HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 004-95 NegDecDubBlWildlife RESOLUTION NO. 04-95
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND FINDINGS OF
DE MINIMIS IMPACT ON WILDLIFE FOR
THE DUBLIN BOULEVARD CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
AND TO RATIFY PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT
Recitals
1. The City has long planned improvements to increase the capacity of Dublin Boulevard west
ofi-680. The project is subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Because funding for the project will be provided by the Federal Highway Administration, the
project is also subject to the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).
2. To meet the environmental review requirements of CEQA and NEPA, a joint
Environmental Assessment was prepared by the City, Caltrans, and the FHWA (Exhibit B). The
Environmental Assessment did not identify any significant environmental impacts.
3. As required by CEQA, the Environmental Assessment was noticed and available for public
review from July 27, 1990,. to September 6, 1990. Although not required, a public hearing to receive
comments on the Environmental Assessment was held on August 27, 1990.
4. As required by CEQA § 21082.1, the Environmental; Assessment circulated for review
reflected the independent judgment of the City as to the potential environmental effects of the project,
5. Following the public review and comment period, the FHWA issued a Finding ofN9
Significant Impact (FONSI) based on the Environmental Assessment (Exhibit A).
6. As encouraged in CEQA § 21083.7, and provided for in CEQA Guidelines §§ 15221 and
15225, the City may adopt the FONSI as a Negative Declaration for the project, subject to compliance
with substantive and procedural requirements of CEQA.
7. The City Council has considered the Negative Declaration, including the FONSI statement
from the FHWA, the related Environmental Assessment, and comments received during the public review
period.
8. The City Council has also considered the impacts of the project on wildlife. Because the
project area is already disturbed, consisting of paving and existing urban development and improvements,
and considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence the project will have potential for adverse
effects on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. The condition of the project
area and other substantial evidence in the record does not support the presumption of adverse effect
contained in 14 Cal. Code of Regulations § 753.5(d).
Page 1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows:
A. The proposed Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of Dublin
which hereby adopts the Negative Declaration.
B. Based on the above findings relating to wildlife impacts, the City Council directs the
Planning Director to complete a certificate of Fee Exemption per 14 Cal. Code of Regulations §
753.5(c)(2).
C. A_tier consideration of the Negative Declaration and comments received during the public
review period, the City Council hereby ratifies its previous approval of the Dublin Boulevard Capacity
Improvements Project.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of January, 1995.
AYES:
Councilmembers Barnes, Burton, Howard, Moffatt
and Mayor Houston
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor
ATTEST:
a:(9495)/)'anuary/resongdc
Page 2
F'~ERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATIO~
FIelDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPA
FOR
DUBLIN BOULEVARD WIDENING PROJECT IN
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
The FHWA has determined that this project will not have any
significant impact on the human environment. This finding of no
significant impact is based on the attached environmental
assessment, which has been independently evaluated by the FHWA and
determined to adequately and accurately discuss the environmental
issues and impacts of the proposed project. It provides sufficient
evidence and analysis for determining that an environmental impact
statement is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility for
the accuracy, scope, and content of the attached environmental
assessment.
Date
Borg, Division Ad~Z~histrator
REVISION:
June 14,1991
SCH ..NO.
E-A556
Dublin Boulevard
Dub!in Boulevard Capacity
Ci~-y of Dublin .
and
Stat~ of C~!ifo:T..ia
Department of Trana?orzazi~n
and
U. S. DeDar~-_er.t of Trar_~orz=_tion
Federal Highway Adminiszra=icn
Pursuant to: /'2 U.S.C. ~332 (2) (c)
City of Dub!it- '
Data
Ca!zrans
Da.za
Federal Highway A6~inis zra~ior.
Da~a
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pa~e
6.2
6.3
Title ....
Need .. · .................................................
2.1 Regional Access Needs
2.2 Local Access Needs
Background ............................................... 4
3.1 Local Significance
3.2 Regional Significance
3.3 Adopted Growth Scenario Traffic Implications
Capacity Constraints ................... ...................... 7
Alternative Transportation Modes Available ....................... 8
Description of Proposed Actions ................................ 9
6.1 Proposed Improvements
6.1~1 Roadway Restriping
6.1.2 Intersection Widening
Right-of-way Needs
Alternative to the Proposed Action
Environmental Setting ....................................... 12
Environmental Sig-ni~cance Checklist ...... ...................... 13
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measures ...... 18
9.1 Energy
9.2 Air Quality
9.3 Noise
9.~c Social and Economic '
9.5 Transportation
9.6 Archaeological and Historic
Mitigation of Impacts
Due to Right-of-Way Needs ......................... ......... 24
ENVIRON1VIENTAL ASSESSMENT (NEPA)
1. TITLE
DUBLIN BOULEVARD CAPACITY EVIPROVEMENTS
The project consists of adding one travel lane in each direction of Dublin Boulevard
(the total n~rnber of lanes will increase from four lanