
~
"! ~~'
.
....
.
.~.
o. l
::III~. ,.
, ..
~~.:~:.:.:.: .l.....i
::- .......
_fAlam
.
. r
""'"~ . 0....,4... "'i:'! 0.. 'llt..l3:,M. .. . ~ .. ~". ! ~..4 .
I.. l\\:.... ~ ..J1r 52ft . 0 . . "', > 0
:I:~.::t::::::::... ,~.:'~::::::::::::: <. .
.J.' I. .~.. . ~t . . . . . . . . .:.{ r............."I-... . ·
t'. I ." ..:.\............. . . . . . . . . .. .
o . . .1. .."". . 0 . ~ . ~ . . . . .. I I
.. . I ~ I~:::::::::::::: :': > .. -V0,,>~
".:::1"::;:. ';:::::::::::: (.:.:.:.:.:.:.~. II
\ . I. ... . .1. . . . .. t..... .~.
'. ',,1, '1.'. ';;". ~\.........., I~."""'..'. .1.
.f"~ .1. .-~ ~'. . . . . . 't 0 . . . 0 .. ~..
.~.I:-:-~:..-:.'.' . . ;i-:.:-:-:-:-:-:1:-:-
. . I .. ................. "'/"
I .I....T.....At.:~.,~ . !I....
. . 0 . 0 "....."'z.;'~..... ~ .
':::::':::~: : :'€1: : : : ~~:,~ .'.;1 ,,0
. . . . . . ~~-~ . .. ~ o~..;...
i':~ik0}>'Y.
@O)
'0 F/;~
~
";'':::'" ~i?/~;~> .<
<,,\ ~/~(<~\,< ~"
~j~
-~ v.
~~/. )' ~~
,\ . q
\ >/';//\~
1_. \
I
'../'
......--,,/ ,...@
-I.
i'.'
".zW
. .~L',:
. ~~:t:...1 ". ~
~'l ,
e:,~..,.
...'!c'
<<.t
"
Sant~~!~:
------ .(
,<.."..."..."""'''''''''''.''',.'''
'"
.,..,'::':;).ULR
':r'.'
.l.Wel
,
:,::.---:.'-
H
~
\,
,.!
'"
,.
. "it~ .. c
I '~~a
USDA ~o .1
I Plant Ma
..-,;
~{~_::'\"
II,~ Cb
~"...
\~,~O~
~,..z...<>J"
~~:::::::~
,
anton
:.:.~: ~':;
....
~
"''''''
Source: FEMA, 2000, Base Map Source: Dublin, California U.S.G.S. Quadrangle Map.
Regional Hydrology
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project
IN OT012 9/00
~ 4.2-1
,5
.
1 mile
I
0' 1000'
~......,
2000'
1 I
rn~
lIB
-
~
"
-. - Project Site
..';c'
r"
I
/8/
..-
\
l
..-.
Alameda County border and is bound by the Diablo Mountain Range on the west. The Livermore
Valley basin is comprised of several coalescing alluvial valleys developed along the major streams that
flow into the basin. The alluvial sediments, including the recent alluvium and underlying Livermore
Gravels that have filled the valleys, contain important aquifers that provide domestic, municipal,
industrial, and agricultural water supply. These aquifers form the Livermore groundwater basin. The
basin is subdivided into twelve sub-basins on the basis of topography and geology. The project site is
located within the Dublin Sub-basin, which covers approximately 7.8 square miles in the northwest
portion of the Livermore Valley basin. The Dublin Sub-basin consists of both ~c()~.rlih~d aquife~s in
recent alluvial deposits as well as deeper confmed or semi -confmed aquifers within coarse alluvium,
separated by fmer-grained deposits.
t
r
The groundwater resources in the Livermore groundwater basin are managed by the Alameda County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7 (Zone 7). As part of a groundwater
management plan, Zone 7 maintains a groundwater monitoring network of 210 wells to provide
regional data on basin-wide groundwater conditions. Contour maps of the groundwater elevations
(water levels) within the basin are compiled in the fall and spring of each year. In the area of the
proposed project, groundwater levels are relatively shallow, ranging from 8 to 19 feet below the surface
(Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1989). Data collected for the Livermore groundwater basin indicates
that groundwater flows south through the Dublin sub-basin from the northern Bishop Sub-basin with
a gradient of 20 feet per mile (Woodward-Clyde Consulting, 1989). The direction of groundwater
flow is consistent with the topographic and geologic conditions in the local area.
WATER QUALITY
The quality of surface and groundwater at the project site is affected by land uses within the entire
watershed. Drainage from the site affects the quality of water in larger creeks and drainages
downstream, including Arroyo de la Laguna, Alameda Creek, and San Francisco Bay.
r
.
!
Water quality in surface and groundwater bodies is regulated primarily by the State and regional water
quality control boards. The surface and groundwater quality in the project area is under the jurisdiction
of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), which is responsible for
implementation of State and federal water quality protection guidelines in the vicinity of the project
site. The RWQCB has adopted the San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) to
implement plans, policies, and provisions for water quality management. The most recent revision of
the Basin Plan was adopted by the RWQCB in June 1995 and was approved by the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB)in November 1995. The BaSin Plan identilles existing and
potential beneficial uses supported by the key surface water drainages throughout the Bay Area as well
.r
~..
San Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
4.2-5
EDAW
Hydrology and Water Quality
.....
/8;;).
III
as water quality objectives for toxic pollutants and bacteriological parameters that are intended to ..
protect the beneficial uses of the Bay.
SURFACE WATER
Water quality monitoring data for Dublin Creek, which is adjacent to the Dublin parcel, was provided
in the Water Resources Technical Report prepared for the DPX Project (Woodward-Clyde Consultants,
1989). According to this report, calcium and sodium are the predominant ions within the Dublin
Creek watershed. The values of water quality constituents such as total dissolved solids and nitrate
found within Dublin Creek were below the water quality objectives set forth by the Basin Plan.
Water quality within local drainages directly affects the aquatic resources within San Francisco Bay.
The Bay's water quality is affected by freshwater inflows, tidal mixing, urban runoff, municipal and
industrial discharges, and atmospheric deposition. The water quality parameters of greatest interest for
the Bay include salinity, temperature, pH, nutrients, dissolved oxygen, coliform bacteria, trace
contaminants, and suspended sediments. Approximately 40 percent of the total oxygen demand and
about 20 percent of the nutrient loads to San Francisco Bay are released from Alameda County
(Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1989).
GROUNDWATER
Regional groundwater quality within the Livermore Valley has been monitored by the U.S. Geological
Service (USGS) and Zone 7. Groundwater quality in the Dublin Sub-basin north ofI -580 is thought
to be excellent in quality and suitable for municipal or other uses (Woodward-Clyde Consultants,
1989). The majority of groundwater is bicarbonate in nature, containing calcium as the predominant
ion west of South San Ramon Creek, and sodium as the predominant ion east of South San Ramon
Creek. Poor quality groundwater occurs south ofI-580 due to high concentrations of chloride, sulfate,
and boron. In addition, the concentration of total dissolved solids found in groundwater south of 1-
580 ranges from 350 to 2000 mg/l, which is considered high when compared to the 500 mg/l Basin
Plan objective fot this water quality constituent (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1989).
Potential sources of surface or subsurface water quality degradation exist within the project area.
Multiple contamination sites that have the potential to affect the soils or shallow groundwater in the
local area are located within the vicinity of the proposed project (See Public Health and Safety, Section
4.7, for further discussion). In addition, urban stormwater pollutants (e.g., petroleum fuels, lubricants,
and metals) and home maintenance pollutants (e.g., pesticides, fertilizers, and cleaning materials) can
result in water quality degradation.
EDAW
Hydrology and Water Quality
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
4.2-6 West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
'~i
II
..
..
.
.
"
..
.
jj
''1
1Ili.
..
.
.
IIIIIi
"~i
..
Ii
III'
..
II
/g3
n
r:
RELEVANT GENERAL .PLAN POLICIES ANDPaOGRAMS
CI'I'Y OF DUBLIN GENEltAL PLAN
The following City of Dublin General Plan Conservation policies are relevant to the discussion of
hydrology and water quality:
r-'.
!
.
Policy 7.2-C: Enact and enforce erosion and sedimentation ordinance establishing performance
standards in relation to maintenance of water quality and protection of stream
courses.
PoMCY 7.2-D: Enact ordinance requiring on-site runoff control.
r
/' .
Policy 7.2-E: Review development proposals to insure site design that minimizes soil erosion and
volume and velocity of surface runoff.
CITY OF PLEASANTON GENERAL PLAN
The following City of Pleasanton General Plan Conservation and Open Space and Public Facilities
policies and programs are relevant to the discussion of hydrology and water quality:
r-
Policy 9: Protect the quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater in the Planning
Area.
r-
l
Program 9.7: Support the policies and programs contained in the Water Quality Control Plan for
the San Francisco Bay Basin to the extent they are consistent with the City's policies
for water quality.
Policy 17: Implement stormwater runoff requirements, as recommended by the Alameda
County-wide Clean Water Program, with as little impact on development and business
costs as possible.
Program17.1: Incorporate conditions of approval developed by the Alameda County-wide Clean
Water Program, as appropriate, for new development and discretionary permits.
'-.
,
t-
Program 17.2: Develop design guidelines and standard details to enable developers to incorporate
clean water runoff requirements into their projects.
Program 17.3: Evaluate the effect of development on stormwater runoff in the CEQA process.
~ ,
f
,
r-
r '
San Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin!Pleasonton BART Station and Transit Village
4.2-7
EDAW
Hydrology and Water Quality
J8L1
iii
Program 17.4: Encourage the use of site planning and design techniques to minimize impacts to
water quality, including minimizing land dismrbance, minimizing impervious surfaces,
clustering development, preserving open space, and maintaining riparian areas with
buffer zones to reduce runoff into waterways.
,'Ili
..
.41
..~
11IIII
Program 17.5: Include stormwater quality requirements in plans and contract specifications for City
projects.
-
Program 17.6: Require the use of Best Management Practices for construction activities and ongoing
business operations to prevent contaminants from entering the storm drain system.
Ii
Program 17.7: Review the City's erosion and sedimentation prevention program to ensure that
erosion prevention controls and enforcement are being implemented. Create an
ordinance, if necessary, to accomplish these requirements.
.
';
-
Program 17.8: Conduct construction site field inspections to ensure the proper implementation and
maintenance of erosion prevention and materials/waste management to effectively
prohibit non-stormwater discharges.
j
..
;~
Program 17.9: Provide educational materials for distribution to developers, business people, and the
general public explaining stormwater quality issues and requirements.
.
,.~
.
4.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
...
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed project would have a significant impact on hydrology and water quality if it would:
11M
.
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
.
..
.
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site;
...
.
Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
..
· Substantially degrade or deplete groundwater resources;
.
EDAW
Hydrology and Water Quality
Son Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
4.2-8 West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
III
..
I gS--
. Interfere substantially with groundwater recharge;
. Substantially degrade water quality; or
. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.
PROJECT IMPACTS
r
I '
Impact
4.2-1
r-
i
t
r-"
f
Stormwater DischarJ!e. Development of the proposed project would result in
the construction of impervious surfaces within the project site and may increase
runoff. The DPX EIR concluded that the hydrologic impacts associated with
development of the project site would be less than significant because of the
relatively small total area of the site when compared to the overall drainage area
served by local flood control channels. Because the proposed project would
develop the same area on the site as assumed in the DPX EIR, no new significant
stonnwater drainage impacts would be expected. This would be considered a
less-than-significant impact.
The proposed project would create new impervious surfaces on the project site, altering the site's
existing d.ra.inage patterns and increasing site runoff. Undeveloped, vegetated lands generally have low
runoff coefficients, meaning that they yield a relatively small portion of the total rainfall as runoff. The
majority of the precipitation, particularly in smaller storms, infIltrates into the subsurface. On the other
h~~d.,illlpervi~us ~l1rfa~es 0~ldIle~ly au raWillas runoff. The DPX EIR identified the hydrologic
impacts associated with development of the project site as less than significant because of the relatively
small total area of the site when compared. to"the overall drainage area served by local flood control
channels (DPX EIR, p. 4-109). The DPX EIR assumed that 100% of the project site would be
impervious following construction of the proposed BART parking lots. The proposed project would
have a similar impervious area. Because the proposed project would include the same total impervious
area as anticipated in the DPX EIR, no new significant stormwater drainage impacts would be
anticipated.
Impact
4.2-2
r-
Effects on Water Qualitv. Construction activities and operational site uses
associated with the project could result in degradation of water quality in nearby
surface water bodies and groundwater reservoirs by reducing the quality of
stormwater runoff. This would be considered a significant impact.
Construction and grading within the project site would require temporary disturbance of surface soils
and removal of vegetative cover. During the construction period of the project, grading and excavation
4.2-9
EDAW
Hydrology and Water Quality
r.
L
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
activities would result in exposure of soil to runoff, potentially causing erosion and entrapment of
sediment in the runoff Soil stockpiles and excavated portions of the project site would be exposed to
runoff and, if not managed properly, the runoff could cause erosion and increased sedimentation in
storm sewers or water courses at or away from the project site. The accumulation of sediment could
result in blockage of flows, potentially resulting in increased localized ponding or flooding.
Chemicals could be released at construction sites during grading operations. Once released, substances
such as fuels, oils, paints, and solvents could be transported to Dublin Creek and/or groundwater in
stormwater runoff, wash water, and dust control water, potentially reducing the quality of the receiving
waters. In addition, increased rates of uncontrolled runoff could result in erosion of site soils. Such
erosion could cause increased turbidity or sedimentation in Dublin Creek as well as in waterways
located downstream of the project site, including Alamo Canal, Arroyo de la Laguna, and Alameda
Creek, which could adversely affect aquatic habitat.
Although the DPX EIR concluded that the effects on water quality resulting from implementation of
the DPX Project, including development on the project site, would be less than significant, the
proposed project has the potential to significantly affect water quality on a regional leveL Concern for
water quality in San Francisco Bay has shifted since the 1960s and 1970s from a focus on organic and
bacterial contamination to a concern for the potential toxic impact of trace contaminants, including
trace elements and trace organics (ESA, 1998). One of the primary sources of trace contaminants to
the Bay include river inflow and urban and non-urban runoff from upstream sources. Although the
project site is small in comparison to the entire drainage area feeding into the Bay, the proposed project
could incrementally contribute to the amount of trace contaminants entering the Bay via urban runoff.
In addition, additional sources of surface and/or subsurface water quality degradation that were not of
concern for the DPX EIR, such as recent contamination sites or increased urban runoff due to
development in the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton, may currently exist within the project area.
Therefore, the proposed project's effects on water quality would be considered significant.
Flooding. The project site is not located within a 1 DO-year or SOD-year flood
hazard area, as delineated in the general plans for Dublin and Pleasanton.
However, within the vicinity of the proposed project, the 1 DO-year and SOD-year
flood hazard zones extend east of 1-680 past Hopyard Road. These flood hazard
areas are located downstream of Dublin Creek and runoff from construction or
operational activities on the project site could contribute to downstream flooding.
However, this contribution would not be substantial given the relatively small
total area of the site when compared to the overall drainage area of the region.
This would be considered a less-than-significant impact.
Impact
4.2-3
EDAW
Hydrology and Water Quality
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
4.2-10 West Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
I'S&;
..
^,^:Jl
11II
.
.
..
..
.
.
..
..
..
..
.
.
III
.
-
.Ii
"1
..
/81
'.,,' ..- ,.-,
The project site is not located within a 100-year or 500-year flood hazard area, as delineated on the
flood zone maps included in the general plans for the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton. Within the
vicirlity of the proposed project, however, the 100-year and500-year flood hazard wnes extend east
of 1-680 past Hopyard Road (eXhibit 4.2~1). These floodhazarclareasare IClcateddownStrearn of
Dublin Creek and are predominately associated with Alamo and Chabot canals located east ofI-680.
Since Alamo Canal is located downstream of Dublin Creek, runoff from construction or operational
activities on the project site could contribute to downstream flooding. However, this contribution.
would not be substantial given the relatively small total area of the site when compared to the overall
drainage area of the tegion. This would be considered a less-than-significant impact.
r
1
r
Impact
4.2-4
t
r-
~
~
r
General Plan Consistency - City of Dublin, City of Pleasanton. Development
of the proposed project would result in changes to surface water runoff volumes
and quality. Through City grading permit processes, the proposed project would
be subject to site-specific review and conditions imposed by the cities, which
would be expected to reduce these effects. In addition, this EIR provides
mitigation measures to reduce impacts associated with water quality impacts to
a less-than-significant level (see Mitigation Measure 4.2-2). With normal City
permit processing procedures and EIR mitigation, . the proposed project would be
consistent with water quality policies and programs outlined in the City of
Dublin General Plan and the City of Pleasanton General Plan. This would be
considered a less-than-significant impact.
Dublin General Plan policies 7.2-C and 7.2-E and Pleasanton General Plan programs 17.7 and 17.8
are directed at minimizing impacts associated with increased soil erosion upon project implementation.
Dublin General Plan Policy 7.2-D and Pleasanton General Plan Policy 17 and programs 17.3, 17.5 and
17.9 pertain to controlling site runoff and the adequacy of the cities' stormwater drainage systems.
Pleasanton General Plan Policy 9 and programs 17.1, 17.2, 17.4, and 17.6 are designed to reduce
impacts to water quality from erosion, construction, and urban pollutants. Development of the
proposed project would result in changes to surface water runoff volumes and quality. Through
NPDESan<fCiry gradin.g permit: processes, the proposed project would be subject to site-specific
review and conditions imposed by the cities, which would be expected to reduce these effects. In
addition, this EIR provides mitigation measures to reduce impacts associated with water quality impacts
to a less-than-significant level (see Mitigation Measure 4.2-2). With norm.al City permit processing
procedures and EIR mitigation, the proposed project would be consistent with water quality policies
and programs outlined in the City of Dublin General Plan and the City of Pleasanton General Plan.
This would be considered a less-than-significant impact.
r-c
. '\~.f1!
4.2-11
EOAW
Hydrology and Water Quality
r
i
I
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
/88
4.2.3 MITIGATION MEASURES
Effects on Water Qualitv. A Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed with the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in order to obtain coverage
under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General
Construction Permit for discharges of storm water associated with construction
activities.
impact
4;2-2
In addition, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be developed and
implemented for the proposed project site. An SWPPP should include Best
Management Practices (BMPs) designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water
quality through the construction and life of the project. An SWPPP shall be prepared
such that, when properly implemented, it will reduce or eliminate impacts to surface
water quality from all phases of the project. Required elements of the SWPPP include:
Construction Stormwater Management Controls. These controls shall include
practices to minimize the contact of construction materials, equipment, and
maintenance supplies (e.g., fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, adhesives) with
stormwater. The SWPPP shall specify properly designed centralized storage areas
that keep these materials out of the rain.
An important component of the stormwater quality protection effort is knowledge
of the site supervisors and workers. To educate on-site personnel and maintain
awareness of the importance of stormwater quality protection, site supervisors shall
conduct regular tailgate meetings to discuss pollution prevention. The frequency
of the meetings and required personnel attendance shall be specified in the SWPPP.
The SWPPP shall specify a monitoring program to be implemented by the
construction site supervisor, and must include both dry and wet weather
inspections. City of Dublin and City of Pleasanton personnel will conduct regular
inspections to ensure compliance with the SWPPP (this is already standard
procedure).
Erosion and Sediment Control. BMPs designed to reduce erosion of exposed soil
may include, but are not limited to: soil stabilization controls, watering for dust
control, perimeter silt fences, placement of hay bales, and sediment basins. The
potential for erosion is generally increased if grading is performed during the rainy
season as disturbed soil can be exposed to rainfall and storm runoff. If grading
EDAW
Hydrology and Water Quality
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
4.2-12 West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
':;J
Ii
,~
..
IIlli
A
.
III
;J
Iii
"f.
.
.
.
.
::J
iii
-41
..
.
..
IIIIIi
'"
.
iii
.
,,~
.
r.
.~
\
,
/&9
...-.
,
t
r
~
must be conducted during the rainy season, the primary BMPs selected shall focus
on erosion control to keep sediment on the slopes. End-of-pipe sediment control
measures (e.g., basins and traps) shall be used only as secondary measures. Entry
and egress from the construction site shall be carefully controlled to minimize
offsite tracking of sediment.
i,;. i'
r
;
r-
i
t
,
Long-Term Stormwater Management. This refers to measures taken to prevent
stotmwater pollution associated with operational uses at the developed site. Prior
to site occupation, the project applicant shall develop a surface water pollution
control plan (i.e., parking lot sweeping program and periodic storm drain inlet
clearing) to reduce long-term surface water quality impacts. The plan may include
the installation of oil, gas, and grease trap separators in parking lots for BART
patrons as well as those for commercial, office, and residential uses. Project plans
shall incorporate, if appropriate, catch basin inserts and fIlters along with cleaning
schedules.
...-
i
t
!
4.2.4
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the hydrology and water quality
impacts of the proposed project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
,--.
.
~
,
!""'"
,-..
t
I
I
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasonton BART Station and T ronsit Village
4.2-13
EDAW
Hydrology and Woter Quality
;qo
4.3 NOISE
This noise smdy analyzes future noise impacts ton61se-sensitive land uses due to project construction
and other ongoing activities, exposure to freeway and rail noise, and anticipated vehicular traffic
increases along affected local roadways.
4.3.1
EXISTING CONDITIONS
ACOUSTIC FuNDAMENTALS
Noise is often defIned as unwanted sound. amecharucal form of radiant energy transmitted
by pressure waves in the air. It is characterized by two parameters: amplitude (loudness) and
frequency (tone).
AMPLITUDE
'-
Amplimde is the difference between ambient air pressure and the peak pressure of the sound wave.
Amplitude is measured ill deCibels (dB) on alog3.flthrrllCscale. For example, a 10'dB sound is 10 times
the pressure difference of a 0 dB sound; a 20 dB sound is 100 times the pressure difference of a 0 dB
sound. Another feature of the decibel scale is the wa.y ill which sound amplitudes from multiple sources
add together. A 65 dB source of sound, such as a truck, when joined by another 65 dB source results
in a sound amplitude of 68 dB, not 130 dB (i.e., doubling the source strength increases the sound
pressure by 3 dB). Amplitude is interpreted by the ear as corresponding to different degrees of
loudness. Laboratory measurements correlate a '10 dB increase in amplitude with a perceived doubling
of loudness and establish a 3 dB change in amplimde as the minimum audible difference perceptible
to the average person (Federal Highway Administration 1982).
-
f
t
: t..
FREQUENCY
Frequency is the number of fluctuations of the pressure wave per second. The unit of frequency is the
Hertz (Hz). One Hz equals one cycle per second. The human ear is not equally sensitive to sound of
different frequencies. Sound waves below 16 Hz or above 20,000 Hz cannot be heard at all, and the
ear is more sensitive to sound in the higher portion of this range than in the lower. To approximate
this sensitivity, environmental sound is usually measured in A-weighted decibels (dBA). On this scale,
the normal range of human hearing extends from about 10 dBA to about 140 dBA. Listed in Exhibit
r 4.3-1 are several examples of the noise levels associated with common situations.
t
,
r'
I
f
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West Du~lin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
. ~'.' ~.:: ,:;',,-"".).~..r;:"'.'-
4.3-1
EDAW
Noise
EXAMPLES
Near jet engine
Threshold of pain
Threshold of feeling hard rock band
Accelerating motorcycle a few feet away
Noisy urban street/heavy city traffic
Food blender
Garbage disposal
living room music
Vacuum cleaner
Busy restaurant
Near freeway auto traffic
Window air conditioner
Average office
Range of
Speech
Soft radio music in apartment
Soft whisper at five feet
Average residence without stereo playing
Rustling leaves
Human breathing
Threshold of audibility
DECIBELS (dB)*
>-
Qj
~Cl)
:::0...
.~ 0
Cl) Cl)
....0-
Cl)......
-C<J>
Cl) 0
> E
0,-,-
..00
~bO
Cl) C
.... .-
:J ....
V> ~
o Cl)
a.-C
x Cl)
Cl)-c
<J>......
:J Cl)
0-0
:J ~
..3 ~
C-o
o 0
u......
140
130
qj
;;;;"
.
20
o
* dB are "average" values as measured on the A-scale of a sound-level meter.
SUBJECTIVE
EVALUATIONS
;''1
;""#1
.
30
10
..
..
Deafen i ng
1 20 ...... ...................................................... 32
Common Indoor & Outdoor Noise Levels
'J,'j
..
11 0 ....... ..................................................... 16
III
1 00 ....... ..................................................... 8
Very Loud
o
=>
.
90 ......... ..................................................... 4 0
-'
C/)
80 ......... ..................................................... 2 <(
Moderately Loud C/)
"1
iii
UJ
,
III
70 ......... ..................................................... 1 ~
60 ......... ..................................................... 1/2
Quiet
50 ......... ....................................... .............. 1/4
f-
II
.
40 ......... ..................................................... 1/8
Faint
.
.
;~
..
Very Faint
'"ll
.l1!!
..
.,i
III
Source: Concepts in Architectural Acoustics: M.David Egan, McGraw Hill, 1972 and u.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Office of Community Planning and Development "The Noise Guidebook".
iii
~ 4.3-1
..
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project
IN OT012.01 7/00
IIiDI
iii
f:
) 9 a---
Noise Descriptors
The intensity of environmental noise fluctuates over time, and several descriptors of time-averaged noise
levels are used.. Three most commonly used are Leq, Ldn' and CNEL. The energy equivalent noise1evel,
Leq, is a measure of the average energy content (intensity) of noise over any given period of time. Many
communities use 24-hour descriptors of noise levels to regulate noise. The day-night average noise
level, Ldn, is the 24-hour average of the noise intensity, with a 10 dBA "penalty" added for nighttime
nOIse (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) to account for the greater sensitivity to noise during this period
(California Code of Regulations 1988). CNEL, the community equivalent noise level, is similar to Ldn,
but adds an ad<iitional5 dBA penalty to evening noise (7:00 PM to 10:00 PM).
Characteristics of Sound Propagation and Attenuation
Noise can be generated by a number of sources, including mobile sources, such as automobiles, trucks
and airplanes, and stationary sources, such as construction sites, machinery, aIld ind.ustrialoperations.
Noise generated by mobile sources typically attenuates at a rate between 3.0 to 4.5 dBA per doubling
of distance. c!~~J::l.te depends on the ground surface and the number or type of objects between the
noise source and the receiver. Hard and flat surfaces, such as concrete or asphalt, have an attenuation
~~teor~.;RAAA per doubling of distance. Soft surfaces, such as uneven or vegetated terrain, have an
atten\lation rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise generated by stationary sources
typically attenuate at a rate between 6.0 to about 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance.
Sound levels can be reduced by placing barriers between the noise source and the receiver. In general,
barriers contribute to decreasing noise levels only when the structure breaks the "line of sight" between
the source and the receiver. Buildings, concrete walls, and berms can all act as effective noise barriers.
Wooden fences or broad areas of dense foliage can also reduce noise, but are less effective than solid
barriers.
r
I
,
Human Response to Noise
~
The human response to environmental noise is subjective and varies considerably from individual to
individual. Noise in the community has often been cited as a health problem, not in terms of actual
physiological damage, such as hearing impairment, but in terms of inhibiting general well-being and
contributing to undue stress and annoyance. The health effects of noise in the community arise from
interference with human . activities, including sleep, speech, recreation, and tasks demanding
concentration or coordination. Hearing loss can occur at the highest noise intensity levels. When
community noise interferes with human activities or contributes to stress, public annoyance with the
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid T ronsit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and T ronsit Village
4.3-3
EDAW
Noise
r
t
/93
iii
noise source increases. The acceptability of noise and the threat to public well-being are the basis for .
land use planning policies preventing exposure to excessive community noise levels.
Because construction activities are typically short-term, the associated effects of construction-generated
noise are typically limited to annoyance and interference with speech. Within an exterior noise
environment, noise levels in excess of 60 dBA are generally considered to have an appreciable effect on
speech interference. The level at which speech interference occurs is based on an average sentence
comprehension rate of approximately 98 percent at five meters. Greater speaker-listener distances
would be possible indoors at the same level of vocal effort and speech intelligibility, because sound
pressure levels diminish more slowly than predicted by the inverse square law, which is typically used
in the exterior environment (EPA 1971).
Unfortunately, there is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise, or of
the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. This is primarily because of the wide
variation in individual thresholds of annoyance, and habituation to noise over differing individual
experiences with noise. Thus, an important way of determining a person's subjective reaction to a new
noise is the comparison of it to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so-called
"ambient" environment. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise
level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by the hearers. With regard to increases in A- .
weighted noise level, knowledge of the following relationships will be helpful in understanding this
report (EP A 1971):
.
Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dB cannot be
perceived by humans.
· Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dB change is considered a just-perceivable difference.
.
A change in level of at least 5 dB is required before any noticeable change in
community response would be expected.
.
A 10 dB change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and
would almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response.
NOISE REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES
A number of government agencies have established noise standards and guidelines to protect citizens
from potential hearing damage and various other adverse physiological and social effects associated with
nOIse.
EDAW
Noise
4.3-4
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
"J
..
.
.~
.
till
II
,j
::J
.
"1
,;.I
..
..
.
iii
III
.
'~
IIIi
III
III
.
.
;9L/
CITY OF DUBLIN
r
~
The Noise Element of the City of Dublin's General Plan establishes residential, commercial, and
industrial land Use compatibility standards for noise measured at the property line of the receiving land
use:.. The land use compatibility noise criteria provide the basis for decisions on location of land uses
in relation to noise sources, and for determining noise mitigation requirements. Table 4.3-1 presents
the City of Dublin Land Use Compatibility For Community Noise Environments. As indicated, the
ll()trIJ.al1y~c~ept~bl~eitei:ior'noi.Seexposure level for the CIty ofDllb1i11 is 60 CNEt, or less, for noise-
sensitive land uses (e.g., residential, hotels, motels, schools, churches, and parks), and 70 dBA, or less,
for commercial, office, arid iridustrialland uses. Noise levels up to 70 dBA are considered conditionally
acceptable for most noise-sensitive land uses (City of Dtlb1i11 GeneriJ1Plan, (July 7, 1998).
TABLE 4.3-1
CITY OF DUBUN - LAND USE COMPATIBIUTY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS
Exterior Noise Exposure (dBA CNEl)
land Use Category Normally Conditionally Acceptable Normally Clea rly
Acceptable (Noise Insulation Unacceptable Unacceptable
Features Required I)
Residential 60 or less 60 - 70 70 - 75 75 or greater
Motels, Hotels 60 or less 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 or greater
Schools, Churches, Nursing Homes 60 or less 60 - 70 70 - 80 -
Neighborhood Parks 60 or less 60-65 65 - 70 70 or greater
Office, Retail, Commercial 70 or less 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 or greater
Industrial 70 or less 70 - 75 75 or greater -
"
1 Noise insulation features may include site planning, architectural layout (e.g., bedrooms away from noise
sources), noise barriers, or construction modifications.
Source: City of Dublin General Plan, July 7,1998
""".,
,
i
CITY OF PLEASANTON
The City of Pleasant on General Plan Noise Element provides standards and programs to avoid noise-
related impacts from existing uses and new developments. The General Plan aims to "reduce noise to
acceptable levels throughout the community" (Goal 1, Noise Element) by (1) requiring new
development to meet acceptable exterior noise level'standards (Policy 1, Noise Element), (2) by
ensuring that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA Ldn for residential uses (Policy 3, Noise
r
Son Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
4.3-5
EDAW
. Noise
j CJ5"
Element); and (3) by controlling noise at its source to maintain existing noise levels (Policy 4, Noise
Element). The standard of 60 dBA Ldn for exterior noise levels is to be attained through on-site noise
mitigation measures for new residential projects (Program 1.2), through installing feasible mitigation
measures in existing areas of excessive noise (Program 2.1), and by designing street patterns to not
exceed 6,000 to 9,000 vehicles/day on residential local and collector streets (Program 7.2) as the City
grows.
The City of Pleasanton Land Use Compatibility For Community Noise Environments chart is
presented in Table 4.3-2. As indicated, the acceptable exterior noise exposure level for the City of
Pleasanton is 60 Ldn for residential, school, hotel, and motel land uses and 65 Ldn for outdoor recreation
areas. The General Plan noise standards have been established so that the noise level in the active open
space areas of residential neighborhoods (the rear yards in detached single-family homes and recreation
areas in multi-family housing developments) is at or below 60 dBA Ldl1 and the interior living area is
at or below 45 dBA Ldn' In addition, community concern was expressed during the 1996 General Plan
update over the negative visual impact associated with the use of soundwalls to mitigate vehicular traffic
noise. As a result, the existing City programs which call for the installation of noise mitigation
measures, primarily soundwalls, were modified to encourage the use of greater building setbacks, earth
berms, and other non-soundwall design solutions. While these techniques can work for new
developments, quite often soundwalls are the only available option for existing structures due to
physical space constraints.
TABLE 4.3-2
CITY OF PLEASANTON - LAND USE COMPATIBIUTY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENT
Exterior Noise Exposure (dBA ldJCNEl)
land Use Category Conditionally Acceptable 1
Normally Acceptable Unacceptable
Residential, Motels, Hotels 60 or less 60 - 75 75 or greater
Outdoor Sports and Recreation, .
Neighborhood Parks and Playgrounds 65 or less 65 -80 80 or greater
Schools, Libraries, Museums, Hospitals, 60 or less 60 - 75 75 or greater
Personal Care, Meeting Halls, Churches
Office Buildings, Business Commercial, 70 or less 70 - 80 80 or greater
and Professional
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities and 70 or less 70 - 85 -
Agriculture
1 Specific land use may be permitted only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and
needed noise insulation features included in the design.
Source: City of Pleasanton General Plan, August 16. 1996.
EDAW
Noise
4.3-6
Son Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleosanton BART Station and Transit Village
~;"'~
11III
.
~
..
...,'1i
~
.
.
III
II
.
,;\$1
:Ii
III
.
,jj
.
.
III
.
.
.
,,~
.
.il
.
..
<-j,1
.
;9ep
r
J
The City of Pleasanton has also adopted a Noise Ordinance which regulates the levelof n~ise
emanating from residential, commercial, and industrial activities. In general, the City Noise Ordinance
specifies a noise lirIlit: of 60 dBA in the vicinity of noise-sensitive land uses and 70 dBA for commercial
land uses that are not located near noise-sensitive receptors (Pleasanton, 1989). The City Noise
Ordinance allows general noise-generating construction activities between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8
p.m. Monday through Saturp.ay, and 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays and holidays.. The City currently
restricts noise-generating construction activities occurring within noise sensitive areas to between the
..........................,....,..-.....,
hoUl"s of 8 a.m.' and. Sp.rn: MOllday throughSarurday (Plucker, pers. comm., 1998).
,...-
.
t
BART
In 1992, BART adopted noise standards for BART construction projects. These standards identify
limits for continuous construction noise for residential, commercial, and industrial areas adjacent to
BART projects. These limits are identified in Table 4.3-3.
r-"
TABLE 4.3-3
BART LIMITS FOR CONTINUOUS CONSTRUCTION NOISE
Affected Structure or Area I Maximum Allowable Continuous Noise level, dBA
~ ' . '
Residential DAYTIME NIGHTIIME
Single family residence 60 50
, along an arterial or in multi-family residential areas, 65 55
including hospitals
"
in semi-residential/commercial areas, including hotels 70 60
Commercial AT ALL TIMES
in semi-residential/commercial areas, including 65
schools
in commercial areas with no nighttime residency 70
Industrial
All locations 80
* Prevent noises from stationary sources, parked mobile sources or any source or combination of sources producing
.. repetitive or long-term noise, lasting more than a few hours, from exceeding the limits indicated. Noise limits apply
at 200 feet from the construction limits or at nearest affected building, whichever is closer.
Source: BART Extension Program System Design Criteria, March 1992.
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/PleasantonBART Station and Transit Village
4.3-7
EDAW
Noise
r-
,
i
jq7
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations establishes standards governing interior noise levels that
apply to all new multifamily residential units in California. These standards require that acoustical
studies be performed prior to construction at building locations where the existing Ldn exceeds 60 dBA.
Such acoustical studies are required to establish mitigation measures that will limit maximum Ldn levels
to 45 dBA in any inhabitable room. Although there are no generally applicable interior noise standards
pertinent to all uses, many communities in California have adopted an Ldn of 45 as an upper limit on
interior noise in aU residential units.
EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
The major noise source affecting both the Dublin and Pleasanton parcels is vehicular traffic on
Interstate 580 (1-580). Additional noise sources within the area include intermittent noise associated
with BART train passbys, aircraft flyovers from nearby airports, and vehicle traffic on area roadways.
Based on the traffic noise modeling conducted for this project, ambient noise levels at both parcels are
estimated to range from approximately 70 to 80 dBA, depending on distance from 1-580. No noise-
sensitive land uses are located in the vicinity of the project site.
A 24-hour ambient noise survey was conducted on May 23rd and 24th, 2000, on the Dublin parcel to
document the existing noise environment in the vicinity of the proposed residential development. The
noise measurement location was approximately 100 feet north of the Dublin parcel's southern property
line. The result of the noise measurements are shown in Table 4.3-4. The table displays the CNEL A-
weighted sound level measured during the survey as well as the minimum (Lmin), maximum (Lmax), and
equivalent (average) hourly (Leq) sound level measured. As indicated, noise levels at the project site
averaged approximately 75 dBA over a 24-hour period at a distance of approximately 100 feet north
of the southern property line. The average hourly noise level was approximately 69 dBA. Noise levels
recorded during the nighttime hours reached a low of approximately 39 dBA and daytime peak traffic
hour noise levels reached a high of nearly 85 dBA.
EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Existing traffic noise levels were calculated for roadway segments in the project areas using the Federal
Highway Administration's Highway Noise Prediction Model based on the average daily traffic volumes
on major roadways within the project area. Table 4.3-5 presents the calculated distance from the
roadway centerline to the existing CNEL/Ldn levels (in dBA) at various roadway segments, as well as
the calculated noise level at 50 feet from the centerline of the near travel lane.
EDAW
Noise
4.3-8
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleosanton BART Station and Transit Village
Ii
.
"
"1
'"
IIiJ
-:e
..
, ~
.
..
..
'J
III
,a
..
III
"All
..
"~
filii
III
..
III
,,~
.
..
.
/t)g
~'
~
TABLE 4.3-4
MEASURED AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
Measured Noise levels (dBA)
location
CNEL lmin L.,.x ~
Dublin Parcel 75.0 39.3 84.8 68.8
Based on 24-hour noise measurement survey conducted on May 23-24, 2000. Microphone height of 4.5 feet
approximately 100 feet north of the southern property line.
Source: EDA W 2000
r
TABLE 4.3-5 .
EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIc NOISE LEVELS
Distance from Roadway Centerline to Ld,/CNEL (feet). Ld,/CNEl (dBA) 50 feet
Roadway Segment From Center-line of
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA Near Travel lone
City of Dublin
Dublin Boulevard, San Ramon Road to 62.2 175.1 546.2 68.7
Amador Plaza Road
Golden Gate Drive, Dublin Boulevard to 0 0 90.7 62.0
St. Patrick Way
Amador Plaza Drive, Dublin Boulevard 0 0 125.1 63.4
to St. Patrick Way
City of Pleasanton
Canyon Way, San Ramon to Stoneridge 0 0 102.6 61.9
Mall Road
Stoneridge Mall Road, Canyon Way to 0 0 59.8 59.4
Stoneridge Drive
Stoneridge Drive, San Ramon Road to 0 0 77.8 60.6
Stoneridge Mall Road
Foothill Road, Canyon Way to 64.6 183.4 573.0 68.9
Stoneridge Drive
1-580 2,053.6 6,492.9 20,530.5 84.1
Traffic noise levels were calculated using the FHW A Noise Prediction Model based on peak hour traffic volumes
presented in the traffic report prepared for this project. Assumes a k-factor of 0.10 for conversion of peak hour
volumes to average daily traffic volumes. Does not consider any natural or manmade shielding effects between sources
and receptors.
Source: EDAW 2000, TJKM 2000
r
t
San Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
4.3-9
EDAW
Noise
Based on the modeling conducted, existing traffic noise levels along 1-580 average approximately 84
dBA CNEL at 50 feet from the centerline of the near travel lane. Calculated traffic noise levels along
local roadways in the vicinity ofthe Dublin parcel, range from approximately 59 dBA CNEL along Golden
Gate Drive to approximately 69 dBA CNEL along Dublin Boulevard. In the vicinity of the Pleasanton
parcel, calculated traffic noise levels range from approximately 61 dBA CNEL along Stoneridge Drive
to approximately 69 dBA CNEL along Foothill Road.
NOISE-SENSITIVE LAND USES
Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those uses which would result in noise
exposure that could result in health-related risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an
essential element of their intended purpose. Residential dwellings are of primary concern because of
the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and exterior noise
levels. Additional land uses such as parks, historic sites, cemeteries, and recreation areas are also
considered sensitive to increases in exterior noise levels. Schools, churches, hotels, libraries, and other
places where low interior noise levels are essential are also considered noise-sensitive land uses. Noise-
sensitive land uses are presented in Table 4.3-6.
TABLE 4.3-6
NOISE-SENSITIVE LAND USES
land Uses I Specific Use
Residences Single Family Residences
Multi-family Residences (Apartment Buildings, Duplexes, etc.)
Outdoor Noise-Sensitive Areas Parks
Historic Sites Used for Interpretation
Amphitheaters -
Recreation Areas
Playgrounds
Cemeteries
Indoor Noise-Sensitive Sites Schools
Places of Worship
Hotels and Motels
Libraries
Hospitals/Convalescent Care Facilities
Public Meeting Halls
Concert Halls! Auditoriums/Theaters
Recording/Broadcast Studios
Museums and Certain Historic Buildings
Source: FHW A 1995
EDAW
Noise
4.3-10
San Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transif Village
/99
G<"i~
iii
!Hit
..
j
III
.
;<,~
iii
;,,;~
.
;~
..
J
4
..
,~
..
.
..
IIIIi1
..~
~
.
~
;~
..
':~
'3;
..
..
,oi,
,;;il
..
III
r:
,;)00
r-
!
As discussed in Section 4.1 - Land Use, of this EIR, land uses located acljacent to tb.eDublitl and
Pleasanton parcels are primarily commercial and light-industrial. The nearest noise-sensitive land use
located within the vicinity of the Dublin parcel is the Best Western Monarch Hotel, located
approximately l,()OO feet west of the project site along Regional Street. :triihe viCllilt)roftnt':'Pleasanton
parcel, nearby noise-sensitive land uses include the Wyndam Garden Hotel located approximately 500
feet west of the site, on the north side of Stoneridge Mall Drive; and. the Stoneridge Apartments,
located approximately 2,000 feet south of the site, at the northeast corner of Stoneridge Mall Drive and
Stoneridge Drive. The Crowne Plaza Hotel is located approximately 2,300 feet west of the site, at the
northwest corner of Foothill Road and Dublin Canyon Road.
r-
t
4.3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
For the purposes of this analysis, significant noise impacts are measured as follows:
r
Short-term Construction Noise Impacts. Short-term construction noise impacts associated with the transit
village uses would. be considered significant if construction activities worild reslllt in a noticeable
increase in average daily ambient noise levels of 3 dBA, or greater, at nearby noise-sensitive land uses.
For the BART facilities, construction noise impacts would be considered significant if they exceed the
70 dBA thresholds identified in Table 4.3-3 for semi-residential/commercial areas.
umg- Term Operational Noise Impacts. Long-term operational noise impacts, including stationary source
and. traffic noise impacts, ,would be considered significant if the proposed project would result in an
increase in ambieI1tnoise levels that exceeds 60 dBA (CNEL) at existing noise-sensitive land uses and
the increase was noticeable to the average person (defmed as 3 dBA CNEL or greater).
Land Use Compatibility With Projected Noise Levels. Development of the proposed land uses would have
a significant impact if projected on-site noise levels were to exceed the "normally acceptable" noise
criterIa established by each respective jUrisdiction. Land use compatibility noise criteria established. by
the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton, are presented in Tables 4.3-1 and 4.3-2, respectively.
SHORT-TERM NOISE IMPACTS
Impact
4.3-1
Noise from Construction Activities in the Project Area. Construction
activities within the project area would generate intermittent and temporary
increases in ambient noise levels that would exceed significance thresholds.
This impact is considered significant.
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
,. West Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
4.3-11
EDAW
Noise
:20/
Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending upon the nature or phase (e.g.,
demolition/land clearing, grading ,and excavation, erection) of construction. Noise generated by
construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach
high levels. Although noise ranges were found to be similar for all construction phases, the grading
phase tended to involve the most equipment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) has
found that the noisiest equipment types operating at construction sites typically range from 88 dBA to
91 dBA at 50 feet. Typical operating cycles may involve 2 minutes of full power, followed by 3 or 4
minutes at lower settings (EPA 1971). Table 4.3-71ists noise levels generated by typical construction
equipment at a distance of 50 feet.
Noise from localized point sources (such as construction sites) typically decreases by about 6 dBA with
each doubling of distance from source to receptor. Given this noise attenuation rate and assuming no
noise shielding from existing natural or man-made features (trees, buildings, fences, etc.), outdoor
receptors within approximately 1,600 feet of construction sites could experience maximum
instantaneous noise levels of greater than 60 dBA when onsite construction-related noise levels exceed
approximately 90 dBA at the project site boundary.
TABLE 4.3-7
NOISE LEVELS GENERATED BY TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Type of Equipment Range of Sound levels Suggested Sound levels for Analysis
(dBA at 50 feet)
Pile Driver (12,000-18,000 ft-lbfblow) 81 - 96 93
Rock Drill 83 - 99 96
Jack Hammer 75 - 85 82
Pneumatic Tools 78 - 88 85
Pumps 68 - 80 77
Dozer 85 - 90 88
Tractor 77 - 82 80
.
Front-End Loader 86 - 90 88
Hydraulic Backhoe 81 - 90 86
Hydraulic Excavator 81 - 90 86
Grader 79 - 89 86
Air Compressor 76 - 86 86
Truck 81 - 87 86
Source: EPA 1971; BBN Layman Miller 1987
EDAW
Noise
4.3-12
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
,'j
'''l
.
.
III
iii
..
,~
"'1
III
IIlIl
..~
.
,~
III
)lj
.
.
..
.
III
,.
III
.
i#
.
.
IIlIl
ooa-
:........
f I
,
t
As previously discussed, the nearest existing noise-sensitive receptors are located at distances of 1,000
feet and 500 feet from the Dublin and Pleasanton parcels, respectively. Depending on the time of day
during which conStruction activities occur, these nearby noise-sensitive receptors could experience
increases in average daily ambient noise levels of greater than 3 dBA. In addition, should onsite
construction activities continue to occur after completion and occupancy of the proposed onsite noise-
sensitive receptors on the Dublin parcel (i.e., residential dwellings and hotel), projected intenl1ittent
noise levels at the proposed onsite noise-sensitive land uses would likely exceed 80 dBA and would
result in an increase of greater than 3 dBA in ambient noise levels. Because noise-generating
construction activities would result in a short-term increase in ambient noise levels of greater than 3
.dBA at nearby noise-sensitive land uses and because construction noise levels could exceed 80 dBA at
the noise-sensitive hotel and residential units on the Dublin Parcel if construction continues following
the,ir occupation (BARTs construction noise threshold in semi-residential/commercial areas is 70 dBA),
this impact is considered significant.
LONG-TERM NOISE IMPACTS
~
~
t
Impact
4.3-2
Increases in Area and Stationary Source Noise. On-site area and stationazy
sources of noise associated with the proposed land uses would result in only
minor and intermittent increases in ambient noise levels, which would occur
primarily during the day and evening hours and less frequently at night.
Noticeable increases in ambient noise levels (i.e., 3 dBA, or greater) at nearby
noise-seTlsitiv.~ receptors are not anticipated. Therefore, this impact would be
considered less than significant.
Noise levels typically associated with the proposed project's land uses and related noise impacts are
discussed below.
Residential Land Uses
~
~
Noise typically associated with residenti~dweilingsinci~de human voices, amplified music, and noise
generated by lawn maintenance equipment. However, these area source noises are typically intermittent
and occur predominantly during the daytime hours. As a result, noise from area sources are not
anticipated to result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels. Noise levels generated by
stationary sources are typically associated with the use of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
units. Maximum noise levels from residential heating and air conditioning units typically average less
than 50 dBA at 10 feet from the source (EPA 1971). As previously discussed, the nearest existing
noise-sensitive land use in the vicinity of the Dublin parcel is the Best Western Monarch Hotel, located
,.....
~
r
t
1
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
4.3-13
EDAW
Noise
dD3
approximately 1,000 feet west of the project site. Operational noise levels would not exceed the 60
dBA noise threshold given the distance to existing noise-sensitive receptors, projected operational noise
levels associated with the proposed residential development would not result in an increase in exterior
ambient noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
OFFICE AND HOTEL LAND USES
Daily maintenance and operational activities associated with the proposed office and hotel uses could
result in minor increases in ambient noise levels, primarily associated with the operation of mechanical
building equipment. As with the proposed residential development, minor intermittent noise would
occasionally be generated by human voices and the operation of landscaping equipment, as well as on-
site delivery and maintenance vehicles. Area sources of noise associated with the proposed development
would result in only minor and intermittent increases in ambient noise levels primarily during the day
and evening hours and less frequently at night. Noise-generating mechanical equipment associated with
commercial and office land uses typically include air and water circulation systems (e.g., heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning systems, and boilers) and elevators. In general, noise levels generated
by such systems typically average between 55 and 85 dBA at 3 feet from the source (EPA 1971).
Mechanical equipment is typically shielded from direct public exposure and usually housed on rooftops,
within equipment rooms, or within exterior enclosures. As previously discussed, the nearest existing
noise-sensitive land use in the vicinity of the Pleasanton parcel is the Wyndham Garden Hotel, located
approximately 500 feet west of the project site. Given the distance to nearby existing noise-sensitive
receptors, noise generated from the office and hotel uses would not result in an increase in exterior
ambient noise levels at nearby existing noise-sensitive receptors. Assuming a maximum stationary source
noise level of 85 dBA at 3 feet, projected operational noise levels at the proposed residential dwellings
would be approximately 59 dBA, or less. W < ')
PARKING STRUCTURES
Parking-related noise typically includes vehicle exhaust, brake and tire squeal, the opening and closing
of doors and trunks, and occasional car alarms. Maximum single-event noise levels associated with
parking structures can reach approximately 92 dBA for short periods of time (FT A 1995).
Predicted noise levels associated with the two parking facilities were calculated in accordance with FTA
methodology for assessing noise levels generated by parking garages. Predicted noise levels were
calculated based on the total number of parking spaces associated with each facility. Assuming that the
facilities could be utilized by both day-shift and night-shift commuters, maximum average hourly traffic
volumes generated by the parking garages would be approximately 80 vehicles per hour and 53 vehicles
EDAW
Noise
4.3-14
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
..
..
..i
..~
.
"'1l
..
III
..
~
,l~
till
$i
...
iii
..
..
..
'"
..
.
;;,;
i
.
'J
-
..
III
r'
t
d()/
~.
l
~
per hour, respectively. . Based on tlle mod.elingc'onducted., t:he parking garage located on the Dublin
parcel would generate noise levels of approximately 46 dBA CNEL at 50 feet from the structure. Noise
levels generated by the parking garage located on the Pleasanton parcel would be approximately 42
dBA CNEL at 50 feet. As previously discussed, the nearest existing nOIse-sensitive land use in the
vicinity of the Pleasanton parcel is the Wyndham Garden Hotel, located approximately 500 feet west
of the project sit~.Noise'ie~elsg~nerated by the parking facilities would not exceed 6() d.BA CNEt or
result in an increase in ambient noise levels at nearby existing noise-sensitive land uses.
n
t
Bus SYSTEM TRANSIT CENTER
Noise associated with bus transit centers typically includes exhaust and brake squeal from buses, the
opening and closing of doors, and people talking. Maximum single-event noise levels associated with
bus transit centers can reach approximately 101 dBA for short periods of time (FTA 1995).
Predided noise levels associated with the bus transit center were calculated in accordance with FTA
methodology. Predicted noise levels were calculated assuming a maximum average of 21 buses per
hour, obtained from the current WHEELS (LivermoreAmador Valley Transit) schedule for the existing
BART station (BART 2000). Based on the modeling conducted, the bus transit center would generate
~g~~~)\T~~.~L~RP:~ximately 6~~ACNEL at 50 feet from the structure. Assuming an average noise
attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance from the source, maximum projected transit center
noise levels would be approximately 65 dBA CNEL at the proposed hotel and approximately 54 dBA
CNEL at the proposed residential dwellings.
COMBINED PROjECT-GENERATED AREA AND STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE
r'
I '
t
Based on the modeling conducted for operational onsite noise levels associated with the proposed land
uses, combined ext~rior~tationary source noise levels at the proposed hotel and residential dwellings
are projected to be approximately 65 dBA and 60 dBA CNEL, respectively, not accounting for existing
ambient noise levels. As previously discussed, ambient noise levels on the project site are dominated
by traffic noise associated with vehicles traveling on 1-580 and typically average approximately 70-80
dBA cN',EL ., Operational noise levels associated with the proposed land uses would result in an
imperceptible increase in ambient noise levels (i.e., less than 1 dBA) at the proposed onsite noise-
sensitive receptors. Operational noise generated by the proposed onsite land uses would not result in
a predicted increase in ambient noise levels at nearby existing noise-sensitive receptors. As a result,
increases in on-site operational noise levels associated with the proposed land uses would be considered
to have a less-than-significant impact on the existing noise environment.
r
r
t
f
San Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Stafion and Transit Village
4.3-15
EDAW
Noise
dOS-
lncreasesin Traffic Noise Levels on Area Roadwavs. The project generated
traffic would not result in a noticeable increase (i.e., 3 dBA, or greater) in traffic
noise levels at any existing noise-sensitive receptors. Therefore, this impact
would be considered less than significant.
Impact
4.3-3
The increase in daily traffic volumes resulting from development of the proposed project would
generate increased noise levels along nearby roadways. The Federal Highway Administration's traffic
noise prediction model (FHWA-RD-77-108) was used to calculate traffic noise levels along affected
roadways for existing and existing plus project traffic conditions, based on the trip distribution estimates
obtained from the traffic analysis prepared for this project. The existing traffic conditions are those that
were present at the time this report was prepared. The existing plus project traffic conditions assume
that the vehicle trips generated by the proposed project are added to the existing traffic conditions. See
Section 4.5, Transportation/Circulation, for a discussion of the vehicle traffic generated by the proposed
project. For traffic noise modeling purposes, development of the proposed project was estimated to
generate a total of approximately 8,175 trips per day, obtained from the traffic analysis prepared for
this project. The project's contribution to the existing traffic noise levels along area roadways was
determined by comparing the predicted noise levels with and without project-generated traffic. Table
4.3-8 summarizes the calculated noise level at 50 feet from the centerline of the near travel lane for
affected roadways located in the vicinity of potential noise-sensitive receptors. The roadway noise levels
presented assumes no natural or man-made shielding between the roadway and the noise receptor.
Based on the traffic modeling conducted, the proposed project would result in a maximum projected
increase in traffic noise levels of 2 dBA, or less, along area roadways. As would be expected, predicted
increases in traffic noise levels would be greatest along those segments providing direct access to the
proposed project sites, which would include Golden Gate Drive and Stoneridge Mall Road. For the
Dublin parcel, the predicted increase in traffic noise along Golden Gate Drive, between Dublin
Boulevard and St. Patrick Way, would be approximately 2.0 dBA. Development of the Pleasanton
parce~ would result in a predicted increase in traffic noise along Stoneridge Mall Road of approximately
1.5 dBA. Increases in traffic noise along the remaining nearby local roadway segments most affected
by the proposed project would be approximately 0.6 dBA, or less. Based on the modeling conducted,
increased traffic along area roadways associated with development of the proposed land uses would not
result in a noticeable increase in ambient noise levels (i.e., 3 dBA, or greater) at any nearby existing
noise-sensitive land uses.
EDAW
Noise
4.3-16
San Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
~
III
.~
iii!
)~
..
';;'.\jI
...
.
III
..
'''1
'4
'>.'il
lIIIilI
'"
..
.
III
..
..
..
..
..
~
llIIIi
..
lIIIilI
c9D(P
r
l !
t
TABLE 4.3-8
PROJECTED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Noise level (CNELlldn) at 50 ft. From Near Travel lane Centerline
Roadway Contribution to Increased
Existi ng Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise level
City of Dublin
Dublin Boulevard, San Ramon Road to Amador 68.7 68.9 0.2
Plaza Road
Golden Gate Drive, Dublin Boulevard to 8t. 62.0 64.0 2.0
Patrick Way
Amador Plaza Drive, Dublin Boulevard to 8t. 63.4 64.0 0.6
Patrick Way
City of Pleasanton
Canyon Way, San Ramon Road to Stoneridge 61.9 62.0 0.1
Mall Road
Stoneridge Mall Road, Canyon Way to 59.4 60.9 1.5
Stoneridge Drive
Stoneridge Drive, San Ramon Road to 60.6 60.6 0
Stoneridge Mall Road .
Foothill Road, Canyon Way to Stoneridge Drive 68.9 68.9 0
Traffic noise levels were modeled using the FHWA Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) based on traffic
information (i.e., average daily traffic, vehicle speeds, roadway width, etc.) obtained from the traffic analysis
prepared for this project. Assumes no natural or man-made shielding (i.e., vegetation, berms, walls, buildings,
etc.) between the roadway and receptor.
Source: EDA W 2000, TJKM 2000.
Impact
4.3-4
Compatibility of the Proposed Land Uses with Projected On-site Noise
Levels. Projected noise levels at the Dublin and Pleasanton parcels would
exceed the "normally acceptable" thresholds established by each respective
jurisdiction for the proposed land uses. As a result, this impact is considered
significant.
As previously discussed, existing noise levels on the Dublin and Pleasanton parcels are influenced
primarily by traffic noise associated with vehicle traffic along 1-580 and, to a lesser extent, operation
of the BART transit system located in the center median of the 1-580 corridor. Implementation of the
proposed project would result in increased stationary source noise associated with the operation of the
proposed land uses, as well as increases in traffic noise levels along area roadways associated with
r
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
4.3-17
EDAW
Noise
a07
vehicles traveling to and from the proposed project. Combined on-site noise levels from all.existing
and proposed noise-generating sources were analyzed to determine the compatibility of the proposed
land uses with the noise criteria adopted by the respective jurisdictions.
INTERSTATE-580 TRAFFIC NOISE
Traffic noise levels associated with vehicles traveling on 1-580 were calculated using the Federal
Highway Administration's Traffic Noise Model(FHWA-PD-96-009). The calculation of projected
vehicle traffic noise levels was based on the average daily vehicle trips obtained from the traffic analysis
prepared for this project. Projected traffic noise levels assume no noise shielding from intervening
terrain or manmade structures (i.e., berms, concrete barriers, buildings, etc.). Under existing
conditions, vehicles traveling on 1-580 would result in noise levels of approximately 84 dBA CNEL at
50 feet from the centerline of the near travel lane. With the addition of project-generated traffic, the
noise level from vehicles traveling on 1-580 would remain at 84 dBA CNEL. The noise level would
remain unchanged due to the very small percentage of project-generated traffic in relation to existing
vehicle traffic on 1-580.
ON-SITE TRANSIT NOISE LEVELS
Noise generated by the passby of BART trains was assessed in accordance with the U.S. Department
of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) recommended methodology obtained from
Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines (1995). The estimation of transit noise levels
was based on a combined total of approximately 148 eastbound and westbound commute trains during
a typical weekday, and assumed an average of 10 cars per train and an average departure/arrival speed
of 30 miles per hour near the proposed station (BART, 1989). Based on the analysis conducted,
wayside transit noise was calculated at 65.5 dBA CNEL at 50 feet from the near track centerline in the
vicinity of the proposed station.
PROJECTED ON-SITE NOISE CONTOURS
Noise contours at the Dublin and Pleasanton parcels were calculated based on the predicted vehicle
traffic and transit noise levels, as calculated above, and in combination with projected operational noise
levels associated with the proposed land uses. The projected ambient noise levels at each of the
proposed noise-sensitive land uses are summarized in Table 4.3-9. This table also identifies the land
use compatibility thresholds of each jurisdiction. The compatibility of the proposed land uses with
projected noise levels are discussed separately for each parcel, as follows.
EDAW
Noise
4.3-18
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
.
~
..
~~~
iii
,~
..
-:?:d
~~
.
..
III
..
..
III
III
..
iii
..
iii
...
.
if!
..
.
'd08
r
t
TABLE 4.3-9
PROJECTED EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS
Predicted Exterior Noise levels (dBA CNEl)
land Use Existing Plus Project land Use Compatibility Thresholds 1
Normally Acceptable I Conditionally Acceptable
Dublin Parcel
Hotel 79.2 60 70 or less
Residential Dwellings 68.6 60 70 or less
Pleasanton Parcel
Office Building 78.3 70 I 80 or less
Projected noise levels are based on total noise levels generated by vehicle traffic on 1-580 and area roadways. as
well as projected noise levels from BART trains. the station, and noise generated by proposed on-site land uses.
The "Existing plus project" noise levels are based. in part, on projected vehicle traffic volumes for the year
2005. Projected traffic volumes were obtained from the traffic analysis prepared for this project and assume
that peak hour volumes are ten percent of the average daily volumes.
1 Land use compatibility thresholds are based on the general plan criteria adopted by each respective
jurisdiction, as previously identified in Tables 4.3-2 and 4.3-3.
Source: EDAW 2000.
r
.
DUBI.INP AltCEL
As depicted in Table 4.3-9, projected noise levels at the proposed hotel and residential development
located on the Dublin parcel would exceed the "normally acceptable" land use compatibility threshold
of 60 dBA CNEL. Projected noise levels at the lower level of the proposed hotel would be
approximately 79 dBA CNEL due primarily to vehicle traffic on 1-580. Projected noise levels at the
proposed residential development would be nearly 69 dBA at the residential units located along Golden
Gate Drive. Although the proposed hotel would provide partial shielding of traffic and transit-related
noise from the 1-580 corridor, projected exterior noise levels along the southern perimeter of the
proposed.'r~sidenti~ development wouldstill exceed 60 d'BA. Because projected noise levels would
exceed the "norm~y acceptable" exterior noise threshold of 60 dBA CNEL established by the City of
Dublin for the proposed land uses, this impact is considered significant.
'PLEASANTON PARCEL
As with the Dublin parcel, exterior noise levels at the Pleasanton site would be influenced primarily by
~ehicl~traffic on 1:580. Based()n the modeling conducted, maximum combined. exterior noise levels
would be approximately 78 dBA CNEL along the northern edge of the proposed office building (Table
fl
Son Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
,. WestOublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
4.3-19
EDAW
Noise
;}.01
..
4.3-8). Projected exterior noise levels along the southern facade of the office building that fronts
Stoneridge Mall Road would be less than 65 dBA CNEL. Maximum projected noise levels at the
northern edge of the proposed office building would exceed 70 dBA CNEL. Because projected noise
levels would exceed the "normally acceptable" exterior noise compatibility threshold established by the
City of Pleasanton for the proposed land use, this impact is considered significant.
4.3.3 MITIGATION MEASURES
Noise from Construction Activities. <
Noise-generating activities associated with construction of the proposed land uses
shall be limited to daytime hours of operation Monday through Saturday.
Mitigation
4.3-1
All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, would be equipped with
properly operating and maintained mufflers and acoustical shields or shrouds, in
accordance with manufacturers' recommendations.
Stationary noise-generating construction equipment (e.g., generators, cranes,
compressors, and mixers) would be centrally located on the project site or within
equipment staging areas at the greatest distance possible from occupied building(s)
To the maximum extent possible, construction of the proposed land uses shall be
phased to minimize the occurrence of construction activities after completion and
occupancy of the proposed noise-sensitive land uses on the Dublin parcel (i.e., the
residential dwellings and hotel).
Com1Jatibilitv of Pro1Josed Land Uses with Projected Noise Levels.
The following mitigation measures are proposed to reduce interior noise levels of the
proposed land uses:
Mitigation
l 4.3-4
The developer shall utilize an acoustical professional, such as a Licensed Engineer or Licensed Architect
with experience in acoustics. The acoustician shall develop noise attenuation measures to be
incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed residential, hotel, and office building
that will produce a composite building sound transmission control (STC) rating of 30 (or higher)
individually computed for the walls and for the floor/ceiling construction. Suggested measures include:
wall construction with resilient channels, staggered studs, or double-stud walls, use of dual glazed
windows with laminated glass, limitation of the number and size of windows along walls located within
close proximity to major noise sources, and ensuring that all exterior construction joints are either
grouted or caulked air-tight. Additional measures include locating on-site stationary noise sources (i.e.,
EDAW
Noise
4.3-20
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
~
..
..
,
""t
.
'.~
..~
.
..
..
..
11III
..
.
.
..
.
..
..
iii
iii
III
dID
heating and air conditioning units, emergency-use generators, bUilding mechanical equipment, etc.) in
enclosures or shielding them from within line-of-sight of the proposed residential dwellings.
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations requires the preparation of an acoustical analysis for
multi-family residences that demonstrates how interior noise levels will achieve a 45 dBA CNELjLdn'
where the exterior noise levels exceed 60 dBA CNELjLdn' As a result, a Title 24 analysis shall be
prepared as part of the fmal design of the proposed residential dwellings. To the extent necessary, noise
control measures shall be designed according to the type of building construction and specified sound
rating for each building element to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNELjLdn'
4.3.4 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
NOISE FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
r
r
.
Implementation of the proposed mitigation measures for the control of short-term construction-
generated noise would include provisions for the use of exhaust muffiers and engine shrouds (in
accordance with manufacturers' recommendations ) and would reduce the potential for activities
occurring during the more noise-sensitive evening and nighttime hours. The use of equipment mufflers
and shrouds would reduce individual equipment noise levels by approximately 5 to 10 dBA and would
reduce total construction-generated noise levels to approximately 85 dBA, or less, at 50 feet from the
construction site. With implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, increases in average daily
ambient noise levels would be reduced to less than 3 dBA at existing nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
However, should onsite construction activities occur after completion and occupancy of the proposed
hotel or residential land uses, noise levels would be in excess of 70 dBA and increases in ambient noise
levels would exceed 3 dBA even with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures at these
buildings. Projected increases in ambient noise levels would be limited to the construction phase of the
proposed project and would be dependent on the specific activities being performed. However,
because noticeable increases in ambient noise levels above the significance thresholds at the hotel and
residential buildings may still occur, even with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures,
this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. No additional and feasible mitigation is available
to reduce this impact to less-than-significant levels at the hotel and residential buildings.
r
~
COMPATIBILITY OF PROPOSED LAND USES WITH PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS
Implementation of the proposed mitigation measures would ensure that interior noise levels at the
proposed hotel on the Dublin parcel are reduced to acceptable levels, in accordance with the CIty of
Dublin's land use compatibility thresholds. However, because exterior noise levels would exceed the
/
San Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BARIStation and Transit Village
4.3-21
EDAW
Noise
dll
,.~
~
.
City's 'acceptable' land use compatibility threshold, this impact is considered significant and
unavoidable. No feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this exterior noise impact to a less-
than-significant level.
'-'Ii
11M
..
III
lIIIiI
..
..
lIIIiI
III
..
"
..
.fill
..
..
..
..
..
.
EDAW
Noise
4.3-22
Son Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West, Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
wi
.
,..-.
81?-
..-
4.4
AIR QUALITY
4.4.1
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
.1'""'-
,...
t
Air quality in a region is determined by its topography, meteorology, and existing air pollutant sources.
These factors are discussed below, together with the current regulatory structure that applies to the San
Francisco Bay Area Air Basin pursuant to the regulatory authority of the Bay Area Air Quality
ManagemeritDistrict (BAAQMD).
r-
~
Climate And Meteorology
r
t
.' ,
Ambient air quality is commonly characterized by climatological conditions, the meteorological
influences on air quality, and the quantity and type of pollutants released. The basin is subject to a
combination of topographical and climatic factors that reduce the potential for high levels of regional
and local air pollutants. The following section describes pertinent charact"eristics of the air basin and
provides an overview of the physical conditions affecting pollutant dispersion in the project area.
,.......
Ii
---
t ~
.
REGIONAL CLIMATE
""'"'
f .
r; .
The project site is located in the eastern portion of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Basin), an
area encompassing all of Marin, Napa, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, San Francisco,
and parts of Sonoma and Solano counties. The basin is characterized by a complex terrain consisting
of coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys, and the San Francisco Bay. It is generally bounded on the
west by the Pacific Ocean, on the north by the cC>aStRanges, aJ:1d'on the east alld ~outh by the Diablo
Range.
r
r
I
The Basin climate is dominated by the strength and location of a semipermanent, subtropical high-
pressure cell over the northeastern Pacific Ocean. Climate is also affected by the moderating effects of
the adjacent oceanic heat reservoir. Mild summers and winters, moderate rainfall, daytime onshore
breezes, and moderate humidities. characterize. regional climatic condi. ..tions'~ ~s,~er?when the,high
. '. .. . ". '. ....'. . . '. .' ,", . '. " . '.'. .... "........>;..-.,~c....;,y__",c:'i..,..,~._..:..~....""..._, :Y--."-":'__'<~":<_":; .":' >''',-,.. ':"';,..;.,..'."<'" -,K'I,"" ""C-",' -"'r' ',:- ..",;
pressure cell is strongest and farthest north, fog forms in the morning and temperat:ui-es are mild. In
winter, when the high pressure cell is weakest and farthest south, occasional rain storms occur.
r-'" :
t .
Moderate temperatures and hUmidities characterize the project area where temperatures average
approximately 59 degrees Fahrenheit (F) ~ualltat tl1e~ivS~Illore~1i111~tolo~ic~lstation,the cl()sest
station that measures temperature and precipitation (NOAA 1.992). Average daytime high
temperatures range from 89.8 degrees F in July to 56.6 degrees F in December. Average overnight low
......
\ .
Son Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleosanton BART Station and Transit Village,
..
4.4-1
EDAW
Air Quality
:;}/3
temperatures range from 53.5 degrees F in August to 35.5 degrees F in January. Precipitation varies
greatly in the project area, depending on season. Rainfall averages approximately 14.2 inches annually
and occurs almost exclusively from October through April. Summers are mild and relatively dry with
3 to 4 months without rain while conditions in the bay produce periodic fog during the morning.
Winters are mild and intermittently rainy.
Winds across the smdy area are an important meteorological parameter because they control the
dilution of locally-generated air pollutant emissions and their regional trajectory. Southwest winds are
the most common at the Livermore Station, the closest station that measures wind speed and direction
to the proposed project. However, in the winter, northeast winds prevail and in the summer, west
winds are the most frequent. Long-term wind data recorded at the Livermore Station indicates that
daily winds average 4.4 mph with west winds typically averaging 5.1 mph (California Air Resources
Board 1992).
METEOROLOGICAL INFLUENCES ON Am QUALITY
Regional flow patterns affect air quality patterns by directing pollutants downwind of sources.
Localized meteorological conditions, such as moderate winds disperse pollutants and reduce pollutant
concentrations. When a warm layer of air traps cooler air close to the ground, an inversion layer is
produced. Such temperature inversions hamper dispersion by creating a ceiling over the area and
trapping air pollutants near the ground. During summer mornings and afternoons, these inversions
are present over the project area. During summer's longer daylight hours, plentiful sunshine provides
the energy needed to fuel photochemical reactions between nitrogen oxides (NOx) and reactive organic
gases (ROG), which result in ozone (03) formation.
In the winter, temperature inversions dominate during the night and early morning hours but frequently
dissipate by afternoon. During the winter months, the greatest pollution problems are from carbon
monoxide (CO) and NOx' High CO concentrations occur on winter days with strong surface inversions
and light winds. Carbon monoxide transport is extremely limited.
CRITERIA Am POLLUTANTS
Currently, most of the effort to improve air quality in the United States and California is directed toward
the control of five pollutants, called "criteria" air pollutants: photochemical oxidants (ozone), CO, PM10,
N02, and sulfur dioxide (S02)' Fifteen years ago, suspended particulate lead would have been included
in this list, but the widespread availability and use of unleaded gasoline has effectively eliminated lead
EDAW
Air Quality
4.4-2
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
..
iii
.
.
III
.
.
.
..
./:~
..
.
IIIIi
.
-
~
11II
..
11II
..
III
BPi
~
l
as an air quality concern. Criteria pollutants, including their formation and healtli effects, are discussed
below:
Ozone
r,
,
Ozone (03) is a colorless gas with a pungent odor that causes eye irritation and respiratory function
impairment. Most 03 in the atmosphere is formed as a result of the interaction of ultraviolet light,
ROG, and NOx' ROG is composed of non-methane hydrocarbons, and NOx consists of chemical
combinations of nitrogen and oxygen, mainly NO and NOz. Motor vehicles are the primary source of
ROG and NOx' Because these photochemical reactions are regional in nature, 03 is considered a
regional pollutant.
Fine Particulate Matter (PM1o)
r-
r'
PMlO are atmospheric particles resulting from fume-producing industrial and agricultural operations,
and natural activities. Health impacts from breathing the particulates resulted in revision of the Total
Suspended Particulate (TSP) standard to reflect particulates that are small enough to be inhaled (i.e.,
10 microns or less in size). Current standards defIne acceptable concentrations of particulates that are
smaller than 10microns in diameter, referred to as PMlO. PMlO includes materials such as sulfates and
nitrates, which can cause lung damage.
,......
t
~
r
Carbon Monoxide
\r
, \
Carbon monoxide (CO) is an odorless, colorless gas that causes a number of health problems including
fatigue, headache, confusion and dizziness. The incomplete combustion of petroleum fuels in on-road
vehicles is a major cause of CO. CO is also produced during the winter from wood stoves and
fIreplaces. CO tends to dissipate rapidly into the atmosphere; consequently, violations of the CO state
standard are generally limited to major intersections during peak hour traffic conditions.
Nitrogen Dioxide
r-c
, '
Nitrogen dioxide (NOz) is an indirect product of fuel combustion in industrial sources, motor vehicles,
and other mobile sources (e.g., off-road vehicles, trains, aircraft, mobile equipment, and utility
equipment). NOz causes a number of health problems including risk of acute and chronic respiratory
disease.
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
4.4-3
EDAW
Air Quality
:;JiS-
..
Sulfur Dioxide
.
The major source of S02 emissions is fuel-burning equipment in which fuel oil and/or coal are
consumed. S02 causes a number of health problems including aggravation of chronic obstructive lung
disease.
1.1I
.
REGULATORY SETTING OF AIR QUALITY
'il
-
Air quality is regulated by several jurisdictions including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), California Air Resources Board (CARE), and the BAAQMD. Each of these jurisdictions
develop rules, regulations, policies, and/or goals to attain the goals or directives imposed upon them
through legislation. Although USEP A regulations may not be superseded, both state and local
regulations may be more stringent.
IIlii
.
Pollutants subject to federal ambient standards are referred to as "criteria" pollutants because the USEP A
publishes criteria documents to justify the choice of standards. One of the most important reasons for
air quality standards is the protection of those members of the population who are most sensitive to the
adverse health effects of air pollution, termed "sensitive receptors." The term sensitive receptors refers
to specific population groups, as well as the land uses where they would reside for long periods.
Commonly identified sensitive population groups are children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the
chronically ill. Commonly identified sensitive land uses are residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare
centers, retirement homes or convalescent homes, hospitals, and clinics. The federal and state standards
for the criteria pollutants and other state regulated air pollutants are shown in Table 4.4-1.
.
.
..
..
FEDERAL Am QUALITY REGULATIONS
till
At the federal level, the USEP A has been charged with implementing national air quality programs. The
USEP A's air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), which was
signed into law in 1970. Congress substantially amended the FCAA in 1977 and again in 1990.
.
.
The FCAA required the USEP A to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and
also set deadlines for their attainment. Two types ofNAAQS have been established: primary standards,
which protect public health, and secondary standards, which protect public welfare from non-health-
related adverse effects, such as visibility restrictions.
..
.
.
EDAW
Air Quality
Ii
4.4-4
Son Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
lit
:;J./t.p
l""*<
~
TABLE ~.4-1
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
California 1 Notionol2
Air Pollutant C(jncentrlltiQn P~imdry{>)
':,,; Se(Ond~ry{>)
Ozone 0.09 ppm, I-hr avg 0.12 ppm, I-hr avg 0.12 ppm, I-hr avg
0.08 ppm, 8-hr avg[3,4] 0.08 ppm, 8-hr avg[3,4]
Carbon Monoxide 9 ppm, 8-hr avg 9 ppm, 8-hr avg 9 ppm, 8-hr avg
20 ppm, I-hr avg 35 ppm, I-hr avg 35 ppm, I-hr avg
Nitrogen Dioxide 0.25 ppm, I-hr avg 100 J,tg/m3 annual 100 J,tg/m3 annual
Sulfur Dioxide 0.04 ppm, 24-hr avg 0.03 ppm, annual avg 0.5 ppm, 3-hr avg
0.25 ppm, I-hr avg 0.14 ppm, 24-hr avg
Suspended Particulate 30 J,tg/m3 annual 50 J,tg/m3 annual 50 J,tg/m3 annual
geometric mean arithmetic mean arithmetic mean
Matter (PMuJ 50 J,tg/m3, 24-hr avg 150 J,tg/m3, 24-hr avg 150 J,tg/m3, 24-hr avg
Suspended Particulate 15 J,tg/m3 annual 15 J,tg/m3 annual
- arithmetic mean arithmetic mean
Matter (pM2..J [4] 65 J,tg/m3, 24-hr avg 65 J,tg/m3, 24-hr avg
Lead 1.5 J,tg/m3, 1.5 J,tg/m3 1.5 J,tg/m3
30-day avg calendar quarter calendar quarter
Sulfates 25 J,tg/m3, 24-hr avg n --
.
Hydrogen Sulfide 0.03 ppm, I-hr avg n --
Vinyl Chloride 0.01 ppm, 24-hr avg -- --
In sufficient amount to
produce an extinction
Visibility Reducing coefficient of 0.23 per
kilometer due to particles -- n
Particles when the relative
humidity is less than
70%.
I California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide (I-hour), suspended particulate matter-PMIO visibility
reducing particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. The sulfur dioxide (24-hour), sulfates, lead, hydrogen sulfide,
and vinyl chloride standards are not to be equaled or exceeded.
2 National standards, other than ozone and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means, are not to be
exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year
with maximum hourly average concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one.
3 Based on newly established 8-hour EP A standard. The 0.12 ppm I-hour standard will not be revoked in a given area
until that area has achieved 3 consecutive years of air quality data meeting the I-hour standard.
4 New federal ozone and fine particulate matter stnadards were promulgated by the U.S. EPA on July 18,1997. On May
14, 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia put a hold on implementing the 8-hour ozone standard
and asked for further comments on the fine particulate (PM2.5) standard. These standards are currently under review.
ppm = parts per million by volume
Jlg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Source: California Air Resources Board 2000
,.....
,
I-
~ ,
-
t
f
..--
,
,
r-
\
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
4.4-5
EDAW
Air Ouolity
:;J )1
STATE AIR QUALITY REGULATIONS
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), 1988, requires that all air districts in the state endeavor to achieve
and maintain California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for 03, CO, SOz, and nitrogen
dioxide (NOz) by the earliest practical date. Plans for attaining CAAQS were to be submitted to CARE
by June 30, 1991. The CCAA specifies that districts focus particular attention on reducing the emissions
from transportation and area-wide emission sources, and the act provides districts with authority to
regulate indirect sources. Each district plan is required to either (i) achieve a 5% annual reduction,
averaged over consecutive 3-year periods, in district-wide emissions of each non-attainment pollutant
or its precursors, or (ii) to provide for implementation of all feasible measures to reduce emissions. Any
planning effort for air quality attainment would thus need to consider both state and federal planning
requirements.
The California Air Resources Board (CARE) is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight
of sate and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing the California Clean
Air Act (CCAA) of 1988. The CCAA requires that all air districts in the state endeavor to achieve and
maintain California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for 03, CO, SOz, and nitrogen dioxide
(NOz) by the earliest practical date. Plans for attaining CAAQS were to be submitted to CARB by June
30, 1991; however, some districts are still in the draft process. The CCAA specifies that districts focus
particular attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and area-wide emission sources, and
the act provides districts with new authority to regulate indirect sources. Each district plan is to achieve
a 5 percent annual reduction, averaged over consecutive 3-year periods, in district-wide emissions of
each non attainment pollutant or its precursors. Any additional development within the region obviously
would impede the reduction goals of the CCAA.
Other CARE duties include monitoring air quality (in conjunction with air monitoring networks
maintained by air pollution control districts (APCDs) and Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs),
establishing CAAQS (which in many cases are more stringent than the NAAQS), and setting emissions
standards for new motor vehicles. The emission standards established for motor vehicles differ
depending on various factors including the model year, and the type of vehicle, fuel and engine used.
The CARE has recently adopted new diesel exhaust control measures and more stringent emission
standards for various on-road mobile sources of emissions, including transit buses. In February 2000,
the CARE adopted a new public transit bus fleet rule and emission standards for new urban buses.
These new rules and standards provide for 1) more stringent emission standards for some new urban
bus engines beginning with 2002 model year engines; 2) zero-emission bus demonstration and purchase
EDAW
Air Quality
4.4-6
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Villagen
'~
..
.
.
.
till
.>j
..
IIIIl
"1
.
.
..
.
..
II!'
I.
"I
~1I
.
.I
.
,,;
..
.
-'"
,
,
~
~
r:
t
r"
~
. y. - ~
r
,
.
~
t
r
l
\
:;) /2
.,,',,"
requirements applicable to transit agencies; and 3) reporting requirements with which transit agencies
must demonstrate compliance with the urban transit bus fleet rule.
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS
The BAAQMD is responsible for implementing emissions standards and other reqUirements of federal
and state laws regarding most types of stationary emission sources. The BAAQMD regulates air quality
in the local area through its permit authority and its planning and review activities.
.In an effort to reach attainment of the state standards for 03 as required by the CCAA, the BAAQMD
completed its Bay Area '97 Clean Air Plan (CAP). The CAP stresses attainment of 03 standards and
focuses on strategies reducing NOx and ROG air emissions by promoting active public involvement,
by encouraging compliance through positive influence and behavior, public education m both the public
and private sectors, and implementation of stationary and mobile source control measures (BAAQMD
1997). An update of the CAP is expected to occur in 2000, and a workshop draft of the updated CAP
has been released.
To attain the federal I-hour standard for 03, the San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan was
adopted by the BAAQMD in June 1999. The plan includes measures already included in the CAP and
identifies additional strategies to control emissions from stationary and area sources of emissions. In
addition, the plan includes two voluntary measures, including the Spare the Air Program (1999 and
2000 ozone season only) and low emission alternatively fueled vehicles and infrastructure (BAAQMD
1999).
EXISTING AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA
Air pollutant concentrations are measured at monitoring stations throughout the Basin. Baseline air
quality in the study area can be inferred from ambient air quality measurements conducted at the
monitoring station located in Livermore. This is the closest station to the project site and is considered
generally representative of the air quality in the Dublin and Pleasanton area. However, because ambient
air quality can vary within the tri-valley area depending on location, caution should be taken when
extrapolating these measurements to describe pollutant levels in the Dublin and Pleasanton areas. Wa.ple
4.4-2 summarizes the last 4 years of published data available for this monitoring station.
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West DublinlPleosanton BART Station ond Transit Village
4.4-7
EDAW
Air Quolity
TABLE 4.4-2
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL AIR QUALITY DATA
I 1995 I 1996
UVERMORE~OLD 1sT STREET AIR QUAIJTY MONITORING STATION
Ozone (03)
State Standard (l-hr avg, 0.09 ppm)
Federal Standard (l-hr/8-hr avg, 0.12/0.08 ppm) 1
Maximum Concentration
1 The EPA is phasing out and replacing the previous I-hour primary ozone standard (health-based) with a new 8-hour
standard; The Federal I-hour ozone standard (0.12 ppm) will not be revoked in a given area Wltil that area has
achieved 3 consecutive years of air quality data meeting the I-hour standard.
2 The EPA has recently revised the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) PM standards by adding a
new annual PM2.5 standard set at 15 J-Lg/m3 and a new 24-hour PM2,s standard set at 65 fLg/m3. These standards are
currently being reviewed. As a result, PM2.5 monitoring data is not available for the periods indicated.
na = data not available
ppm = parts per million by volume
fLg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Source: California Air &sources Board, 2000; U.S. EPAAIRS Data, 2000.
Number of Days State Standard Exceeded
Number of Days FederalI-hr/8-hr Standard Exceeded
Nitrogen Dioxide (NOz)
State Standard (l-hr avg, 0.25 ppm)
Federal Standard (Annual avg, 0.053 ppm)
Maximum Concentration
Days State Standard Exceeded
Days Federal Standard Exceeded
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
State Standard (I-hr/8-hr avg, 20/9.1 ppm)
Federal Standard (l-hr/8-hr avg, 35/9.5 ppm)
Maximum Concentration
Number of Days State Standard Exceeded
Number of Days Federal Standard Exceeded
Suspended Particulates (PMlO)
State Standard (24-hr avg, 50ILg/m3)
Federal Standard (24-hr avg, 150ILg/m3) z
Maximum Concentration
% Samples Exceeding State 24-hr Standard
% Samples Exceeding Federal 24-hr Standard
0.16
20
7/11
0.076
o
o
5.0/2.3
0/0
0/0
52
2
o
0.14
22
8/na
0.086
o
o
4.9/2.5
0/0
0;0
71
2
o
0.11
3
O/na
0.082
o
o
4.6/2.5
0/0
0/0
62
3
o
.
0.15
21
6/10
...
iii
."
.
0.071
o
o
..
.
4.3/2.4
0/0
0/0
..
.
..
66
2
o
..
rai
;ti
...
.
.
EDAW
Air Quality
4.4-8
..
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West DublinlPleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
Ii
;)ao
EXISTING ATTAINMENT STATUS
Monitored criteria air pollutants are classified in each air basin, county, or iI1 some cases within a specific
urbanized area. The classification is determined by comparing actual monitoring data with state and
federal standards. If a pollutant concentration is lower than the standard, the pollutant is classified as
"attainment" in that area. If an area exceeds the standard, the pollutant is classified as "non-attainment."
If data ;lre inst1fficient to determine whether or not the standard is exceeded, the area is designated
"unclassified. "
The Basin is considered a non-attainment area for the State and federal I-hour 03 standard, and a
nonattainment area for the state PMlO standards (BAAQMD 2000).
4.4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
r--
,i I
For the purposes~f~~31ysis,t:he:BayAreaAir QualityManagem~rlt:District (BAAQMD) thresholds
of significance are used to determine whether the project would result in a significant air quality impact.
Using the BAAQMD'sCEQA Guidelines (April 1996), significant air quality impacts are identified as
follows:
~
Construction Impacts. Project impacts would be considered significant if feasible BAAQMD construction
control mitigation measures listed in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines are not incorporated.
.~
· Regional Impacts. Project emissions would be considered significant at a regional level if the
restliting emissions of ROG, NOx, or PM10 exceed 15 tons per year, 80 pounds per day, or 36
kilograms per day.
· Localized CO Impacts-Roadways. Project CO concentrations would be considered significant if
a project contributes to CO concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard
of9.0 parts per million (ppm) averaged over 8 hours or 20 ppm for 1 hour.
· Localized Cf(JBnp~~ts-Pa;king Garages. Th~re are currently no agreed upon indoor air quality
standards for CO (EP A 2000). However, maximum permissible exposure limits for CO have
been established by various agencies, including the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH), and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). The maximum
permissible CO concentration established by OSHA and ACGIH is 50 ppm averaged over an
8-hour period. The interior CO concentration level established by the MSHA is 35 ppm for an
r
~ '
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid T ronsit District
West DublinlPleasonton BART Station and Tronsit Village
4.4-9
EDAW
Air Quality
d-:;>..I
8-hour period (OSHA 2000). For purposes of this analysis, interior CO concentrations within
the parking garages would be considered significant if levels would exceed the more stringent
exterior State Ambient Air Quality Standard of 9.0 parts per million (ppm) averaged over 8
hours or 20 ppm for 1 hour.
PROJECT IMPACTS
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would temporarily generate short-term
emissions of NO x, ROG, CO, and PMlO during clearing/demolition, grading, and general construction
activities. The emissions produced during clearing/demolition, grading, and general construction
activities are "short-term" in the sense that they would be limited to the construction period, and would
only be experienced downwind of the project site. The entire construction process is anticipated to last
approximately 2 years. Emissions would be generated during land clearing and grading activities
associated with preparing the soil for the proposed land uses and the various utility improvements (water
supply, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, wastewater treatment system, and electrical/natural gas
infrastructure). Air pollutant emissions would also be generated from paving, framebuilding, and other
construction activities associated with building development. The construction emissions generated by
the proposed project would be considered a short-term significant air quality impact.
Impact
4.4-1
I..
Impact
4.4-2
Construction-Related Air Emissions. Construction activities associated with the
proposed project would temporarily produce emissions of NOx, ROG, CO, and
PM10" Emissions would va.ry substantially from day to day and could potentially
produce substantial amounts of PM10, These construction emissions would be
considered a short-term significant air quality impact.
Localized CO Concentrations-Area Roadwavs. Occupation of the proposed
project would increase CO concentrations at nearby intersections due to
increased vehicular traffic to and from the project site. However, predicted CO
concentrations at affected intersections would not exceed state or federal ambient
air quality standards. Therefore, this is considered a less-than-significant impact.
The primary mobile source pollutant of local concern is carbon monoxide (CO). Emissions of ROG,
NOx, and PMlO are considered regional emissions of concern and are analyzed at a regional level in
accordance with BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Carbon monoxide concentration is a direct function
of vehicle idling time and, thus, traffic flow conditions. Carbon monoxide transport is extremely
limited; it disperses rapidly with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions.
Under certain meteorological conditions, however, CO concentrations close to a congested roadway or
intersection may reach unhealthy levels, affecting local sensitive receptors (residents, school children,
hospital patients, the elderly, etc.). As a result, the BAAQMD recommends analysis of CO emissions
EDAW
Air Quolity
4.4-10
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West DublinlPleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
.
iii
III
,,;
.
..
:ii
.
..
III
.
'.
.
..
.
'.
...
'!!
.~
..
.
..
..
r-"
t
..r-
1"
(
,......
f
--
/I. i
r
~
r
~
l
~,
,.....
l
.
{
r
..-
\'
'dd-~
at a local rather than regional level. Typically, areas of high CO concentrations, or "hot spots," are
associated with roadways or intersections operating at high levels of service (LOS E, or worse). In areas
with a high ambient background CO concentration, modeling of CO concentrations at affected
intersections is recommended in determining a project's effect on local CO levels.
Predicted CO concentrations at affected intersections were calculated in accordance with BAAQMD-
recommended screening methodology, as identified in theBAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996), which
is based on the EP A-approved CALINE4 dispersion model. Maximum worst-case CO concentrations
were calculated for existing conditions, existing plus approved development conditions, and existing plus
approved plus project conditions. Based on the fmdings of the traffic analysis and in accordance with
BAAQMD-recommended methodology, predicted CO concentrations were modeled at intersections
projected to operate at a LOS E, or worse, during the p.m. peak hours. Predicted CO concentration
modeling results are presented in Table 4.4-3.
As indicated in Table 4.4-3, increased vehicle traffic associated. withi.rllplemen.i:itio;} of the proposed
land uses would not result in or contribute to CO concentrations in excess of the state or national
standards. .As a result, this impact would be consIdered less-than-sIgnificant.
Localized CO Concentrations-Proposed Parkin$! Structures. Operation of the
proposed project would result in CO concentrations within the proposed parking
garages. However, projected CO concentrations would not exceed applicable
thresholds. As a result, this impact would be less than significant.
Impact
4.4-3
Operation of the proposed project would result in CO concentrations within the proposed parking
garages. The proposed parking garages would include vehicles traveling and idling within the facility
and would have the potential for internal air quality impacts~ Because all vehicles, regardless of where
they park, must enter or exit from the ground floor, carbon monoxide emissions would be greatest on
the ground floor of the garage.
The CAL3QHC Dispersion Model was used to calculate the maximum CO concentrations within the
parking garages. The CAL3QHC model is the model recommended by the U.S. EP A for the estimation
of local and mobile source CO concentrations. To be conservacive,tl1ealrql1'aJiiY aIlalysis" assumed. mat
all parking stalls within the parking structures would be emptied within one hour, and that 100 percent
of the vehicles started. with the engine cold.. A parkillg strUcnrreceffiIJ.g()[ 3 'meters .(10 'feet) was used.
"
Emission factors were obtained from the EMF AC7f mobile source emissions computer model. The
estimated worst-case interior CO concentrations for the two proposed parking structures are presented
in Table 4.4-4.
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West DublinlPleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
4.4-11
EDAW
Air Quality
:;I?-)
TABLE 4.4-3
PREDICTED MAxIMUM CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS AT ROADWAY INTERSECTIONS
Time Maximum CO Concentrations (ppm)
Intersection Period Existing Plus' Existing Plus Approved
Existing Approved Plus Projed
DUBLIN INTERSECTIONS 1
DublinjAmador Plaza Drive 1-hr 6.4 7.0 7.2
8-hr 3.6 4.0 4.2
DublinjDougherty 1-hr 7.8 8.7 8.7
8-hr 4.6 5.2 5.2
PLEASANTON INTERSECTIONS 2
i 1-hr 7.3 8.3 8.2
Hopyard RoadjStoneridge Drive 8-hr 4.2 4.9 4.8
1-680 SB RampsjStoneridge Drive 1-hr 7.4 9.0 9.2
8-hr 4.3 5.4 5.6
Stoneridge MalljStoneridge Drive 1-hr 6.5 7.4 7.5
8-hr 3.7 4.3 4.4
Significance Thresholds 1-hr 20.0
8-hr 9.0
Predicted CO concentrations were calculated in accordance with BAAQMD-recommended methodology based on
CALINE4 modeling for signalized intersections expected to operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS E, or
worse). Emission factors and ambient CO concentrations were obtained from the BAAQ.MD CEQA Guidelines (1996).
Predicted CO concentrations for existing conditions scenarios, assumes background CO concentrations of 4.4 ppm and
3.5 ppm for the I-hour and 8-hour concentrations, respectively.
Source: EDAW, 2000; T]KM 2000; BAAQMD, 1996.
TABLE 4.4-4
PREDICTED MAxIMUM CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS AT PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURES
Parking Facility Maximum (0 (on(entrations (ppm)
l-hour 8-hour
713-Space Parking Garage - Dublin Site 11.4 8.4
419-Space Parking Garage - Pleasanton Site 8.5 6.4
The CAL3QHC Model was used to calculate the maximum CO concentrations within the parking garages.
Assumes that all parking stalls within the parking structures would be emptied within one hour, and that 100
percent of the vehicles started with the engine cold. A parking structure ceiling of 3 meters (10 feet) was used.
Emission factors were obtained from the EMF AC7f mobile source emissions computer model. Assumes
background CO concentrations of 4.4 ppm and 3.5 ppm for the l-hour and 8-hour concentrations, respectively.
Source: EDA W, 2000.
EDAW
Air Quality
4.4-12
Son Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West DublinlPleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
..
~jI
..
..
;:;J
.
.
.
.
iii
.
'.
"
III
-
III
.
!~
iii
III
il
..
..
~
.
,
"
r-.
t
,
"
r
>
I
r-,
t
1
-
1;..... " ~
J. ;;p!
The proposed project includes construction of two parking structures, including a 7l3-space parking
structure on the Dublin site and a. 419-space parking garage on the Pleasanton site. As indicated in
Table 4.4-4, ground floor concentrations within the 713-space parking garage; located on the Dublin
site, are predicted to be 11.4 parts per million (ppm) for a I-hour period and 8.4 ppm for an 8-hour
period. The predicted worst-case interior concentration on the ground floor of the proposed 419-space
parking garage, located on the Pleasanton site, would be 8.5 ppm for a I-hour period and 6.4 ppm for
an 8-hour period. Actual CO concentrations within the proposed parking structures would likely be
. less than those indicated in Table 4.4-4.
Predicted CO concentrations within parking garages would not exceed the interior air quality standard
of 50 ppm for 8-hour CO concentrations established by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. In addition,
predicted worst-case CO concentrations within both parking facilities would not exceed the State
Ambient Air Quality Standard of9.0 ppm averaged over 8 hours or 20 ppm for 1 hour. As a result,
localized CO concentrations within the proposed parking structures would not be anticipated to pose
a health risk to nearby receptors and, as a result, would be considered to have a less-than-significant air
quality impact.
Impact
4.4-4
ReJdonal Air Qualitv Impact. The proposed project would generate, regional
emissions primarily associated with increased vehicle use related to the transit
village uses. Additional emissions associated with the use of natural gas-fired
appliances, landscape maintenance equipment, and consumer products would
also be generated. However, approval of the proposed project would facilitate
construction of the approved West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. The use of
this new BART Station would substantially reduce automobile travel on the local
roadway network by providing a public Transportation option for commuters. The
result would be a net reduction in regional emissions. Therefore, this impact
would be considered less than significant.
Emissions from motor vehicle operations associated with the transit village uses would represent a long-
term air quality impact associated with development of the proposed project. The use of landscape
". maintenance equipment, natural gas-fired appliances, and consumer products (e.g., cleaners, solvents,
ete.) would generate additional emissions of regional pollutants. However, approval of the proposed
transit village uses would facilitate construction of the approved West DublinjPleasanton BART Station.
The use of this new BART Station would substantially reduce automobile travel on the local roadway
network by providing a public transportation option for commuters. The result would be a net
reduction in regional emissions.
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West DublinlPleosanton BART Station and Transit Village
4.4-13
EDAW
Air Quality
;).:;;t;-
The urban emission model, URBEMIS7G, was used to predict quantities of NOx, ROG, and PMlO
emissions generated by mobile and area sources. The URBEMIS7G default assumptions and emissions
factors for the San Francisco area were used for the calculation of emissions associated with the use of
motor vehicles, landscape maintenance equipment, natural gas-fired appliances, and consumer products.
Trip generation rates for the proposed transit village land uses were adjusted to correspond with the
projections presented in the traffic analysis prepared for this project. The proposed transit village uses
would also result in emissions of CO. However, because CO disperses rapidly with increased distance
from the source, emissions of CO are considered localized pollutants of concern rather than of regional
concern. Refer to Impacts 4.4-2 and -3 for analysis of CO emissions.
Based on the modeling conducted, the transit village uses would generate annual mobile source
emissions of approximately 10.65 tons of ROG, 18.08 tons of NO x, and 5.83 tons ofPM1o' The use
of landscape maintenance equipment, natural gas-fired appliances, and consumer products would
generate additional emissions of approximately 1.5 tons of ROG and 0.6 tons of NOx' Combined
emissions associated with both indirect and direct sources associated with the transit village uses would
be 12.17 tons of ROG, 18.69 tons of NO x, and 5.83 tons ofPMlO.
The DPX EIR concluded that with implementation of the DPX Project, a net reduction in regional
vehicle miles traveled would be anticipated due to the removal of automobiles from regional freeways
and roads. The DPX EIR estimated that the total reduction in automobile travel with the DPX Project
would be 44.78 million vehicle miles per year. For buses, the total reduction in vehicle miles was
estimated at 6.95 million vehicle miles per year. The DPX ErR concluded that with implementation
of the DPX Project, a net reduction in regional emissions would be anticipated.
The reduction in automobile travel resulting from the implementation of the West Dublin/pleasanton
BART Station would be approximately 25.6 million vehicle miles per year. This estimate was obtained
by multiplying the number of passenger vehicles removed from the regional roadway network due to
the availability of BART service times the estimated average trip length for those removed vehicles.
First, to determine the number of passenger vehicles that would be removed from the regional roadway
network with the BART Station, the estimated total number of daily BART passengers expected at the
station was identified for the year 2010. This total is estimated to be 5,736 passengers. Of this total,
approximately 21.5 percent, or 1,233 passengers, are estimated to be generated from the proposed
transit village uses. Because these passengers would represent new BART trips generated by the
proposed project, rather than BART trips substituted for automobile trips, they were removed from the
total. Of the remaining 4,503 daily passengers, approximately 25.7 percent, or 1,157, are estimated to
access the station by non-passenger vehicle modes including walking, buses, bicycle, etc. The remaining
EDAW
Air Quality
4.4-14
Son Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West DublinlPleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
..
,,~
II
..
III
-..
..
'...
.
.
.
.
,;;i
.
.
III
.
..
.
..
.
.
..
d-J-l-P
(Woodward Clyde Consultants 1989). As a result, development of the proposed project is not
anticipated to conflict with the projection contained in the Bay Area '97 Clean Air Plan. This impact
is considered less than significant.
4.4.3 MITIGATION MEASURES
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in
significant short-term air quality impacts. To mitigate this impact, applicable
BAAQMD Basic and Enhanced Control Measures shall be implemented during
construction. Specific controls to be implemented include the following:
Mitigation
4.4-1
· Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
.
Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain
at least two feet of freeboard.
.
Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access
roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
.
Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at
construction sites.
.
Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent
public streets.
.
Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inaci:ive construction areas.
.
Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt,
sand, etc.).
· Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
· Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
.
Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
The use of watering twice daily for dust control in construction areas is estimated to reduce dust
emissions by at least 37 percent. Covering haul truck loads or maintaining at least 2 feet of
freeboard is estimated to reduce dust emissions by approximately 1 to 2 percent. Paving or applying
water twice daily to haul roads is estimated to reduce dust emissions by approximately 3 to 7
percent. Enclosing, covering, or watering soil piles twice daily can reduce dust emissions by 1.6
percent. To reduce the demand for water associated with regular watering of the project site, an
appropriate dust palliative or suppressant could be used as an alternative.
EDAW
Air Quality
4.4-16
Son Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West DublinlPleasanton BART Station and T ronsit Village
.
II
"
''1
.
..
,~
..
-.-..
'-~
..
II
..
.~
..
'Ii
.
.",1
..
.,j
.
..
..
..
..
.
-,;
.
..
......
I
I
.
~
a-a"?
4.4.4 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
r--'
~
Following implementation of the mitigation measures discussed above, impacts on air quality would be
reduced to a less-than-significant level.
r-
,
t
i
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West DublinlPleasanton BARTStation and Transit Village
4.4-17
EDAW
Air Quality
r"'
~
f""""
f
l
r
,
r':
f
;J;}g
4.5
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
4.5.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The purpose of the transportation/circulation analysis is to evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed
project on the nearby street system in accordance with acceptable methodologies used in the cities of
Dublin and Pleasanton. The study approach was to determine if any nearby intersections are projected
to operate at worse than Level of Service (LOS) D and to determine what mitigation measures would
be necessary if these levels of service standards are exceeded. In addition, site access and circulation,
and parking impacts are evaluated.
Exhibit 4.5-1 illustrates the regional roadway network surrounding the project site. Fifteen study
intersections in Dublin and twelve study intersections in Pleasanton, shown on Exhibit 4.5-2, were
evaluated.
STUDY AREA
ROADWAY NETWORK
Important roadways serving the project area are discussed below.
Regional Roadways
Interstate 580 (1-580) is an eight-lane east-west freeway that connects Dublin, Pleasanton and
Livermore, as well as regional origins and destinations such as Oakland, Hayward and Tracy. In the
vicinity of the proposed project, I-5802u-ries approXinJ.~t:ely 178,000 vehicles per day (vpd) (Caltrans,
1999). The interchange at San Ramon RoadjFoothill Road in the project area is planned to be
reconfigured from a four-quadrant cloverleaf interchange to a pamaf Cloverleaf interchange in the
future. A project study report (PSR) for the interchange is currently in preparation.
Interstate 680 (1-680) is a six-lane freeway in the vicinity of the project site. 1-680 carnes
approximately 126,000 vpd and 136,000 vpd between Stoneridge Drive and Alcosta Boulevard
(Caltrans, 1999). A future interchange at West Las Positas Boulevard is under study at this time by
the City of Pleasanton. In addition, new southbound on-off hook ramps are currently under
construction at Amador Plaza Road in Dublin. A new northbound on-ramp was recently opened to
traffic in the same area. The I-680jI-580 southbound to eastbound direct connector (flyover) project
is under construction and is scheduled for completion in 2003.
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West DublinlPleasonton BART Station and T raosit Village
4.5-1
EDAW
T ransportationlCirculation
9d-c;
1lll o~'''^
\
~\~
~i\\
1'6- ~ \-::a
~l'l B\
ll~~' \
-"\I "'0WJa.\f1
.
..--
I
LO
-.::::::r
~I
LU .
-'
<(
U
V>
0
:z:
III
.
III
..
...
III
.
~
(J
CIl
'0'
...
0- .
CIl
Cl
~
:>
~ .
'W
c:
III
...
I-
"C ..
"..C c:
III
Q)(,)O C
o ..
o .! '; 0
'~
a.0(,) III
0"0 ~ .
"A...1 (f) (/)
D. <D I-
(f) a:
:::::> <(
a3 .~
-0 c .
C 0
...
CO c:
....J III
III
0) III
CIl 11III
c -0
0.0
-0 --0
.5 ~
c :c~
::J ::lo
0 ON .
I- "'0
I- lilt-
::J CIl0
U) ~~
.
J-~O
HACIENDA DR.
<D
(ij
(I€~
o .E
z_
o
Z
ARNOlD RD.
I-
a::
'i:<
=lXlC
.cCO
::10;
O'ES
'tiilllrn
III U)
WI
ii:
WlLlOW RD.
Ii
o
a:
;!i
~
ell
Cl
CHABOT OR.
OOUtlHERTYRD.
C
o
~
~ f
li ~
II) _
.. >-
~ -g i
";.Ci)'g
-g S 8
.. .... a::
rn C Gl
oS >>: ;;;
j3 I "'"
:l-.t
QQ.,
eO!
I
~,
II II
HUlON
~
UJ
-'
<(
u
(/)
o
:z
...
()
<D
'0'
..
Q.
<D
C)
~
:>
...
'iij
r::
l'CI
..
I-
"C
r::
l'CI
r::
o
+=
co
...
en
I-
0. a:
co ~
~ r::
o
>- ...
co r::
S ~
-C ~o
co Q.g
o -- 0
a: :E~
.Q~
>- ::s C>
+-' ON
'c ... 0
.- II) I-
o <DO
:> 3:~
,;/31
Local Dublin Roadways
Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west arterial. It is a six-lane road fronted largely by retail and
commercial uses near the site between San Ramon Road and Village Parkway. Dublin Boulevard is
a two-lane road between Dougherty Road and Tassajara Road, with an exception between Hacienda
Drive and Tassajara Creek where it is a four-lane road. Dublin Boulevard is planned to be widened to
six lanes between Village Parkway and Dublin Court.
Amador Valley Boulevard is a major east-west arterial street that runs between Cronin Circle and
Dougherty Road. It is four lanes within the project vicinity and is fronted by commercial/retail uses.
St. Patrick Way is a new two-lane roadway that connects Amador Plaza Road and Golden Gate Drive.
A new signal is currently being installed at the intersection of Amador Plaza Road/St. Patrick Way.
This intersection will eventually become a four-legged intersection with the new southbound hook
ramps from 1-680. The intersection of Golden Gate Drive/St. Patrick Way is four-way stop-controlled.
There are sidewalks on both sides of the street with on-street parking only on the north side of St.
Patrick Way. On-street parking is prohibited on the south side of the street.
San Ramon Road is a major north-south arterial roadway that extends north from 1-580. San Ramon
Road becomes Foothill Boulevard south ofI-580. This roadway has a median and is between four and
six lanes within the vicinity of the project site. San Ramon Road provides access from 1-580 to
residential neighborhoods and retail areas of Dublin. No on-street parking is allowed.
Regional Street is a north-south roadway that extends from Amador Valley Boulevard to south of
Dublin Boulevard. South of Dublin Boulevard, Regional Street is a wide, two-lane roadway and north
of Dublin Boulevard, this roadway has two lanes with a two way left-turn lane. This roadway provides
access to commercial/retail uses.
Donohue Drive is a north-south direction roadway that extends north from Amador Valley Road.
Donohue Drive is a two-lane roadway that provides access to residential areas.
Golden Gate Drive currently extends south from Dublin Boulevard. It is a two-lane roadway that
provides access to commercial/retail and light industrial uses. It would serve as the primary access to
the BART Station area. There are sidewalks and on-street parking on both sides of the street.
Amador Plaza Road is a north-south street that extends from Amador Valley Boulevard to south of
Dublin Boulevard. Amador Plaza Road has two travel lanes and a two way left-turn lane between
EDAW
T ransporfationlCi rculation
4.5-4
San Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West DublinlPleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
"1J
.
IIIi
iii
1Iii
.i
'i
.
i!I!
..
iii
~
II
'!:
..
lIIIIi1
.
.
.
..
..
I-'~
.
III
.i
iii!
d-3 d--
n
~ '
Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard. South of Dublin Boulevard, this roadway has two
travel lanes and provides access to commercial/retail development. The southern terminus of Amador
Plaza Road is currently under construction to provide a connection to the new 1-680 southbound on
and off ramps. On-street parking along Amador Plaza Road is prohibited, except at the southern end
of the road in the court. There are sidewalks on both sides of the street.
Village Parkway is a north~south roadway that extends from Dublin Boulevard to Alcosta Boulevard
in~anlt~oI1' It)s a~o~-,l~e, di\'i~~~ ~?ad~ay with.?~e lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the
street. On-street parking is prohibited on both sides of the street. South of Amador Valley Boulevard,
Village Parkway provides access to retail and office uses. North of Amador V alley Boulevard, Village
Parkway provides access to residential neighborhoods.
])()u.gherty'Road is a four-lane artefialbetween the Alameda/Contra Costa County border and Dublin
Boulevard, and six lanes between Dublin Boulevard and 1-580. South ofI-580, it continues with six
lanes as Hopyard Road in the CIty of Pleasanton.
Local Pleasanton Roadways
West Las Positas Boulevard is a four-lane east-west arterial that originates at Foothill Road and
provides access to other major Pleasanton arterials, including Hopyard. Road and Santa Rita Road. A
future partial cloverleaf interchange with 1-680 is included in the City's General Plan but is currently
being re-evaluated of Pleasant on, August 1996).
r
t.
Foothill Road is an arterial that parallels 1-680 and provides access to much of western Pleasanton. In
the immediate vicinity of the proposed project, Foothill Road has six lanes and a posted speed limit of
45 miles per hour (mph). North of 1-580, Foothill Road becomes San Ramon Road in the City of
Dublin. Access to the project site from Foothill Road is via Canyon Way.
r
r .~
,.-
r
Stoneridge Drive is a six-lane east-west arterial that parallels 1-580 west of Santa Rita Road and
provides access within much of northern Pleasanton. The posted speed limit on Stoneridge Drive in
the vicinity of the proposed project is 40 mph. Access to the project site from Stoneridge Drive is via
Stoneridge Mall Road.
r
f
Stoneridge Mall Road is a five-lane roadway with a two-way left-turn lane originating at Stoneridge
Drive and encircling the Stoneridge Regional Shopping Center as its main circulation road. Stoneridge
Mall Road provides direct access to the project site. The posted speed limit is 25 mph in the immediate
project vicinity. There is a sidewallC'Iocated.to 'the south()f thes'1re 011 the east: sid.e ()tsroneddge Mall
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West DublinlPleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
4.5-5
EDAW
T ransportationlCirculation
r-..
,
\
933
Road. Safeway will install sidewalks along the north side of Stoneridge Mall, Road, west of the project
site, as part of the construction of their new building.
Springdale Avenue extends from Muirwood Drive to StoneridgeMall Road. Springdale Avenue is four
lanes wide north of Stoneridge Drive. The intersection of Springdale Avenue and Stoneridge Mall
Road operates with all-way STOP control.
Canyon Way extends from Foothill Road to Stoneridge Mall Road. West of Foothill Road, Canyon
Way becomes Dublin Canyon Road. Canyon Way is the main access to the Stoneridge Mall area from
Foothill Road.
Hopyard Road is an arterial that parallels 1-680 on the east and provides access between northern and
southern Pleasanton. In north Pleasanton, Hopyard Road has six lanes and a posted speed limit of 45
mph. North of 1-580, Hopyard Road becomes Dougherty Road in the City of Dublin.
PLANNED REGIONAL ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The study assumes that key regional roadway improvements will be completed in the near-term future
by 2010. These are listed below.
San Ramon RoadjFoothill Road Interchange - The interchange at San Ramon Road is planned to
be reconfigured from a four-quadrant cloverleaf interchange to a partial cloverleaf interchange. The
new configuration is assumed to be built under the Existing plus Approved Conditions. Full funding
for this project will come from the Tri -Valley Transportation Council's Traffic Improvement Fee. The
City of Dublin is the lead agency in a current effort to prepare a Project Study Report. This project is
estimated to be constructed within the next five years.
Interstate 680jAmador Plaza RoadfVillage Parkway Interchange - New hook ramps are currently
under construction in Dublin at Amador Plaza Road for the southbound on and off-ramps. A new
northbound on-ramp was recently completed at Village Parkway. A northbound off-ramp is not
proposed. Currently, Amador Plaza Road forms aT-intersection with St. Patrick Way where the fourth
leg of the intersection will be the southbound ramps. The northbound on-ramp is now open to traffic
and construction should be completed on the southbound ramps within the next two years.
..
..
.
..
.
.
..
.
..
.
..
..
.
.
III
..
Dublin Boulevard Widening - Dublin Boulevard will be widened to six lanes (three in each direction)
between Village Parkway and Sierra Court. The City of Dublin has funds for this project and it is .
currently being designed. This project is expected to be completed in the year 2002. The Dublin
EDAW
T ronsportationlCirculation
4.5-6
San Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West OublinlPleasonton BART Station and Transit Village
.
.
r-
r
t '
r-
r
,.
f
1""""",
t
~3~
Boulevard segment between Sierra Court and Dougherty Road is also expected to be widened to six
lanes within the next 5 years.
Southbound 1-680 to Eastboutld 1-580 Direct Connector Ramp - The 1-680jI-580 southbound to
eastbound direct connector (flyover) project is under construction and is scheduled for completion in
2003.
EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE
lWheels" of the Livermore Amador V alley Transit Agency (LA VTA) and the "County Connection" of
the Central Contra Costa Transit Agency (CCCfA) are two bus services that currently operate in
Dublin, Pleasanton, and elsewhere. Bus schedules are coordinated with BART at the East
DublinjPleasanton BART station, as they would be for the proposed West DublinjPleasanton BART
Station. Existing bus routes that operate within the vicinity of the proposed West DublinfPleasanton
BART Station are described below and are illustrated on Exhibit 4.5-3.
Wheels
Three existing regular routes currently serve the area of the proposed project.
Route 3 - is a loop route serving downtown Dublin with connections to the existing East
DublinjPleasantoi],'BAR;:fStation. Bl1S~depm from the static>J:i every 30 minutes, alternating between
traveling clockwise and counterclockwise over the route. The route takes 32 minutes to complete and
operates on weekdays only.
Route 4 - is a loop route servillg both sld.esofthe 1-580 Corrid.or from the East DubJl.O.jl?leasanton
BART Station east to Silvergate Drive in Dublin and Foothill Road in Pleasanton. Buses depart from
the East DublinjPleasanton BART Station every fIfteen minutes and alternate between clockwise and
counterclockwise travel over the route. The route takes 50 minutes to complete and operates on
weekdays only.
Route 10..,.-.. .is.. a...lin........e<rr. ro. u. t.c:::that o..pe..rates........b. e.tw. e. en St..o.neridgeMall,..an.. d Lawrence L..ivermore Natio...n. al
Laboratory byway'of DubJl.O., tl1.eEast. l)ublinjl?1easanton BART Station, Pleasanton, ana the
Livermore Transit Center. Buses follow 30-minute headways in both directions along the route on
weekdaysjSarurdays and 60-minute headways on Sundays.
San Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West DublinlPleasanton BART Station ond Transit Village
4.5-7
EDAW
T ransportationlCirculation
r-
I
r
r
c:i r
a:
~
UI
:t r
"
8
r
r
tfII:--------'"'I! r
- Olt<i>.... -..", '""'" _..." l>'" ~''''''''' ...,
r
LEGEND
~
Route 3
Route 4 _ _ _ I
Route 10 __.J:l1_
Route 201 & 202 II II II. III
CCTA Routes 121 and 970 _ l!lr& _ l
Future Roadway ---------.
Source: TJKM. 2000.
Existing Bus Transit Service
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project
IN OT012,01 7/00
NO SCALE
r
r
r
r
EXHIBIT 4.5-3.
~~ 1mII-.
.
&23'-/J
The County Connection
. The County Connection serves Clayton, Concord, Danville, Lafayette, Martinez, Moraga, Orinda,
'PleasaI1tfIill,SaI1 Ramon, Walnut Creek, aiid Uillncorporated areas of the central County. There are
connections to the existing East Dublin/pleasanton BART Station via routes 121,259 and 970. Routes
.. ...-..., . '. -...... -..'_.,...........;... .,'....-_.,.......-.... ....'.:....... '." ,',--. .... '.'- ..'......,
259 and 970 are express buses that operate oll1y d.illmg peak 110urs,whil.e route 121 is a full day bus
service that has its closest approach to the project site along Village Parkway, which is on the opposite
side ofl-680 from the proposed project.
BART
r'",
r
The existing BART service in the area consists of the East Dublin/pleasanton BART Station, which is
served by the DublinjPleasanton line. The station is located approximately one and a half miles east
of the proposed statton. The current service consists of four eight-car trains at 15-minute intervals in
each dire., ctl.. ...o....n. gi.vin. g.th. e Du.b.lin./p. lea. santon. lin..e. a capacity of. 2. ,24..0 seat.ed pass..eng..e...rs, pe.r... h.o.. ur.....The
a.ill: peak hour station entrieS at the East Dublin/Pl~asantonBART Station were 1.,100 as of Fall 1999,
approximately 50 percent of the seated capacity (Parker, 2000).
..~.
,
BART is also capable of carrying standing passengers, and current load factors in the Transbay Tube
are approaching 1.4 persons per seat. The Transbay Tube is currently the bottleneck point for the
BART system; however two things may be done to increase capacity. Stations can accommodate 10
car trains, which could increase the capacity of the DublinjPleasanton line by 25 percent. In addition,
BART is mdcli~'proces~of lrnpiem~lltihgAd~anced .A~t()matic TraGtCo~tr()nMTC), which ~ould
increase the capacity of the Transbay Tube from 22-23 trains per hour to 30 trains per hour (Parker,
2000) .
EXISTING PARKING, PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
Dublin
r:
F
Field observations of the parking conditions on adjacent roadways to the project site (Amador Plaza
Road,St.:Patrick Way, Golclen Gate, and. RegionalStreer)were COlld.ucted on Friday, April 28, 2000
between 11:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. The period between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. is considered the
combined peak parking period for retail and office uses (Urban Land Institute, 1983).
The parking areas east of Amador Plaza Road in the vicinity of the Good Guys,Rigattoni's Restaurant
and Bank of America were observed to be full. However, the parkinglot on the west side of Amador
Plaza Road, north of St. Patrick Way, serving Big 5, Mattress Discounters, Jennifer Convertible and
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West DublinlPleosanton BART Station and Transit Village
4.5-9
EDAW
T ransportationlCirculation
,....
!
f
;J3"1
other retail uses appeared to be about 30 percent full during the peak hour. For this parking area, about
35 spaces were occupied out of approximately 120 spaces. The parking lot south of St. Patrick Way
serving Super Crown and Tower Records was observed to be full. In addition, the parking lot at the
end of Amador Plaza Road leading to office space, including Micro Dental, was full. On-street parking
along Amador Plaza Road is prohibited, except at the end of the road in the court, where the on-street
parking was full. There are sidewalks on both sides of the street.
Currently, St. Patrick Way connects Amador Plaza Road and Golden Gate Drive. On-street parking
on St. Patrick Way is prohibited. Besides the two retail strips accessible from Amador Plaza Road, St.
Patrick Way does not provide access to other off-street parking lots for public use. There are sidewalks
on both sides of St. Patrick Way.
Golden Gate Drive provides access to office uses and an automobile dealership. Private parking lots
for these uses are provided and were observed to be full. On-street parking is permitted on Golden
Gate Drive, and was also observed to be full. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street.
Regional Street provides access to retail, office, and restaurant uses. The parking lot that serves
Starbucks Coffee and other retail, located on the northwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Regional
Street, was observed to be full. The parking lot serving Burger King, Michael's, Ross Dress For Less,
Orchard Supply Hardware, MarshaUs, and other retail, was observed to be about 60 to 70 percent full
during the peak hour. The parking lot designated for the Best Western Monarch Hotel was about 50
percent occupied, with the majority of vacant spaces located behind the building. The parking spaces
adjacent to the Outback Steakhouse were mostly empty (about 90 percent) since this restaurant is not
opened on weekdays until 4:00 p.m. The parking for the Willow Tree Restaurant was observed to be
partially occupied (30 percent) with vacant spaces in the rear of the restaurant. Parking adjacent to the
Dublin Bowl was mostly empty; whereas parking spaces across the lot near the office buildings were
full. On-street parking is permitted for sections of Regional Street with restrictions for vehicles over 20
feet in length. On-street parking was observed to be available. There are sidewalks on both sides of
the street.
In summary, existing parking in the immediate area of the proposed project on Golden Gate Drive
appears to be full during the peak weekday parking hour for retail and office uses. Parking appears to
be more available near Regional Street and in certain parking lots of Amador Plaza Road. There are
sidewalks on Amador Plaza Road, St. Patrick Way, Golden Gate Drive, and Regional Street, and
crosswalks on Dublin Boulevard at the intersections of Amador Plaza Road, Golden Gate Drive, and
Regional Street. There are no bicycle lanes in the project vicinity.
EDAW
T ransportationlCirculation
4.5-10
San Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West DublinlPleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
..j
..
:':~
..
,11
.
..
.
III
III
IlI1l
~),jj
III
~
~
III
,iN!
.
..
..
..
..
/~t
III
III
wi
11II
~
r
r
(, !
( ,
r
t ,.
~
r-
~
f
t
[
r-
I
"--
r
......
I
.
r-
~
t
r
"
~38
Pleasanton
Field observations of the existing parking conditions in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project
on the Pleasanton side were conducted on Thursday, April 27, 2000 between 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m.
Again, this is considered the combined peak parking period for retail and office uses, which surround
the project site (Urban Land Institute, 1983). The Stoneridge Corporate Plaza office complex is
located to the east, an office complex to the west, and the Stoneridge Mall is located to the south. All
of these developments provide parking near the project site.
Based on information provided by the City of Pleasanton Planning Staff, about 93 percent of the
565,000 square feet of office space in the Stoneridge Corporate Plaza is currently occupied. This is a
multi-tenant office, complex and is. COnsidered to be full when it is 95 percent occupied. Therefore, the
parking conditions observed in April are close to representing conditions when the complex is fully
utilized. The office complex has approximately 90 spaces directly adjacent to the proposed site. These
spaces were about 50 percent occupied during the observation period. Along 1-580, the complex has
300 additional parking spaces, of which 50 percent or less were occupied. Another parking area located
along the south and east side of the westernmost office building has approximately 520 spaces and was
S(f~rcent OCCllpi~d.The~ffice compie~to the westoFthe project site has approximately 250 spaces,
of which 80 percent were occupied. This building is currently full.
The proposed project would share the westernmost Stoneridge Corporate Plaza driveway on
Stoneridge Mall Road, along which the previously identified 90 parking spaces are located. This
driveway is located opposite a main driveway for the Nordstrom building in the Stoneridge Mall and
bisects a parking area with approximately 1,600 spaces. This mall parking area was approximately 50
to 65 percent occupied. The 65-percent occupancy occurred during the noon hour. The majority of
unoccupied spaces were adjacent to Stoneridge Mall Road, although there were a number of vehicles
parked just to the west of the driveway.
The only sidewalk in the vicinity of the proposed project is located just to the south of the site on the
east side of Stoneridge Mall Road. Safeway will install sidewalks along the north side of Stoneridge
Mall Road, east past the project site. There are no other pedestrian facilities, including sidewalks and
marked crosswalks. In addition, there are no bicycle lanes in the project vicinity.
EXISTING DUBLIN TRAFnC CONDITIONS
Existing 1999/2000 a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning movement counts were obtained from the City
of Dublin and from Omni-Means Engineers and Planners. The peak hours are one hoUr between 7:00
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit Distrid
West Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
4.5-11
EDAW
T ransportation!Circulation
;2~q
a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and one hour between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Exhibit 4.5-4 identifies the Dublin
study intersection. Exhibit 4.5-5 illustrates the existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning movement
volumes.
The intersections of San Ramon RoadfInterstate 580 Westbound Ramps and St. Patrick WayjRegional
Street do not currently exist. San Ramon RoadjInterstate 580 Westbound Ramps are plaimed to be
reconfigured as part of the modification of the existing four-quadrant cloverleaf into a partial cloverleaf.
The intersection of St. Patrick WayjRegional Street is not analyzed in this study, but is represented on
the figures to illustrate the concept of St. Patrick Way extending between Golden Gate Drive and
Regional Street.
The intersection of St. Patrick Way/Golden Gate Drive does exist, but is not analyzed under existing
conditions since traffic volumes are negligible. The intersection of St. Patrick Way/Amador Plaza
RoadjInterstate 680 Southbound Ramps currently exists as a T-intersection with only St. Patrick Way
and Amador Plaza Road existing. The fourth leg will be the 1-680 southbound ramps. This
intersection also is not analyzed under existing conditions since it is partially built and traffic volumes
are negligible. All of the intersections analyzed under existing conditions are currently signalized
intersections.
All of the study intersections analyzed under existing conditions are operating acceptably at LOS A or
B during the a.m. peak hour. During the p.m. peak hour, all of the intersections operate acceptably at
LOS A or B, except Dublin BoulevardfDougherty Road, which operates acceptably at LOS D (v/c =
0.86). Table 4.5-1 presents a summary of existing peak hour levels of service at the study intersections.
Level of service worksheets are provided in Appendix B.
EXISTING PLEASANTON TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Existing conditions are based on the City's annual traffic counts for the year 2000 (City of Pleasanton,
February 2000). All 12 study intersections are currently signalized. Currently, all 12 study
intersections operate at acceptable levels of service. The intersection of Foothill Road/Canyon Way is
operating at LOS D just above the minimum acceptable standard. Table 4.5-2 presents a summary of
existing peak hour levels of service. Level of service worksheets are provided in Appendix B.
EDAW
Transportation/Circulation
4.5-12
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublill/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
..
..
"jj
iii
II
Wi
..
III
.
.
Ii
~
....
..
.
.;i
;,j
IIIIi
..I
III
.,
..
....
..
..
r
I
I
~
~
1
t :
~
r".~
"..J
;-:.....1
t
f:
~
"I
[
f
'J
t
l
L
1
; :
~
~
~
.
)
i
c
o
1;
Clt
l!!
~ ra-
>.,g
"0 III
::J 0
u;a:
.C D
- ...
o :a.;!
Z ::J::J
W OIL.
CJ .
~ .:
HACIENOA DR.
G)
(.€~
.00
z-
'0
z
ARNOLD RO:
a:
o
W1UDW RD. CC
~
!
a
HOPYARD AD.
OOUOHEAlY RD.
~~o
~ I.
II
Hll:lON
~
UJ
-'
<(
u
V>
o
z
...
Co)
Q)
.0
...
D.
CD
C)
~
:;
...
.0
C
III
..
I-
"0
C
III
C
o
~
III
en ...
c: (I)
o t:
.0 <t
a1
~ C
Q) S
c m
III
~ Kg
::J c C>
(/)+-' ---
:a~
::J 0',
.~ 0 N
:0 -;;;g
::J Q)O
o 3:?i
,..;;
..c
c.9
~i'
"'0::
e~
:!D
C::>
-0
c
",0
'IIoe
cas
00::
""C
"'as
~~
CD-
CD
-::>
o
CD
CI)
1ft'"
""=
~~
11>
",..
"0
!!-g
.5~
'"
=
ii:
....
..,0
c'C
.ge
1l~
S~
cts
-'0
...
E
<
CD
::>
C')J:
""g
:58
l~
l!~
sO
COO
-~
<
;;
C
NO
:i
00::
""";!.
~>
l!..
SO
c'C
-...
E
<
c
o
E
......
""0::
CC
0...
~~
l!!>
.!~
.5'0
...
E
<
~i~
C\lCOltl
0>'-1'--
::-re~ ~~99) ~t
CO> <') ~ 1-- ~g) SS
~.~ t~~) ~9~
~~~~t~
(~Oc:) ~B~ re:ge
NCO'"
O>C\lltl
CO
~ltl...
lOCO 0>
\i)... CO
~~ ~r;)OL9
(0)... ~ 1-- 9O'~) sat
~.. ~ F ) ~St
(OlC:)OS~3~. ~
(E:c:Llv u' ~ 10 <0 to
(06) lSC: ~ ~ CG ~
Nm""
~...;b
~"'<O
...<')C')
.t:::.C')..,....
S:l:\i~ ~f90~1 E1>
...10... 1-- eat n~
~.~ F sc:c: ~L
flLl~ ~9~3 ~ ~
19C: 6Bc: F: C') t')
&6(; SLt~ :J:~CG
CO <0 0>
<01'-<0
...C\I...
6i'
0>1'-
<0...
e~ ~{&W) C:S
0<0... 1-- Ol)O
.....~ F ~Bl)01>
(w) 9L,jf ~ ~
(oil 9-+ ~
(w)o~ ~ E.~~
<0 ---
CO <0
""<D
to
<0
~C\I
~,..~
~ie ~f9~)C:
<DI'-O> 1-- 9) l
.....~ tv)L
(sg)c:n3 ~ ~
(u) &-+ ~
(c:s) ~9 ~ cie
...~t')
N~'"
~
_I'-...
~f6~ ~ftc:.l-)6V
I'- co- 1-- 9&) L
....+~ F WC:)B9
(c:.}O~3 ~ ~
(c:& ~~ -+ ...............
(c:s ec: ~ ~ 18 f:
<DI'-'"
t')~co
iOtD"
...~<O
ltlO>t')
"-'It) -
~i;b ~!60S}tlC:
_ J 1..": 1-- Gc:Q 9lf:
~T~ 9U B9
(9tV)9~&3 ~t"
(l9lh(jl'l-+ ~
, (et)c:s~ ~~;
cooco
"l"~'"
S
<II
..el
...c
""CD
c-o
.9'0
1l~
e..
C1J"C
:5:
~
(I)
;;
CO)c
"'0
""-
elf
~~
~~
l!!_
S:,
e .
-Ui
"a.
N~
"'O::e
:=0
~~~
iOe
f!co ..
S3=
CO
-!
<')"'0>
<D<O<O
NNC\l
~
~
~
Z
';;;Y-I
HAClENOAOR.
(l)
jjj
(I€S
o .9
Z_
o
Z
i-
-a~
:6~g
"0-
C_!
tl~(I)
~j -
Q. i5
. WlLLOW RO. il
~ i
~ s
o tf/;
#
"""""",All
DllUCl><mTY RIl
>-
;:i :g~~ ~~Il)Ht
:.c ............. .~)O&L
~ r ....+~. 08L.)OlL
2~ (SS&) tlZ3 ~ ('
;= (60S}6Lel'l "'Ot')
ci (ts)~~ ::~~
- 0 --........
co......
'<t"l"0>
C\I"l"
OCD
_01
e.!!
0=
=~
2_
l!2i
CD::>
SO
~
"l"I'-N
8o~ ~ c:&~ 9
"'''l"C\I ....~OB 9
~+~ ~t6 ell
(Ltv) ~9V3 ~t~
(LS) 6V -
(9lel)e:<:~~ ~~!
-co
OC\l,..
<0<0
.....,
Ii
c"
.908
-<II
li
si!
c=
-..0
::>
Q
.s
:c1
155
--0
11'0
l!!~
s=
,C..o
-::>
o
~~i
S'i;; lLaL) 9G
... "l" It) .... ~L.) 9l
....,l.e.. tl}C:&
(6C:l} 9103 ~t~
(9S c:. ...............
(6c:l c:9~ ~I;'
~1O
lOOt')
t'),.._
..
-
It)_
S~~
It)
~~8 ~{t6}Ol
...t')... .... C:l) S
~,l.e.. F SSl)e:<:
(&c:) 93 ~ r
(9)Sl CONO
(OS) (2~ s::gt:.
~t:;
('01:5-
j
11)11.
... ..
""0
g'C
=e
:~
..Q
s};
.5:,
ui
CD CD
E E
c.2.a
~~~ :>,
g ~ ~ ;
lltOo'tJ
lii%:x:~
siia:
:>,CItCDf
'tJo.II.~
3:f:E:i
(I)<II.~
~
Z
o
z
w
~ .~~~
';!
.
La
.
La
o::::::r
II
I
,~
..
4
,iJi
..
H1HON
~
UJ
-'
<X:
u
U)
o
z
...
.
.
c~'
.
,:~~
.
~j ~
..
,
j ~,
..~
ij:~.
~:
',I
III
C/)
(J)
E
:::s
~
+-'
C
(J)
E
(J)
>
o
~
0>
C
'c
'-
:::s
I-
0>
C
'1;)
'X
w
,c
:0
:::s
o
-
C,)
Q)
.0'
...
0.
Q)
CD
~
:>
'I-
IllIi
1lIII:
-
'0
C
tll
.=
"'0
c
tll
C
o
'';:;
tll
-
en
I-
a:
<(
CO
C
o
-
C
tll
(I)
tll
Q)
- 0
0.0
""20-
.- ~
:c~
::Jo
ON
-5
(l)f-
CIlO
;s:~
..
.;
{{
III,
,
III
.
.
r
L
r
t
i
r
I
t
r
I
t
r:
~ .
l
r
r
d-4~
TABLE 4.5-1
DUBLIN PEAK HOUR INTERSECDON LEVELS OF SERVICE - EXISTING CONDITIONS
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
10 Intersedion I I
vIe LOS vIe LOS
1 Amador Valley Boulevard/San Ramon Road 0.47 A 0.59 A
2 Amador Valley Boulevard/Regional Street 0.32 A 0.54 A
3 Amador Valley Boulevard/Donohue Drive 0.37 A 0.40 A
4 Amador Valley Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road 0.30 A 0.54 A
5 Amador Valley BoulevardNillage Parkway 0.60 A 0.69 B
6 Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road 0.63 B 0.58 A
7 Dublin Boulevard/Regional Street 0.32 A 0.48 A
8 Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive , 0.23 A 0.40 A
9 Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road 0.24 A 0.48 A
10 Dublin BoulevardNillage Parkway 0.36 A 0.49 A
11 Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road 0.58 B 0.86 D
Note: C/V = volume to capacity ratio, LOS = Level of Service
Source: TJKM 2000
TABLE 4.5-2
PLEASANTON PEAK HOUR INTERSECDON LEVELs OF SERVICE - EXISTING CONDmONS
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS .
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Intersection I I
vIe LOS vIe LOS
302 Foothill Road/Canyon Way 0.51 A 0.80 C
304 Foothill Road/Stoneridge Drive 0.46 A 0.55 A
313 Hopyard Road/Stoneridge Drive 0.71 C 0.78 C
344 Springdale Avenue/Stoneridge Drive 0.42 A 0.58 A
345 Stoneridge Mall Road/Stoneridge Drive 0.47 A 0.55 A
346 1-680 SB Ramps/Stoneridge Drive 0.79 C 0.83 D
347 1-680 NB Ramps/Stoneridge Drive 0.75 C 0.78 C
348 Johnson Drive/Stoneridge Drive 0.60 A 0;69 B
349 Denker Drive/Stoneridge Drive 0.63 B 0.67 B
392 Stoneridge Mall Road/Canyon Way 0.28 A 0.41 A
Note: c/v = volume to capacity ratio, LOS = Level of Service
Source: TJKM 2000
San Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West DublinlPleasanton BART Stotion and Transit Villoge
4.5-15
EDAW
T ronsportafionlCirculafion
;)43
...
4.5.2 ENVIRONMQTAL IMPACTS
.~
..
SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
!:
IIIIlII
The City of Dublin and the City of Pleasant on have adopted LOS D as the minimum acceptable level
of service for all intersections. Therefore, the project is considered to significantly impact an
intersection if the addition of project traffic during the year selected for analysis:
);41
,~
.
..
.
causes an intersection operating acceptably at LOS D or better to deteriorate to LOS E or LOS
F,
',;'/
Jm
.
.
causes an intersection operating unacceptably at LOS E to deteriorate to LOS F,
4'1
Ai
.
increases the volume-to-capacity ratio at a signalized intersection operating unacceptably at
LOS E or LOS F by 0.02 or more,
.
i1!
..
.
increases the total entering volumes at an unsigna1ized intersection operating unacceptably at
LOS E or LOS F by two percent or more,
II
· results in parking demand in excess of the available supply within the project site,
triggers the Caltrans Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant at an unSignalized intersection, or
@
.
IIlIii
· provides unsafe or inefficient vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycles access and on-site circulation.
..
Intersections operating at LOS E or F are characterized by congestion and excessive delay. The
significance criteria for intersections already operating unacceptably is consistent with the criteria
established in the most recent environmental studies for BART projects, which include the BART San
Francisco Airport Extension Project.
..I
iii
DUBLIN TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
IlIIl
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The methodology used is based on the process approved by the City of Dublin for analyzing traffic
impacts of proposed development. This traffic analysis evaluates the impaCts generated by the proposed
project on 15 intersections in the study area. The study intersections are listed below and depicted in ..
Exhibit 4.5-4:
.~
.I
..
..
EDAW
T ransportafionjCirculation
4.5-16
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
Wesf DublinlPleasonfon BART Station and Transit Village
..
d '-I Lj
1. Amador Valley Boulevard/San Ramon Road
2. Amador Valley Boulevard/Regional Street
3. Amador Valley BoulevardfDonohue Drive
4. Amador Valley Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road
5. Amador Valley BoulevardfVillage Parkway
6. Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road
7. Duh.lir1l3oulevardjRegional Street
8. Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive
9. Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road
10. Dublin BoulevardfVillage Parkway
11. Dublin BoulevardfDougherty Road
12. SaJ} Ramon RoadjInterstate 580 Westbound Ramps*
13. St. Patrick: WayjRegional Street**
14. St. Patrick: Way/Golden Gate Drive
15. St. Patrick: Way/Amador Plaza RoadjInterstate 680 Southbound Ramps*
The intersections marked with an asterisk (*) are future intersections. The intersection of St. Patrick:
WayjRegional Street (**)is assumed to remain unbuilt until St. Patrick Way, between Golden Gate
Drive and Regional Street, is constructed. A separate discussion on the need for this connection is
provided.
f
The near-term scenarios include approved and pending projects that may be built and fully occupied
within the next 10 years. The following three ne~-term scenarios were addressed in this study:
.
Existing Conditions - Current traffic v()Illl1l~~drg~d~~yc~iidit:i6~.
.
EXiStillg plus Approved. cOnditions - ExiSting land use conditions plus future traffic from
approved (unbuilt or not fully utilized) and reasonably foreseeable development in the project
vicinity.
r
,
. Existing plus Approved Projects plus Proje<;t Conditions - Identical to the Existing plus
Approved scenario, but with traffic added from the development of the proposed project.
...--
t
t
San Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit VilloQe
4.5-17
EDAW
T ranspo.rtationlCirculotion
r
,
;}tj.5:
'!I
..
Level of Service Analysis
;lj
iii
Signalized Intersections
'5!
'#
;~
II
Peak hour intersection conditions are reported as volume-to-capacity (vjc) ratios with corresponding
levels of service. Level of service ratings are qualitative descriptions of intersection operations and are
reported using an A through F letter rating system to describe travel delay and congestion. LOS A
indicates free flow conditions with little or no delay, while LOS F indicates jammed conditions with
excessive delays and long back-ups.
..
'd
III
~
The operating conditions at signalized intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity
Utilization (ICU) methodology adopted by the CCTA (CCTA, 1997). This method provides an
overall intersection level of service. Appendix B - Traffic Data, contains a detailed description of the
methodology.
;71<
'{~ .
IIIIIi
l:
.,j
Unsignalized Intersections
At STOP-controlled intersections, level of service was evaluated using the 1994 Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) Unsignalized Intersections analysis methodology (Transportation Research Board,
1994). The method ranks level of service on an A through F scale similar to that used for signalized
intersections, but uses average delay in seconds for stopping movements as its measure of effectiveness.
The methodology is also described in detail in Appendix B.
....1fj..,.. ,
.I'
III
:# .~
iii
EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS CONDITIONS
..
The list of approved projects was provided by City staff during discussions regarding the Transportation
Analysis for the Proposed Dublin Downtown Specific Plans. Anticipated traffic generated by the
following approved or reasonably foreseeable development includes the following 16 projects (Omni
Means, 2000):
~
.
'ii!:
.
West and Central Dublin
:;~ '~
..
.
Chrysler Auto Dealership: 4.2 acres auto dealership (recently built, but under construction
during existing traffic counts)
Corrie Center Phase II: 46,400 square feet new office building
Home Depot Expo: 93,130 square feet design center
Starward Drive: 31 single family homes
iii
.
.
lIlIlII'
.
EDAW
T ransportation/CircuJation
II
4.5-18
Son Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Distrid
West DublinlPleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
;.~J
II
r
;}-4 t.p
.
A.den Ness: 2.12 acres motorcycle parts distributor
Volkswagen Auto Dealership: 1.5 acres auto dealership
Park Sierra Apartments: 283 mUlti-family apartments
Schaefer Ranch: 466 single family homes
Hanse~ Ran~h PhaseU: 108 single family homes
Trumark Companies: 60 townhomes
.
.
.
.
.
n
l East Dublin
f!
.
Hacienda Crossings: 50 acres mixed-use commercial-retail project
Archstone Communities: 177 multi-family apartments
,General Mo~()rs Aut~1vJ:~: 15~cres auto dealerships . .
Koll Dublin Corporate center: 34 acres mixed-use office, retail, hotel
Dublin Ranch Areas B-E: 72.6 acres commercial
Dublin Ranch Town center Areas F, G, H: 304 acres commercial office
.
.
.
.
.
The a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes from the above projects were determined in previous
traffic studies prepared forthese projects byTJKM 'Transportation COnsUltants and Omni~Means
Engineers and Planners (Omni Means, 2000). Based on these studies, the approved and foreseeable
project trips were added to the existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning movement volumes at the
study intersections. The Existing plus Approved Projects turning movement volumes are shown on
Exhibit 4.5-6.
Planned Improvements
The intersection of Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Roadcurrendy has one exclusive left-turn lane on
westboUnd Dublin Boulevard. TIlls roadway will be restriped to include two excluSive left-turn lanes.
TIlls improvement is scheduled to be implemented by the City of Dublin. The level of service analysis
for the Existing plus Approved Projects cOnditions assumes 'that this iinprovement is in place. In
addition, Dublin. Boulevard will be widened to six lanes between Village Parkway and Sierra Court,
with construction expected to be completed in 2002. The Dublin. Boulevard segtIlent between Sierra
,.. . "','. .... . I. .. "'..' ".."" ,.".. . ../
Court and Dougherty Road is also expected to be widened to six lanes within the next 5 years.
'r".
:"
, !
r
.
~
The intersection of Dublin BoulevardfVillage Parkway currendy has one exclusive left-turn lane on the
, ..' .,..,."""+"..".'.,. .. ..,<<. ,
westbound approach and an eastbound shared-through, ,right-turn lane on the eastbound approach of
Dublin Bouleyard. This intersection will b~ improved to include a second exclusive left-turn lane on
" ,., ... . l, '. . , "",,
the westbound approach and an exclusive nght-turn lane on the eastbound approach.
I
j...,
, Son FrandscoBay Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
4.5-19
EDAW
Transportation/Circulation
r-..
_c
c.2
Oao
..tit
..a:
:~
...-
~:g
-0
c
roO
""e
Clll
Oa:
=C
"Ill
~~
CD-
'CD
-:;)
o
CD
Cl>
"'Ill
-==
c>
,2~
11>
1!l5
S"
clll
-E
CC
:s
...
a:
'<t...
_0
c"5l
gE
~~
...::0.
;US:
sls
"
III
E
CC
tit
:s
~g
co
00
;;~
is;
I!!..
so
e"
_Ill
E
CC
.
c
$:1
Ctlt
g~
is;
I!..
s.g
.5 III
E
CC
6
E
......
""a:
cc
0...
1l~
;s;
:e~
"
E
CC
~~~
C\I 0> tl)
0>_
::-o~ lLUB) SV
~g~ -+- ~8)se
~..."" &e:) S9~
(gL) Sg..;lf ~ ~
(LL) se-. ~
(aoa) ~8"" <0 ~ 0>
~cq,c
",,::::.co
0>31ll)
to
c;;-~~
r-.C\I_
~::B ll) lL (1)ao'~) t9
~ C\I~ -+-(9LO'~) L81>
~..."" F(9V9)9l>L
(~ta) 99~..;If ~ ~
(saL) GG17' ~ ~
(ve~)s~e"" r::g~
-C')<O
~~~
"" ""0>
;:-~
.....C')_
~re:g lL(~1>~)OL
-ll)- -+-(ea)LS~
~..."" F(09a)L8
~H~ ~g~..;If ~ ~
8LS-' 0; ll) ."
6~& 9LS"" ~~re
0> CO""
~~g
~
coco
t=.
~~~ lLm~G)GS
0,.._ -+- o~)o
~..."" 8~h1>
(OG}g~..;If ~ ~
(O~) g-. ;::---
(oa)o~"" ::::.i~
<O~
!S!
c;;-
~co
~t:;._
~-~ lL{8E~a
:ilit", -+- U ~
~..."" C:9 '-
(ot) au..;lf ~t~
(g~) S-' ;::---
(as) ~g"" t:;.8!~
-~C?
C\I~_
""
co
~
~!:::-
~:8~ lL~a~) 6t
r-.co--+- )1.
~..."" F VSC:)99
~Gt}ou.. ~ ~
ere ~~-. ~
as &e:"" ~E~
~18a;
!2'~
llS~
~..,C?
~i~ lLl~~9a
~+"" F~~~t
(661)) sss..;lf ~ r'
(~6tJ l>Sc:'~-' ~
(ee) as"" ~~~
~~~
"Q. ~~
N~ "'~
~~ 6 8l~ ~(&9a)l>6i:
g~ ~ ~ "" ...Ci.&c:'a)99~'~
g 0 ~ Ce:6e'~) 909' ~
i; ~ C666) 99G'~ ""
eo
-~
CD
ftj
'<to
-i
e"
.20
g~
;.g
:sl
u;
.
,,"e
....0
--
elf
~~
:~
...ftj
Sa..
Sui
....~
-..!
Ceo
.S!:s
-0
1IJ0
~~
.8:0
c:s
-0
o.
_CD
c.!!
0-
=~
IL
e2i
tIt:S
:sa
",j
_a..
c"
.S!.g
ie
;~
'2=
-.0
:s
o
S
co'"
_0
lSi
-"
Uo
e~
s-
c:2i
-:s
Q
G"~
~ lL(g)gt
coco -+-(L9) 9~
~ "" F(v) 0
(8) 9&3 ~ r'
(se)9,a-. "'''''0
(~) ~~" ~Q;;;'
'<t
Gl
1ii
,.. € ~
~. ~ .9
'0
z
HACIENDA OR.
~
z
I-
'a~
:=lDc
~ g.,g
o;:.!!l
..(1)
....
w: .
ii: l5
. WILLOW RO. !i
2i ~
~ a:
'" '"
~ c;;
o <f/;
~
HOP\'NO""
IlCIUCIOlERlY ....
~
Ciia;~
~reg lLl~6~)) ~
...r-."" -+- 99 1.C:
.-J... "" s~c:) 8O~
(L.9~ho~3 ~ r'
(ss) 89-' ~
(6G~}C:9" ~~~
i~
Si""
<0
III III
E E
c ::1::1
~:o.~~
Co) ; ... ..
.,,::1::1
l:! III 0 0
.o:l::r:
'Ea:~~
>.e==
Q "::111.0..
z #'S:E:E
~ en II. -c 0..
~. i ~~
:s
...
IDa:
.......
_0
c'a
0'"
=E
~~
I!..
s'S
.5:.
.J
fI)
~
ai.fl
.~
.~
..
<.0
I
LO
~
HI
IJ
;:'U
HlllON IIlIIII
~J
...J
<C
u
V)
C>
:z
III
'ill
III
~ j
III
.
';1
iii
..
CJ)
(J)
E
::l
~
+J
C
(J)
E
(J)
>
o
~
C)
c
.c
'-
~
-0
~
o
'-
a.
a.
<(
+
C)
c
"t)
"x
w
"~
.0
::l
o
...
..
o
(I)
.0'
..
Q.
(I)
0)
~
:>
1j;,
,.~ .
?l
.
~ .'
...
..
.w
c
co
~
"C
C
co
c
o
~
co
..
UJ
t-
a:
<(
m
c
o
..
c
co
II)
co
(I)
- 0
Q.o
-- --
CO
.- ~
:c~
::So
ON
"'0
11)1-
(1)0
3:~
;"1
11III
.~
iii
1:
...
"'
iii
...
.
!) Ljg
This improvement is scheduled to be implemented by the City of Dublin. The level of service analysis
for the Existing plus Approved Projects Conditions assumes that this improvement is in place.
Results of Level of Service Analysis
~
All ()fthe srudyintersectlons are expected to operate acceptably during the a.m. peak hour. Thirteen
, <?f the 14 inte~~~5tions evaluated ar~,expected to operate~cceptably at LOS D 0: better during tile p.m.
peak hour. The following study intersection is projected to operate unacceptably under the Existitlg
plus Approved Projects scenario:
. Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road - This signalized intersection is projected to operate
unacceptably at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour. The addition of a second exclusive
northbound through lane on Dougherty Road would improve operati11g conditions to
acceptable levels of service. The City of Dublin has previously identified this and additional
improvement to this . intersection. The improvements are expected to be funded and
constructed by east Dublirl developments as a part of the City's east Dublin Traffic
Improvement Fee.
Table 4.5-3 presents a summary of peak hour levels of service at the study intersections under the
Existing plus Approved Projects scenario. The level of service worksheets are provided in Appendix B.
Signal Warrant Analysis
.Th.,... ..,',c:.~te~~~.......o.....Il()~S.t. ,p.~tri~ 'Y"ay,./Go.. 1.den. Ga.. .te Drive is currendy All-W. ..a. yS..T, OP controlled. C. .altrans'
. '.. . . . . .", " :.: ',:, ".,' ",;> . <', . '. '" ','.: :":" ~^'.::":"".':~" "..-,,>, .. ..', Lh,': ,>',":'_'_. _', ..._......'.,... :", '_'_:, "_,' ". ',do . .' '....:. _, . ,-:,: ~"'_' ::'..'. . . ". " '. " .
peak hour signal warrant was used to evaluate the need for a signal at this intersection. Based on the
peak hour volumes, a signal is not warranted under this scenario.
Residential
The trip generation for the residential use was based on rates for apartment units provided in Trip
Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997). Based on these rates, the residential
component is expected to generate approximately 1,061 daily trips, 82 a.m. peak hour trips, and 99
p.m. peak hour trips. Based on previous studies and its proximity to BART, a reduction in vehicle trips
was applied.
r-;
't.
Son Frandseo Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West DublinlPleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
4.5-21
EDAW
T ransportationlGrculation
:~i;X,:),;-i';'I ;),:,(i:)~',i.:,,:,i:,: 'i"C
.-..._;{::.....,:.-<".,.,,,.,'.>>.:-,
JYCj
TABLE 4.5-3
DUBUN PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEvELS OF SERVICE - EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PRoJEcTs
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
10 Intersection I
vIe LOS vIe LOS
.
1 Amador Valley Boulevard/San Ramon Road 0.49 A 0.62 B
2 Amador Valley Boulevard/Regional Street 0.34 A 0.56 A
3 Amador Valley Boulevard/Donohue Drive 0.37 A 0.45 A
4 Amador Valley Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road 0.32 A 0.57 A
5 Amador Valley BoulevardNillage Parkway 0.64 B 0.76 C
6 Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road 0.85 D 0.78 C
7 Dublin Boulevard/Regional Street 0.36 A 0.54 A
8 Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive 0.28 A 0.48 A
9 Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road 0.44 A 0.76 C
10 Dublin BoulevardNillage Parkway 0.47 A 0.60 A
11 Dublin BoulevardIDougherty Road 0.74 C 1.02 F
-WITH CITY-INITIATED IMPROVEMENT 0.74 C 0.90 D
12 San Ramon Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps 0.62 B 0.79 C
15 St. Patrick Way/Amador Plaza Road/l-680 Ramps 0.27 A 0.35 A
UNSIGNAlIZEO INTERSECflONS
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
10 Intersection Deloy LOS Delay LOS
sec/veh sec/veh
14 c St. Patrick Way/Golden Gate 3.4 A 1.8 A
Note: vlc = volume to capacity ratio. LOS = level of service
Source: TJKM 2000
A study conducted by the University of California at Berkeley included data collected near BART
Stations in the East Bay (Cervera, 1993). It indicated that commute ridership ranged between 28 and
41 percent for residences within one-third mile of the BART Station. Based on the above study and
as a conservative analysis, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) rates were reduced by 30
percent for the residential development, resulting in approximately 743 daily trips, 57 a.m. peak hour
trips, and 69 p.m. peak hour trips.
EDAW
Transportation/Circulation
4.5-22
Son Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West DublinlPleasanton BART Station and T rGnsit Village
II
i'
.if
.a
ill
III
11IIII
III
.
<~
..
ice
'Ai
.II
.~::
..
,~
IIlli
jf
till
f
.
,.:;j
.'
,,~
..
..
~
..
.J
.4
..
r
8~-O
Hotel
r-
The trip generation for the hotel component of the proposed project was also ,estimated based on rates
provided in Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997). The hotel is anticipated
to generate approximately 1,975 daily trips, 134 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 146 trips during
the p.m. peak hour. The trip generation for the hotel is conservative in that it is not likely there would
be a significant reduction in vehicle trips for this use during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours even though
it is near the BART Station. It is anticipated that air travelers using the hotel would come from the
three Bay Area airports (San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose) via private auto. Also, the hotel would
not be located within walking distance of large employment centers.
BART Station
.......
~ ;
t
!lO'o
The trip generation for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station was based on ridership projections
from the March 2000 update of the BART Ridership Forecasting Model for Year 2010 and
information based on current station activity of the East DublinjPleasanton BART Station (BART,
2000 and Herhold, 2000).
r
In the Year 2010, approximately 5,736 passengers per day are estimated to access the West
DublinjPleasanton BART Station. Based on current activity of the East DublinjPleasanton BART
Station, about 792 of these passengers (610 entriesf182 exits) are expected to ride BART during the
im. peak hour and 723 passengers (231 entriesf492 exits) during the p.m. peak hour.
[
T. he. types of. passengers were divided into. two categories.: home-bas, ed p. as,.s. engers an. d work-based
pass~I1gers.The horn~-baS~d passengers are those that: ori~at:efron; their homes in the area and use
the West DublinjPleasanton BART Station. These passengers enter the station in the morning and exit
in the evening, contributing to the peak commute direction. The work-based passengers are those that
take BART from a different station to the West DublinjPleasanton BART Station and are bound for
places of work in the area. These passengers exit the station in the morning and enter in the evening,
contributing to the reverse commute direction. It is possible that home-based and~ work-based
passengers use BART in the opposite direction than what is described above (i.e., home-based trips
made by night-shift workers may be exiting in the morning). However, these trips are negligible and
are not considered in the trip generation calculations.
~. .;,., :.;. .. r'
Mode split information was provided by BART based on existing characteristics on the BART system.
Adjustments to these percentages were made to balance walk trips between BART and the residential
use. Table 4.5-4 summarizes the resulting mode split percentages.
.......
'F
,L'
.. ..."
r
t "
Son Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
West DublinlPleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
4.5-23
EDAW
T ransportation/Circulation
d-51
TABLE 4.5-4
WEST DUBIlN!PLEASANTON BART STATION MODE SPIlT AND VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION
AM Peak Entries AM Peak Exils PM Peak Entries PM Peak Exils
Mode Home-Bused Work-Bused Work-Bused Home-Bused
% I Vehicle Trips % I Vehicle Trips % I Vehide Trips % I Vehicle Trips
Walk 4 15 15 4
Busrrransit 1 5 27 60 27 '60 27 5 27
Car/Shuttle 2 75 416 15 14 15 17 75 335
Car Drop-Off/Pickup 3 14 85 5 9 5 12 14 69
Bicycle 2 5 5 2
Car Pick-up/Drop-Off3 23 85 69 29
Total Vehicle Trips 551 135 125 460
1 It is estimated that eight buses each would arrive every 20 minutes in Dublin and one bus every 20 minutes
in Pleasanton, resulting in 27 bus trips per hour.
2 Vehicle trips for a.m. entries and p.m. exits are based on the mode split percentage, assuming 1.1 passengers
per vehicle. However a.m. exits and p.m. entries are assumed to be work-based trips and are based on the
mode split and two passengers per shuttle.
3 Home-based car drop-offs in the morning (a.m. entries) and car pick-ups in the evening (p.m. exit) are added
to the a.m. exits and p.m. entries. Work-based car pick-ups in the morning plus shuttle estimates (a.m.
exits) and car drop-offs in the evening plus shuttle estimates (p.m. entries) are added to the a.m. entries and
p.m. exits, respectively.
Source: TJI<M 2000
Based on the mode-split percentages, vehicle trips were calculated. For the bus/transit trips, it is
assumed that eight buses arrive at the BART Station in Dublin every 20 minutes. Therefore, 24
inbound and 24 outbound bus trips would occur at the BART Station in Dublin. These trips are not
dependent on the ridership estimates derived from the mode split, and buses serve both home-based
and work-based passengers.
Home-based vehicle trips, a.m. entries and p.m. exits, were calculated directly based on the mode split,
assuming 1.1 passengers per vehicle (i.e., a.m. entries: 75% x 610 passengers = 458 passengers at 1.1
passengers per vehicle = 416 vehicle trips). However, for the work-based trips it is assumed that
BART passengers use (work provided) shuttles at a rate of two passengers per shuttle (i.e. a.m. exits:
15% x 210 passengers = 32 passengers at two per shuttle = 16 shuttles).
Vehicle trips were also estimated based on drop-off and pick-up information for home-based and
work-based passengers. Vehicles dropping off passengers in the morning and picking up passengers
in the evening (home-based trips) are added to the a.m. exiting vehicle trips and p.m. entering vehicle
trips. Similarly, vehicles picking up passengers in the morning and dropping off in the evening
(work-based) are also counted as a.m. entering vehicle trips and p.m. exiting vehicle trips. In addition,
EDAW
T ranspOrfation/Circulation
4.5-24
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West DublinlPleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
..
~,
..
,~ :
III
.~
iii
~
IIIi
.
.!
.f
..
1'1
~ "
.
~,.
.f
;~,~:
iii
i:l-:.
..!i
.
~
-
~
,!~
III
"
;i
11IIII
i!
-
..
.
.--
I
~
.
r
r
I
.r
f
r:
~
r
.
;,
,
r
L
r
t
r
l 1
r
~
d-5d-.:
....... .' ..". . . '.: ..... ......~.......:t..'
. the wodc-basedsl1uttle trips included in the a.m. exiting vehicle trips arid p.m. entering vehicle trips are
added to the a.m. entering and p.m. exiting vehicle trips.
Table 4.5-4 summarizes the total trip generation estimated for the West DublinjPleasanton BART
Station. It is anticipated that the station would generate approximately 686 a.m. peak hour trips (551
entries/135 exits) and 585 p.m. peak hour trips (125 entries/460 exits). Table 4.5-5 provides the total
estimated trip generation for the proposed project on the Dublin parcel including the residential, hotel,
and BART Station uses. Approximately 63 percent of the total BART trips are anticipated to come
from San Ramon, Danville, Dublin, or other locations from the north and, therefore, are anticipated
to access the station in Dublin. The remaining 37 percent would use the Pleasanton side of the station.
TABLE 4.5-5
DUBUN TRIP GENERATION - PROPOSED PROJECf
Doily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Project Size Trip Trip In:Out Trips Trips Tolol Trip In:Out Trips Trips Tolol
(Land Use) Rale Trips Rote Ratio In Out Trips Rote Ratio In O\lf Trips
Hotel 240 8.23 1,975 0.56 61:39 82 52 134 0.61 53:47 77 69 146
Rooms
Residential 160 6.63 1,061 0.51 16:84 13 69 82 0.62 67:33 66 33 99
units
30% Reduction -318 -4 -21 -25 -20 -10 -30
Net New Residential 743 9 48 57 46 23 69
BART Station - Home-based Trips 316 34 370 43 254 297
BART Station:""" Work Based Trips 38 38 76 42 42 84
BART Station - Total 2,215 354 92 446 85 296 381
Grand Total 4,933 445 192 637 208 388 596
Source: T]KM 2000
, .... . ..... ::..
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The over~ gip distribution for the West DublinjPleasanton BART Station is shown on Exhibit 4.5-7.
Approximately 65 percent of the trips are anticipated to come from San Ramon, Danville, and Dublin,
of whi<:h 63 percent of the vehicles would access BART in Dublin and two percent in Pleasanton via
San Ramon Road, Foothill Road, Canyon Way, and Stoneridge Mall Road.
Son Froncisco Boy Areo Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleosonton BART Station ond Transit Village
EDAW
T ransportationlGrculation
4.5-25
~-\> '
. ~,
C
0.
s:
~ta>
f;a: C
"lit..
CQ
cZ
HACIENDA OR.
CD
s:::B
(I 1:: CI)
o 0
z-
~
AANOLO RD.
c:i
?;
II)
z
iil
::>
c
llCJOOHERrY AD.
C
~=
~~
Q
90
r---
I
LO
<:::j-
III
I A,
,.", ,
'11,
. .
ml
, I
HUlON .
~
..
,*;;
III
.
"'
.....
.I:
j
'1<;
lit
~if
en
c:
o
"a
E
:J
en
~
c:
o
"'5
.0
"C:
1;)
b ~
a.>
i= ;;
c
~ e
en .-
co "0
O? i
Q) c
~ i
:c (;)
-.-
~ ~
~ m
o g
- E
h: Ii
~ ~
cg
-c -- ~
~ ~: Iii
8. 1;; g
e Q)O
0... ~~
1r:;
ij;
.
;,;
...
"".
.I'
IIIIIi
1.;1
III
.
.
,;
..
III
r-.
,I
i
,""","'0,,,
r-
I.
t
Ie
r
...-
I
;
r
1
r
., ~ .
J
1,
r
r
~.
,...
I
~
10 ,
ast/
Approximately~5 percent of the trips are anticipated to come from Pleasanton and other locations from
the south on 1-680, and would also access BART in Pleasanton, for a total 37 percent.
These estimates are based on the existing trip distribution percentages of the East DublinfPleasanton
BART Station and knowledge of the study area. It is assumed that vehicles originating or destining
, east of the East DublinfPleasanton BART Station (Livermore and Tracy areas) would continue to use
the East DublinfPleasanton BART Station and would not use the West DublinjPleasanton BART
Station. The trip distribution percentages were adjusted to reflect this assumption.
The trip distribution of the home-based trips for the West Dub1injPleasanton BART Station is shown
on Exhibit 4.5-8. It is estimated that home-based trips would be either vehicle trips new to the study
area, existing trips within the study area diverted from the East DublinjPleasanton BART Station, or
trips within the study area diverted from the freeway. The new home-based trips would likely be
generated by reSidences outside of the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton that currently do not use any
of the study intersections. These trips would include existing commute trips made from San Ramon
and Danville using the local freeways only (1-680 and 1-580) and not any study roadways. To estimate
the percentage of home-based trips that would be new trips, local residential growth rates were
compared to the BART ridership growth rates. The BART growth rates were estimated to be roughly
10 to 20 percent greater than residential growth rates for similar time frames. As a result, it is assumed
that 15 percent of the home-based trips are new trips, and are added as new trips to the study
intersections. The remaining 85 percent of the home-based trips are assumed to be either existing
commute trips diverted from the East DublinjPleasanton BART Station or commute trips diverted
from 1-580.
The number of home-based trips resulting from a diversion from the East DublinjPleasanton BART
Station were estimated using existing vehicle count information from the station and an imaginary
screenline through the City of Dublin at DOllgherty Road. None of the existing trips accessing the East
DublinjPleasanton BART Station from the east on 1-580 are assumed to divert. Using the screenline
developed based on the city street network and geographical. distribution of resIdences, roughly 60
..;,,'1 ',:~
percent of the trips currently accessing the East DublinjPleasanton BART Station from the west are
estimated to divert to the proposed West DublinjPleasanton BART Station. The remaining number
of home-based trips to the proposed station are expected to be from commuters already using 1-580.
This East DublinjPleasanton BART Station diversion and freeway diversion results in a reduction of
trips at some of the intersections and an addition of trips to others.
Son Frandsco Boy Area Rapid Transit Distrid
West Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station and T ronsit Village
4.5-27
EDAW
T ransportationlCirculotion
HACIENDA DR.
ARNOLD AD:
~
c~
=lDe
.ceo
cSS1i;
1iius
COeD
wm
ii: gi
WIlLOW AD. ~
~
IX>
8
HOPYARDRD.
DOUGHERTY RD.
e
o
t;
G)
e
s >-
e CO
>.~
"1:1 CO
.a 0
0D:
oS !
- ::J
.gO;
au.
a
z
w
~ .
IIIIIii
..
~
,J":
..
en
c
o
"15.
E
~
en
en
<(
c
o
"'5 ...
..0 g
"t: .0'
t) Q:
b Q)
C)
c.~
~ :>
-C
(I)
en
CO
m
cb
E
o
:c
c
o
"10
U5
b:
~
.!;;
..0
~
o
t)
~
.f
-
"
III;
~'.
11'
.:
,
J
.'
...
.w
c
co
~
"0
e
co
c
o
;;
co
...
(I)
I-
0::
oCt
m
c
o
...
c
co
I/)
co
Q)
- 0
0.0
CO
.- ~
:c
:::I;;
ON
...;;
1/)1-
Q)O
3:~
~]
..
>~~
~,
"1
<V
ii:
IIIIIi
~~.
~,
...'
""
.
~
c;Sf.(?
The proposed West DublinjPleasanton BART Station work-based vehicle trips were assigned to the
roadway network based on locations of work places within Dublin. It should be noted that some
existing work-based trips would be diverted to the proposed West DublinjPleasanton BART Station,
but they were not subtracted from the local roadway system because of their small number.
r-.
t
The hotel and residential trips were assigned to the study intersections based on local trip distribution
assumptions and knowledge of the study area. The estimated trip distribution assumptions are shown
on Exhibit 4.5-9 for the residential and hotel uses.
r-
~
~, .,
Exhibit 4.5-10 illustrates the resulting Existing plus Approved Projects plus ProJect peak hour turning
movement volumes.
fi
.
t Results of Level of Service Analysis
r
1
Impact
4.5-1
City of Dublin Intersections - Existin/! Plus Approved Projects Plus Project
Scenario. Under the Existing plus Approved Projects plus Project scenario, two
intersections would operate unacceptably. These intersections include Dublin
Boulevard/Dougherty Road and St. Patrick Way/Golden Gate Drive. However,
the proposed project would actually improve the level of service at the Dublin
Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection from LOS F to LOS E. Therefore, the
proposed project would not significantly affect this intersection. With the
project's contribution to the St. Patrick Way/Golden Gate Drive intersection, the
intersection would operate at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour. This would be
considered a significant project impact.
r
r
,
..,., "
r
r
I
.
The forecasted traffic volumes illustrated in Exhibit 4.5-10 were analyzed to determine intersection
levels of service under the Existing plus Approved Projects plus Project scenario. Intersections
. ..0.. . ..
projected to operate acceptably under the ExistiIlg pluS Approved Projects. scenario wol.l1d continue to
operate acceptably with the addition of project traffic.
,r
~
.
All of the study intersections are expected to contiIlue to operate acceptably during the a.m. peak hour.
Twelve of the 14 intersections evaluated are expected to continue to operate acceptably at LOS D or
better during the p.m. peak hour. The following two study intersections are projected to operate
unacceptably under Existing plus Approved Projects plus Project conditions:
· Dublin BoulevardjDougherty Road - This signalized intersection is projected to operate
unacceptably during the p.m. peak hour whether or not the proposed project is developed. The
project improves the levels of service from LOS F to LOS E.
r
l
t,
-
,
San Francisco Bay Areo Rapid Transit Distrid
West Dublin!Pleosanton BART Station ond Tronsit Village
4.5-29
EDAW
T ransportotion/Circulotion
I
I ,
ARNOLD RD.
...
_IX:
c<
=lDC
-g g.2
QcS
";m(l)
ell I/)
w:g
ii: ~
WILLOW RD. a:
~
<
a:
CD
a
:)5'7 jj
.
0') I
.
L!") ~
~ ..
II
HUlON ..
~
;;ji
w .
-'
<X:
<..>
en
0
:z
HACIENDA DR.
iii
.J
1J
..
HOPYAAIl RD.
~++f ;&.
It) o#'
,...
~,~
..
DOOOHEFnY RD.
..
r
r'.
le
.0
..' :1
Ci!
..-
:is
:6
~' \
"
t.~
n'"
011:
.c
..... ;~
f,......J... ii
-::I
a
...' ~f
r--
I s~
r.....'I.-~
. ::'1
=e
<C
I
it
M..~
c'a
0'"
... ~~
.. ,,:00-
t.. !~
l=i
t ~
L
oj
~...'...i..S
I!..
Sj
-<II
e
.. . <C
f!
~L.:i
Sll;
c>:OO-
. !-
: >
..
eo
... -'a
IS!
r',
L
J.J
'. _II:
! ce
,:; O.
~~.. i'-
I!>
e..
'. :e.g
t, !
0-
sO~
0.-10
~~ ~ll) SV
IO~........ ~8l!it
~+~ S~lS9~
(ell ~-1f ~ ~
{u)!it ~
(c:oc:l ~9" ~l~
NCI'D
Cl>~\O
...
iO"
~;::-s
N~
-;;;~S! ~~E80'~) 609
IOC\I US ..... 1>SO'~) Slv
~ ~ E9)tvl
( (~l SSC:3 ~ ~
ou) S!;t' ~ ...............
(vs~>S~s" E~8
C\I"'C')
C')lt)lt)
Nt'lCD
~!2le
. t:A:c
;:!'1;fa ~{LV~~ ~L
...11).- ..... 99C: LS ~
~..~ ~ E9
{~l~} ~9~-1f ~ ~
S9l> 9LS'" ...............
~a: sse" ~~;;;
......C\I
ococo
r--r--,..
...N...
~
t:.::.
el;l ~ ~{8fZ) LS
o co... ..... O~) 0
~,~ YOZ) tv
(O~) 9~-1f ~ ~
(O~) 9 ...............
(oc:) o~" ES:;!
co"""'"
r--co
C').-
..,-
!
.,.e
-c
~-8
0-
_0
i~
eu
S~
c"
-Q.
Iii
;:::
u;~
efj ~{89) Lv
~ l. ..... vas) 99~
~ 1110. ;:- vlo
(e) 9&3 ~ ~
(SL~) fSS ~
(~ n" e~
...
tw:~DII.
w!
...0
...-
cf
i~
e"S
D'"
'EQ.
-Ii
~
~
~;)
"a. S-C\I
C\li CI)~
~cr: E~
':8 c ...:... It.(ses)~
Si! ~ ~ ~ +(~v~8.L~'~
lo~ '~)909'~
.~~ 000'~)a2'~ ~
So
CD
~
IlOUI>>ERT1 AD.
(')OOC')
com,..
C')I/)
~.
"'0
c.!!
0-
=~
lL
!!2i
D::I
sa
CD';
...a.
, c ..
00
-'a
u.
.e
;~
:5i
::I
a
.
co.
...e
cc
OD
Ii
"i!
s-
s:g
a
!
..,ii:
.- ..
"'0
ell
Oe
I~
l!o
SE
s:.
Iii
---
... -
or--
C\I...
16Cl>
...~
~.; ..... (99c:) J.9
fm~~::' ~
(~~) ~L" g.~
CD";:
..,
(I.c~
1::U)
00'
z-
, (5
Z
....
1!~
=lDe
ies
Q~!
'iOlll<ll
~'"
~ i!i
WIU.OWRD. ~
~ i
~ ' a
o <1:.
#
HOP"I'AAO RD.
CD CD
E E
co2.:!
.e~~>o
1':......
. =' =' it
eoo'g
.x%o
'E.x.xa::
-II.
~~Q.~
o =':1:&-
z cnc~.t
III
g .~~i
.oJ _,
d0~
<:::>
I
~
I
LO
~
~I
HUlON
Ea
en
Q)
E
::J
o
>
+-'
C
Q)
E
Q) ....
> u
o Q)
~ -e-
Q.
0) CD
C CD
.c ~
::; :>
l:-
t)
Q)
i
+
"'0
~
12
a.
a.
<(
+
0)
C
01;)
.x
w
.C
:a
::J
o
....
.Vi
C
III
.=:
"'0
C
III
C
o
+-
III
....
CI)
t:
~
a:l
c
o
....
C
III
In
III
~
0::
cg
:a~
:J
0",
....;;
Inl-
Q)o
3:~
.
;)SCJ
.1
Therefore, this project is not considered to significantly impact this intersection under the
near-term future conditions. With the improvements described under the Existing Plus
Approved conditions, the addition of a second exclusive northbound through lane, the
operations are expected to improve to an acceptable LOS D. This improvement would not be
directly related to the proposed project. The improvement is expected to be implemented as
a part of larger improvements planned at the intersection to be funded by East Dublin
development.
~~
wi'
~
~
-,:
"r
iii
;t
.,
::;
St. Patrick Way/Golden Gate Drive - With the addition of project traffic, this intersection is
expected to operate at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour. This is considered a significant
project impact.
~
"~
w~
.-
'"
Table 4.5-6 presents a summary of peak hour levels of service at the study intersections under both the
Existing plus Approved Projects and Existing plus Approved Projects plus Proposed Project scenarios.
The level of service worksheets are provided in Appendix B.
..
~.
Signal Warrant Analysis
.~
.Ii
The intersection of St. Patrick Way/Golden Gate Drive is currently four-way STOP controlled.
Caltrans' peak hour signal warrant was used to evaluate the need for a signal at this intersection. Based
on the peak hour volumes, a signal is not warranted under this scenario.
l
iii
\It
p
~,
.t
ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS
Methodology
oj)..,
..
For each scenario, an 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. The following six
roadway segments were analyzed:
lIIIIt:
"
11II
2.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Dublin Boulevard between Dougherty Road and Village Parkway
Dublin Boulevard between Village Parkway and San Ramon Road
Amador Plaza Road south of Dublin Boulevard
Golden Gate Drive
Regional Street south of Dublin BoUlevard
St. Patrick. Way between Amador Plaza Road and Golden Gate Drive
Ill(
, -,~
..
1lIlf,
....:11
II(
EDAW
T ransportotion/(irculotion
Son Frandsco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West DublinlPleasonton BART Station and Transit Village
4.5-32
.
'r
~
t
r0-
t
I
. \~;::,
r
f
,
r
~.
r0-
t
,
r
t
,
r
\
~
r
t
r
~
d-UO
TABLE 4.5-6
DUBUN PEAK HOUR INTERSECllON LEvELS OF SERVlCE-
EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PLUS PRoPOSED PROJECf
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
ID Interseclion Existing + Approved Existing + Approved + Projed
A.M. Peok Hour P.M. Peek Hour A.M. Peek Hour P.M. Peek Hour
vie I LOS vie I LOS vie I LOS vie I LOS
1 Amador Valley Blvd./San Ramon Rd. 0.49 A 0.62 B 0.49 A 0.62 B
2 Amador Valley Blvd./Regional Street 0.34 A 0.56 A 0.34 A 0.56 A
3 Amador Valley Blvd./Donohue Drive 0.37 A 0.45 A 0.37 A 0.45 A
4 Amador Valley Blvd/Amador Plaza Rd 0.32 A 0.57 A 0.34 A 0.58 A
5 Amador Valley Blvd.Nillage Parkway 0.64 B 0.76 C 0.63 B 0.76 C
6 Dublin Blvd./San Ramon Rd. 0.85 D 0.78 C 0.83 D 0.78 C
7 Dublin Blvd./Regional St. 0.36 A 0.54 A 0.38 A 0.55 A
8 Dublin Blvd./Golden Gate Dr. 0.28 A 0.48 A 0.38 A 0.60 A
9 Dublin Blvd./Amador Plaza Rd. 0.44 A 0.76 C 0.51 A 0.82 D
10 Dublin BlvdNillage Parkway 0.47 A 0.60 A 0.46 A 0.61 B
11 Dublin Blvd./Dougherty Rd. 0.74 C 1.02 F 0.72 C 0.97 E
_ WTIGATED 1 0.74 C 0.90 D 0.72 C 0.87 D
12 San Ramon Rd./I-680 WE Ramps 0.62 B 0.79 C 0.63 B 0.79 C
15 St. Patrick Way/Amador Plaza Rd. 0.27 A 0.35 A 0.33 A 0.36 A
UNSIGNALlZED INTERSECTIONS
Existing + Approved Existing + Approved + Projed
ID Intersection A.M. Peek Hour P.M. Peek Hour A.M. Peek Hour P.M. Peek Hour
Deloy, I LOS Deloy, I LOS Delay, I LOS Deloy, I LOS
ser/veh ser/veh sec/veh sec/veh
14 St. Patrick Way/Golden Gate Drive 3.4 A 1.8 A 25.0 D >90.0 F
- WTIGATED - - - - 12.5 C 14.1 C
1 The mitigation for this intersection is the responsibility of the City of Dublin and is not related to the
proposed project.
Note: vlc = volume to capacity ratio, LOS = level of service
Source: TJKM 2000
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West DublinlPleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
EDAW
Transportation/Circulation
4.5-33
d-f2/
The average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for the various future development scenarios were estimated
by assuming that p.m. peak hour volumes for the existing, approved, and proposed project were 10
percent of their ADT volumes. These estimated daily volumes were then added to the actual existing
daily volumes. The resulting ADT volumes for all study scenarios are shown on Exhibit 4.5-11.
An appropriate level of service methodology for two-lane (one-lane in each direction) segments can be
found in the Transportation Research Board's 1994 Highway Capacity ManUal (HCM). The HCM
methodology for two-lane roadways yields a maximum ADT of 15,600 vehicles per day (vpd) to
maintain a Level of Service D. This value is used in this analysis as an upper threshold for average daily
traffic for two-lane roadway segments. ADT volumes of 30,000 vpd and 50,000 vpd are the acceptable
upper thresholds for four-lane and six-lane arterials, respectively. These thresholds were established by
the City of Dublin Circulation Element of the General Plan. (City of Dublin, 1997).
Results
Based on the 15,600 vpd, 30,000 vpd, and 50,000 vpd thresholds described above, the following
improvements would be required:
Under the Existing plus Approved scenario, one roadway segment is expected to exceed 30,000 vehicles
per day. Dublin Boulevard between Dougherty Road and Village Parkway is expected to carry 32,500
vpd, and would need to be widened to six lanes. Dublin Boulevard is planned to be widened to six
lanes (three in each direction) between Village Parkway and Dougherty Road by the City of Dublin
within the next five years.
Under the Existing plus Approved Projects plus Project scenario, no additional roadway segments are
expected to exceed the City thresholds.
ST. PATRICK WAY EXTENSION
The need to construct St. Patrick Way between Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street with the
construction of the proposed project was evaluated. This extension would serve the BART complex
and offer another access option via Dublin Boulevard, Regional Street, and St. Patrick Way. The
extension would be needed if it improves service levels at ~urrounding intersections that operate
unacceptably at LOS E or F. -
Based on the levels of service analysis, the intersection of Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive is
expected to operate at LOS A during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the addition of the project.
EDAW
T ransportationlCirculation
4.5-34
Son Frondsco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West DublinlPleosanton BART Station and Transit Village
/~
.
>'J ~
..
~.
..
..
..
..
III;
\i
.(
'"
,~~
.:
.~
..
;;;.,..
i'>
....
:.:.~
:~:
Iii'
.."
..
11IIIII....
~,
..,
-,;j
..
If
..
L-
HACIENDA OR.
ARNOlD RO.
~
HOPYAID AD.
I~
.
J
l
I~
~~
,
,
I-
. :
.~
I~
f
r
L
I
,
(
L
.
1
r
, Ql
(I.'~5
1:(1)
o 9
Z...
o
Z
'"
C
IlJ
i:
u
!E
i
Q.
~j
=.lC
.au
::I-
e'
+0.,
s
Ii
~"
ii
s !
:D ::I
.sd!
~ ;
m · ~
CfW d-
...--
...--
I
LO
~
~I
I
HlllON
~
+"
()
Q)
"0'
...
0-
Q)
CD
~
:>
+"
"ii)
C
CG
...
I-
"0
C
CG
C
(.) ~
~ ~
....
t- l-
ce
><t
"co IX)
o l5
-0 ~
Q) cu
10 rJ
Q)
E a:
01;) :E g
W -0
.g~
o~ eN
..0 t; g
;:) 0)0
o 3:~
;)LP3
Since Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive serves as a primary intersection for most of the project
traffic and it appears to have sufficient capacity, the extension of St. Patrick Way is not needed to serve
the proposed project.
The hotel and residential components would share a driveway on Golden Gate Drive located between
the two uses. The St. Patrick Way extension would be needed if this main access point were illsufficient
to handle traffic from both uses. The St. Patrick Way extension would be adjacent to the residential
use, and if built, would provide a second access for the residential units.
The level of service at the hotel/residential driveway and its proximity to the intersection of St. Patrick
Way/Golden Gate Drive are acceptable. Again, there would be no benefit to extending St. Patrick Way
between Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street due to the proposed project.
DUBLIN SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
Dublin Parcel Access and Circulation. The proposed project design provides
adequate site access and circulation on the Dublin parcel to accommodate the
proposed uses. Therefore, no significant access or circulation impacts would be
anticipated.
Impact
4.5-2
The primary access to the hotel and the residential uses would be via a shared driveway on the west side
of Golden Gate Drive. This driveway is located about 400 feet south of the St. Patrick Way alignment
and about 175 feet north of the south end of the cul de sac at the foot of Golden Gate Drive. The hotel
has surface parking located to the west and south sides of the hotel buildings. A guest drop-off area
is located at the front of the hotel. No significant impacts associated with hotel access or circulation
would be anticipated. However, left-turning vehicles exiting the driveway are expected to experience
some delay during the peak hours. Golden Gate Drive will be restriped to include a two-way left turn
lane. This improvement will allow vehicles to cross over one lane of traffic and merge into the through
lane. In addition, if a traffic signal is installed in the future at the intersection of St. Patrick
Way/Golden Gate Drive, it will provide gaps in traffic to allow left turns out of the driveway.
The residential parking consists of surface parking on the west side of the residential building and
garage parking below the building. Access to the garage is via two entrances from the surface lot and
one entrance directly onto Golden Gate Drive. The garage access onto Golden Gate Drive is located
approximately 200 feet south of the St. Patrick Way alignment, opposite an existing driveway on the
east side of Golden Gate Drive. No significant impacts associated with access or circulation at the
residential building would be anticipated. Similar to the operations at the hotel driveway, left-turning
vehicles exiting the driveway are expected to experience some delay during the peak hours. The two-
EDAW
T ransportationfCirrulation
4.5-36
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station ond Transit Village
..
'4 ~
..
J~
J)
J"
J
;j~:
III
1
~~
...~
.f
:;
1IIIl~,
--~~
...;
:ii,..
~i!';
JI
K
'r~.
;:~ '
"i
<';"
11III,
;}-"
;I'
.~
..
..
~;
-'~
.
,....
!
f
r0-
t
~
...-
t
~
to._,
r
t '
r
I :
,......
t
L
r'
r
c3~t./
left turn lane on Golden Gate Drive and the potential future installation of a traffic signal at St.
Patrick Way/Golden Gate Drive would reduce potential traffic conflicts.
The BART parking area consists of713 parking spaces. Access to the garage would be from a driveway
onto the foot of the Golden Gate Drive cul de sac. In addition, the ground-level bus loading area
consists of eight bus bays andadditionJ surface parkirig thatis expected to be reserved for drop-offs
and pick-ups of BART patrons. The bus circulation area requires buses to V-turn on the ground floor
()f the structure. The design accommodates a 50-foot milling radius. This would be adequate to
accommodate the Wheels bus system vehicles.
The BART parking area is compact, occupying an area of 2.464 acres. The access for all BART-related
parking occurs through a single driveway. All BART patrons arriving in private autos to be parked,
in drop-off vehicles or in buses would access the parking area from this driveway. Although there is
the potential that a blockage of this driveway could disrupt on-site traffic flows, this would generally
be considered an unusual event. Therefore, no significant impacts associated with access or circulation
at the BART parking area would be anticipated.
PLEASANTON TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The methodology used is based on the process approved by the City of Pleasanton for analyzing traffic
impacts of proposed development. This traffic analysis evaluates the impaCts generated by the proposed
project on 12 intersections in the study area. The study intersections are listed below and depicted in
Exhibit 4.5-12:
302.
304.
313.
344.
345.
346.
347.
34?
349.
392.
90l.
903.
Foothill RoadjDublin Canyon Road/Canyon Way
Foothill RoadjStoneridge Drive
Hopyard Road/Stoneridge Drive
SpringdaleAvenuejStoneridge Drive
Stoneridge Mall RoadjStoneridge Drive
I -680 Southbound RampsjStoneridge Drive
1-680 Northbound RampsjStoneridge Drive
Johnson DrivejStoneridge Drive
Denker Drive/Stoileridge Drive
Stoneridge Mall Road/Canyon Way
San Ramon RoadjI-580 Westbound Ramps*
Foothill RoadjI-580 Eastbound Ramps*
Intersections marked with an asterisk (*) are fUture intersections
Son Francisco Boy Areo Ropid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasonfon BART Station ond Transit Village
4.5-37
EDAW
T ronsportotionlCirculotion
HACIENDA OR.
ARNOLD RD.
...
_a:
c<
=me
.ceo
::Jo-
~cS
=llIw
Wi
ii: 2i
WIllOW RD. c:
i5
~
IX)
a
g
IX)
Z
::i
IX)
=>
c
DOUGHERTY RD.
O'
It'
~
~
31;
ill
::>
Q
HOPYARO RD.
Q
Z
~ .
~
CD
Cii
(=~~
o
z
e
.2
i
f!
.s >-
r::: as
;.~
-g ~
cna:
.5 e
:is,a
5~
.c
~
e"
+
lii
00
.. ..
0.0.
- ++
li"a-a
i > ~ ~
- 0 0 0
..........
OD.D.a.
. D.D.a.
0<<<(
S+++
l:I)l:Jlt:lll:Jl
.5.5.5.5
... ... .. ...
CIJ G) CIJ III
;H;H;H;H
!JW.'S
..
~I
I HUlON
~
III
.II
,Z ~
i
.
~:
III
..
.-.:i
~!)!
iii
~,<
..
,'i',
lIIIIiIi
.~
...
u
Q)
.0'
...
0..
Q)
C)
~
:>
~;,
;~.
lilii"
en
C
o
"t5
Q)
~
23
of;
>-
"0
::::J
U5
C
o
......
c
co
en
co
Q)
a..
...
.0
e
(lJ
..
...
"0
e
(lJ
e
o
.;:
(lJ
...
en
~
IX:
<(
a)
c
o
...
c
(lJ
CIJ
III
Q)
ii:
:Eg
:So
~~
ON
...5
1/)1-
Q)O
3:~
.
lilii,
-;
.
...
..
f
, :...... ,.
,.......
~&/.f
I. In addition to the evaluation of existing land use and roadway conditions, traffic conditions were
analyzed for four future land use and roadway network scenarios with and without the planned but
~~ed 1-680 inteJ.:cl1ang;e at West Las posit:as Boulevard. The I-680fWest Las Positas interchanges
is identified for construction by the City of Pleasant on General Plan; however, the West Las Positas
Citizens' Committee is currently in the process of determining the impacts of removing the interchange
from the General Plan (City of Pleasant on, August 1996). The snidy scenarios are listed below.
r
r
r
r-
t
~ .
r-
I
t
The f<;>llovving scenarios demonstrate the project's effects in the near-term:
.
Existing Conditions - This scenario consists of existing traffic volumes and roadway conditions
obtained from the City of Pleasanton's annual traffic counts for the year 2000 (City of
Pleasanton, February 2000).
.
Existing plus Approved: With and WIthout West Las Positas Interchange Conditions - This
scenario assumes existing land use conditions plus future traffic from all approved but unbuilt
Otl.ll1occupied development in the City of Pleasant on. Hacienda Business Park is treated as an
approved project according to the most current development agreement between the City of
Pleasanton and Hacienda Business Park.
Existing plus Approved Projects plus Project: With and Without West Las Positas Interchange
Conditions -This scenario is identical to the Existing plus Approved scenario but with traffic
added from the development of the proposed project, including the BART Station and office
building.
.
The City of Pleasant on evaluates operating conditions at signalized intersections using a methodology
known as the lev method. Peak hour intersection conditions are reported as volume to capacity (vjc)
ratios along with their corresponding level of service ratings. Level of service ratings are qualitative
descriptions of intersection operations and are reported using an A through F letter rating system to
describe travel delay and congestion. LOS A indicates free-flow conditions with little or no delay and
LOS F indicates jammed conditions with excessive delays and long back-ups. Appendix B contains a
detailed description of the level of service methodology.
Son Froncisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West DublinlPleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
EDAW
T ronsportotionlCirculotion
45-39
:J{P7
..
. -m
EXISTING PLUS ApPROVED PROJECTS CONDITIONS
till
This analysis is based on land use assumptions contained in the 1998 Pleasanton Traffic Model adopted
by the City Council in June 1999 (City of Pleasanton, June 1999). Approved projects consist of
developments that have fmal development plan approval from the City, but are either unbuilt, under
construction, unoccupied or partially occupied. Approved projects are used to forecast near-term traffic
conditions. The City ofPleasanton maintains a database of approved projects and typically updates it
on an annual basis to include current approvals (and to delete approved projects that have been
constructed and fully occupied).
"'",
.~..~
..
~7.
d.:
..
~
..
..
Subsequent to adoption of the 1998 Pleasanton Traffic Model it was discovered that the expansion of
the Safeway Corporate Headquarter, an approved project located at the northwest comer of Stoneridge
Mall Road and Canyon Way, was not included in the City's approved land use database (City of
Pleasanton, June 1999). Therefore, the expansion of the Safeway Corporate Headquarters was added
to the approved project list. It should be noted that approved projects in the mall area also includes
an expansion of Stoneridge Mall. Appendix B contains the list of approved developments and
corresponding occupancies considered under this scenario.
..
..
;;.
,':;-
.
All approved projects analyzed in this report are assumed to be built and fully occupied in the future
traffic scenarios except for a five percent vacancy rate assumed for multi-tenant office space. The traffic
generated by the already occupied portions of each building is accounted for in the turning movement
counts conducted in 1998. The future traffic from unoccupied portions of approved projects was
analyzed by a trip generation, distribution and assignment process to determine future peak hour flows
at the study intersections.
.",~
.~
'-?"1"
;{;
-:
.'$.
.:
;;.'
The City of Pleasant on Traffic Model was utilized to obtain vehicular trip generation, distribution, and
assignment assumptions for this future scenario as well as all other future scenarios (City of Pleas anton,
June 1999). Detailed trip generation assumptions for all future scenarios are contained in Appendix
B. Exhibit 4.5-13 identifies the existing turning movement volumes. Exhibit 4.5-14 illustrates Existing
plus Approved traffic volumes without the West Las Positas interchange.
..
>'5
-
Planned Intersection Improvements
~'
IIi addition to the previously described regional roadway improvements, the future study scenarios
assume that specific intersection improvements planned by the City of Pleasant on are completed. These
improvements are either part of an approved development agreement, fully funded, or partially funded
through a combination of developer contributions, development impact fees and City funding sources.
~
..
lIII
EDAW
T ransportotion/Circulation
45-40
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West DublinlPleosanton BART Station and Transit Village
;;l
i4
-
&
r' ~
,...
....... c
'., <? 0
t...... ~,
:8e.
~~
t 2m
t~'.. ,.5~
CD
~ '
."; . -
'...1 m ~
~d ~ ~~
r~ ! ;;;;;-
~o 0>0
c~ ....co
:8 Do ~+
; ~ j _ ',",,-,' !'
~'.....'.'..:....._~; <t~v) 69V~ g
, co .......
'.: ..I. 1:::'"
Ii
:Ii
$&
. ~~
" c!
J.....1i
L~i
,~ IS
;;;
~
~
~~
coco
..-Ii-
(Stj&!re~..:lf ~t
""c;) o<:~ S'6i"
at?
(I) .
....c
!B
['..' .
f. i:i
=c
c"l:
.... ti
r.......................,.li
cc
-0
;;;
(<?1!
....
'~.'........'.il
~~
'22
.. .5.9
, en.
r
I Ii
_"I:
81
=-
il
~1
-II.
co _
:g~
-N ...
~;::-;; It.. Its) Ol
<')....., ..... 9 ~ '\P) ~lS
~+.... F O~) Sl
(SSL) DS..:lf ~ r'
~l)1<<-,. ~.~
.... Ol ~ 0-
00
NN'
~,
:~H~
L &g
!~
r ~l
1;;.- -
k,
..,j
=~
ce.
oe
1~
..m
.l!tw
.5g
!
c
o
i
...a:
Ii
c~
:8e. ~
ue ~
ea!
2m
.5~
<:0
!
~
t}w8
(V) I
(I€! ~
I
U':)
og -==::r
z_
. ~ II
HUlON
~
l!i wuow....
,; """';"1lR.
-... :!
..
en
Q)
E ...
:J ()
~ Q)
.0'
...
0...
C Q)
C)
Q) Jg
E s:
~ ...
0 .(;)
c
~ ClJ
...
C) I-
"C
C C
.c ClJ
'- c
:J 0
I- ~
ClJ
- ...
e CI)
e l-
e a:
N ~
-
C) C
GI GI C 0
E E ...
::s ::s .~ C
C -- ClJ
.2>>~~ .x II)
i;...... ClJ
w Q)
"O::s::s 0:
.~~ c CO
'E!~:X 0 =~
Q i;ll c -g...
co 0",
i5 as:!:::e en
01.&.<0... co ...;;
CJ . ~~ 1I)l-
W 0 . Q) alO
..J . a.. ;:. ~
!
c
sei
:~ .....~ovo<:
&:Ii
~.J (ta) a...... ~
i! _ (&V9) SSl~ II'
2"1: ~
.52 ~
.9 oeo
en :;r--.
"'.I
3c
-,!It
15'i
ii'
!-c
Ii
-en
~
It> ~
~,.. It..~9t>ll9
s;....... ..... Ol &l
~....F 9~
(os) l~ ~ r'
(9~9" CO!R;(l;
(~) ~&~ ~~
, ~~
1
...
c
~s
~c
c15
oj.
l~
.l!tl!
co
-..
W
.
Q
-a
.....i
...e
rlS
&1-
Ii
Sm
sz
2
:t
3. _i
~ 8:::
il e...
&~ ~5
= c. ..,...
1Il ~ (094'l)6t6'l
I:; (It.tJ a.L8
Sj
{'
NO"
t(t!
e.....
;;~
.....
~s-
~~
~ 8. ;n-:::
rlou ~g
c _ ........
oi ..,
l~ (SJ>L;~t)6taJ ~t
s.f \L>II sa~ ~
e"C ___
-! 0":
o Cl')~
liS 8t
1i
:E
.
;i
rlg'
sa
l!
..-.:;
s.
sg
10
ou
~l
~o
!i
Sou
i-
eS
-liS
""III
!f
&&
li
f=
.5
.5~
gg
:~
C')ii
~~.
oc.
=E
i.
fa:
Sm
S!
<D
iil
~€S
o 0
z-
o
z
l!i WIl1DWSlD.
I CKO\IlOT DR.
:!
..,.....,... co
+(S69) SV9
,nS!H 'a>t~
l~l)L~'l ~ ('
(S6S) 9l9~ In;;;
ee.
I:;
c
~ ~~
. e.:!:.
-a: ~.....
ii ...; 't(€99)~
~i .., l-.. ...wza) 99l'l
! E CSGs'l} 909' l
li ~ (66a) 9lre' r~
s;
2
:!
c
~
!~
c-
o.
lP:::E
It
.5c
S
U)
ii
6~
=Q
sOU
e"C
.!
1:2
-CI:I
c
II
CO
o~
19t
foe
sl
co
-0
en
Q)
E
::J
0
>
+-' ....
C u
Q) Cl)
E '0'
...
~ D.
Cl)
C)
~ ~
:>
C> ....
c '0
'C s:::
ca
~ ...
::J l-
I- ."
-0 s:::
ca
Q) s:::
> 0
0 ';
~
'S C. ....
C. Ch
~ <( l-
ii a:
fI) & + <(
~~ C)
. . C> s:::
1i E E C 0
...
c .23 '1;) s:::
.S!>-~~ ca
~,1 'x II)
ill!;!; ca
!l w (I)
."00 0:
a;. S :z: :z: C CO
~! ca:.lIC.lIC 0
>.el= C =~
~i Q 'Oao.Q. .g~
z a::r::E:E co 0",
" ~ au 01&.<0. en "'0
s fa I ~~ co 1I)t-
~~ 0: Q) (1)0
... 0.. ~~
...-(re) J,.S
F(s~) sa
(on)~""'" ~ ('
(aGe) t~~ ~
In 0>
.....C\I
CD ...
tEl
~
...-
~U)
~ <<!.C\1 lL{tJ.H;
-...... ...- O} l
~+~ F Ol)9
(9lC:) ""J ~ {'
(fat) 6tl ~ pj*~
-ci
Q~
!:is
:107
.~
,l
...
~
I
~:
..
...--
I
LO
~
II
ili'
iii
HUlON
~
~;
iii,
,j:
_..1
*'
"
~;j ::
"i
.'!
.
"
~
-Q
'~
.~
5
"
~:
.~
~
.~
,
--';;j
"
~
:'.";
.1
~,
,
;Z
-i
<
'.,'"
..~
-'~.,
o~
.l
"
...,
iii;
-.;
..
d?O
r-
j , The location and nature of the planned improvements in the study area are presented in the City's
Annual Traffic Counts forBaseline 1998 report and are summarized below (City ofP1easanton, May
1999).
r'
n
r-
1 1
t :
[
r
L
,r
r
-r
.. '.Y.-
[
[
...-
l
~
,
r
.
Foothill BoulevardjCanyon WayfDublin Canyon Road (No. 302): An additional through lane
will be proVided on Foothill Road between Deodar Way (south of Canyon Way) and the 1-580
~ast{,ound ramps. The median on eastbound Dublin Canyon Road will be narrowed and
existing lanes restriped to provide two exclusive left-turn lanes, a shared left-turn and through
lane, and an exclusive right-turn lane. Developers in the Stoneridge Mall area are obligated to
inst~. these improvements. These improvements are estimated to occur within the next 5 years.
.
1-680 Southbound RampjStoneridge Drive (No. 346): The southbound 1-680 off-ramp will
be restriped to convert two right-turn lanes and two left-turn lanes into one right-turn lane and
three left-turn lanes. This is a low-cost improvement and is expected to be completed by the
City of Pleasant on using available developer fees. All other approaches will remain unchanged.
These planned improvements are included in the intersection level of service analyses for the future
study scenarios.
Results of Level of Service Analysis
The forecasted traffic volum~ illustrated in E~~it .4.5-14 we~e analyzed t? detennine intersection
levels of service under the Existitlg plus Approved Projects scenario with and without the West Las
Positas interchange. Under the scenario without the West Las Positas interchange, it was found that
10 of the 12 study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service. The intersections of
Hopyard RoadjStoneridge Drive (No. 313) and 1-680 Southbound RampsjStoneridge Drive (No.
346) are projected to operate unacceptably. With construction of the West Las Positas interchange,
all 12 study intersections are projected to operate acceptably.
th~ following two smclyint:crsecrloJ:1S are projected to operate unacceptably und.er me Existirig plus
Approved Projects scenario:
.
Hopyard RoadjStoneridge Drive (No. 313) - Without the West LasPositas interchange, this
signalized intersection is projected to operate unacceptably at LOS E during the p.m. peak
hour. However, with the interchange, this intersection is projected to operate acceptably at
LOS D. The West Las Positas Citizens' Committee is currently studying alternative mitigation
measures to the interchange. A City improvement anticipated at this intersection consists of
Son Frandsco Boy Areo Rapid Transit District
West DublinlPleosonton BART Station and T ronsit Village
EDAW
T ransportationjCirculotion
4.5-43
;;J11
iii ~
-:i;'
IJIllI
M~
restriping the eastbound approach on Stoneridge Drive to convert one of the exclusive right-
turn lanes into a shared through and right-turn lane. The anticipated improvement would
mitigate conditions without the West Las Positas interchange to acceptable levels of service.
lilli'
;
.I;
'-i
.
1-680 Southbound RampsjStoneridge Drive (No. 346) - Without the West Las Positas
interchange, this signalized intersection is projected to operate unacceptably at LOS E during
the p.m. peak hour. With the planned improvement described above, the intersection is
expected to operate acceptably during the a.m. peak hour, but continue to operate unacceptably
during the p.m. peak hour. However, with the interchange, this intersection is projected to
operate acceptably at LOS D. The West Las Positas Citizens' Committee is currendy studying
alternative mitigation measures to the interchange.
..
.I'
III
A City improvement anticipated at this intersection consists of widening the westbound
Stoneridge Mall Road approach to provide three through lanes and a free right-turn lane onto
the 1-680 southbound on-loop. The implementation of the General Plan buildout
improvements described above along with the anticipated City improvement would mitigate
conditions without the West Las Positas interchange to acceptable levels of service.
..
~:
IJIllI
"~...,.
..~
Table 4.5-7 presents a summary of peak hour levels of service at the study intersections under the
Existing plus Approved Projects scenario. Level of service worksheets are provided in Appendix B.
~if
i!
.'
J
..
EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
'~:
III'
i
Trip Generation
~
~:
IIIf
i-
Office
The trip generation for the office component of the proposed project was based on the standard trip
generation rates for office developments (1. 33 trips per 1,000 rentable square feet for the a.m. and p.m.
peak hours) adopted by the City of Pleasanton. Based on these rates, the proposed office is expected
to generate approximately 226 vehicle trips during the a.m. peak hour and 226 trips during the p.m.
peak hour. However, due to its proximity to BART, a percentage reduction in vehicle trips was
applied.
i~[
wj;
k.
,,;;-
..
"
.'
"
..
..
..
EDAW
T ransportafion/Circulation
45-44
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transif Disfrict
Wesf Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transif Village
III
r
~
.
r
~
~
l<.j
r
f i
r-"'
i
t.~, ,
r
t
..-
I '
J
~..",
r
~
......"
8-1a-
TABLE 4.5-7
PLEASANTON PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE - EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PROJEcrs
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS - WITHOUT 1-680 LAS POSITAS INTERCHANGE
10 Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
vIe I LOS vIe I LOS
302 Foothill Road/Canyon Way 0.66 B 0.86 D
with Planned Future Improvement 0.62 B 0.82 D
304 Foothill Road/Stoneridge Drive 0.40 A 0.44 A
313 Hopyard Road/Stoneridge Drive 0.84 D 0.92 E
with Planned Future Improvement 0.73 C 0.86 D
344 Springdale Avenue/Stoneridge Drive 0.44 A 0.66 B
345 Stoneridge Mall Road/Stoneridge Drive 0.86 D 0.82 D
346 1-680 SB Ramps/Stoneridge Drive 0.93 E 0.99 E
with Planned Future Improvement 0.85 D 0.91 E
with City Anticipated Improvement 0.81 D 0.85 D
347 1-680 NB Ramps/Stoneridge Drive 0.85 D 0.88 D
348 Johnson Drive/Stoneridge Drive 0.71 C 0.86 D
349 Denker Drive/Stoneridge Drive 0.84 D 0.89 D
392 Stoneridge Mall Road/Canyon Way 0.41 A 0.44 A
901 San Ramon RdjI-580 WB Ramps 0.75 C 0.86 D
903 Foothill Road/I-580EB Ramps 0.74 C 0.83 D
SIGNAliZED INTERSECTIONS - WITH 1-6801WEST LAS POSITAS INTERCHANGE
ID A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Intersection vIe I LOS vIe I LOS
302 Foothill Road/Canyon Way 0.66 B 0.86 D
with Planned Future Improvement 0.62 B 0.82 D
304 Foothill RoadjStoneridge Drive 0.37 A 0.41 A
313 Hopyard Road/Stoneridge Drive 0.71 C 0.86 D
344 Springdale Avenue/Stoneridge Drive 0.44 A 0.66 B
345 Stoneridge Mall Road/Stoneridge Drive 0.86 D 0.82 D
346 1-680 SB Ramps/Stoneridge Drive 0.88, D 0.89 D
with Planned Future Improvement 0.79 C 0.86 D
347 1-680 NB Ramps/Stoneridge Drive 0.72 C 0.82 D
348 Johnson Drive/Stoneridge Drive 0.61 B 0.81 D
349 Denker Drive/Stoneridge Drive 0.74 C 0.82 D
392 Stoneridge Mall Road/Canyon Way 0.41 A 0.44 A
901 San Ramon Rd/I-580 WB Ramps 0.75 C 0.86 D
903 Foothill Road/I-580 EB Ramps 0.74 C 0.83 D
Note: vlc = voluine to capacity ratio, LOS = Level of Service
Source: TJKM 2000
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin!Pleasanton BART Stationand Transit Village
4.5-45
EDAW
T ronsportation!Circulation
;)13
A study conducted by the University of California at Berkeley found BART usage averaged 17 percent
among people working near a BART Station (Cervero, 1993). Based on a review of trip generation
analyses recently performed for other office developments in the City of Pleasanton, it was determined
that a 15% transit reduction would be applied resulting in a conservatively high trip generation
estimate. With the transit reduction, the estimated trip generation of the proposed office is 192 vehicle
trips during the a.m. peak hour and 192 trips during the p.m. peak hour.
BART Station
The Dublin Traffic Analysis section of this report describes calculation of the vehicle trip generation
related to the proposed West DublinjPleasanton BART Station. Table 4.5-4 above summarizes the
total trip generation estimated for the West DublinjPleasanton BART Station. Approximately 37%
of the total BART trips are anticipated to access the BART Station from Pleasanton using local roads,
from the south on 1-680, and from the north on San Ramon Road, as described below. The remaining
63 percent would access the Station from the Dublin side. As shown in the table, on the Pleasanton
side, the BART Station is estimated to generate about 1,300 daily trips, including 239 a.m. peak hour
trips and 202 p.m. peak hour trips. For the bus/transit trips, it is assumed that one bus arrives at the
BART Station in Pleasanton every 20 minutes. Therefore, 3 inbound and 3 outband bus trips would
occur at the BART Station in Pleasanton. Table 4.5-8 summarizes the estimated trip generation for
the Pleasanton parcel.
TABLE 4.5-8
PLEASANTON TRIP GENERATION - PROPOSED PROJEcr
Doily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Project Size Trip In:Out Trips In:Out Trips Tolol
(Lond Use) Trips Trip Trips In Tolol Trips TripRo1e Trips Out
Ro1e Role Rotio Out Rotio In Trips
Office 170 ksf 11.01 1,872 1.33 90:10 203 23 226 1.33 20:80 45 181 226
15 % Transit Reduction -281 -30 -4 -34 -7 -27 -34
Net New Office 1,591 173 19 192 38 154 192
BART Station - Home-based Trips 185 32 217 25 149 174
BART Station - Work-based Trips 11 11 22 14 14 28
BART Station - Total 1,300 196 43 239 39 163 202
Grand Total 2,891 369 62 431 77 317 394
Note: ksf = 1,000 sq.ft.
Source: TJKM 2000
EDAW
Transportation/Circulation
4.5-46
Son Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit District
West Dublin/Pleasonton BART Station and TronsitVillage
III
;lOl
Vi;
III
'f
11III
..
"
.
:-'"
..
,:~:
iii'
"1l~,
...:
III:
."'~
,.!1{
l
.,
c:~
iii,
:;..
;'::1'
.r
;2
-t
..
11"
III
.i
..
..
n
f'1;
~
n
r:
(1
~
r'
r
L:
r
r
r
[ !
r;
. (;o.!
OJ/I
The PleasantoIl. Traffic Model included assumptions for the traffic produced by the previously
contemplated West DublinjPleasanton BART Station (City of Pleasant on, June 1999). The model
assumed 220 BART-related vehicle trips during the a.m. peak hour and 290 during the p.m. peak hour.
These vehicle trip generation assumptions were a preliminary estimate based on driveway counts on the
Pleasanton side of the East DublinjPleasanton BART Station. This EIR replaces the previous model
assumptions with trip generation estimates based on new BART ridership projections for the currently
proposed station as described above.
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The Dublin. Traffic Analysis portion. of this section describes Clevelopment of .the overall trip
distribution assumptions for the proposed West DublinjPleasanton BART Station, which are also
illustrated in Exhibit 4.5-ifltis estiffiatedthat:vehicles coming from withinPleasanton using local
roads, from the south on 1-680, and a portion of these coming from the north on San Ramon Road,
about 37 percent of all vehicles, would access the proposed BART Station ill Pleasanton.
The trip distribution of the BART home-based trips for Pleasanton is shown on Exhibit 4.5-15. As
in the Dublin Traffic Analysis section, it is estimated that home-based trips would be either vehicle trips
new to the study area, existing trips within the study area diverted from the East Dublin Station, or
trips within the study area diverted from the freeway.
The new home-based tI"if~ would likely be generated by residences outsi~:~f the cities of Dublin and
Pleasanton that currently do not use any of the study intersections. These trips would include existing
commute trips made from using the local freeways only (1-680 and 1-580) and not any smdy roadways.
As previously described, it is assumed that 15 percent of the home-based trips are new trips and are
added to the study intersections. The remaining 85 percent of the home-based trips are assumed to be
either existing commute trips diverted from the East Pleasanton BART Station or commute trips
diverted from 1-580.
The number of home-based trips resulting from a diversion from the East bublin/Pleasanton BART
Station were estin1~~:d llSing exis~g vel1icle coun~ informati?~from the East DublinjPleasanton
BART Station andafi imaginary screenline through the City o(Pleasanton at Hopyard Road. None
of the existing trips accessing the East DublinjPleasanton BART Station from the east on 1-580 are
assum~d to divert. Using the screenline developed based on the city street network and geographical
distribution of residences, roughly 45 percent of the trIps currently accessing the East
DublinjPleasanton BART Station from the west are estimated to divert to the proposed West
DublinjPleasanton BART Station.
/.:..,
L
Son Francisco Boy Areo Rapid Transit District
West DublinlPleosanton BART Station and Transit Village
4.5-47
EDAW
T ransportationlCirculation
HACIENDA DR.
ARNOLD RD.
r::
o
~
~
III
"
w,
8
ffi
~
WlU.OW RD.
CHABOT OR.
HClP'I'ARD AD.
~
~
N
~
~
~
~
-?r
J
III
(I .cB
1::CJ)
o g
z_
o
Z
c CD
o c
1.. j >-
t!.
--c. I- i:
!."a
>- --
"a >-~ 0
:S!ll rx:.
tiS ~ '0 .!!
c · &t:
~ ~~g
-e...
I :s e~
Q.'5ct~
I ~ 1 t
d75~
LO
...--
I
LO
-=:::j-
II
HUlON .Ii
~
:Ff
"i
~i::
.'
..
.J'
i;;,'
1IiI,
en
C
o
.K
E
:::J
en
en
<(
C
o
"..j::j
:::J ....
.0 CJ
.1:: Q)
.0'
1;) ..
b r;
.g. ~
i- :>
"i
co
en
cb
E
o
:c
5:
~
c
.s
c
co
en
co
Q)
0...
~
en
o
a.
e
0...
.I.
.a~
T
.JJ
,
.Ii:
~:.
IIiL
....
.iii
c
co
..
I-
'tJ
C
co
c
o
.';:;
co
....
en
Ii:
<(
l:O
5 'Ill(.
....
c
co
W
co
Q)
Q:
cg
=0-
.0-
::J d
~ 5 .iI:
WI-
(1)0
~?i
lilli,
;~'f
-:.
..,
..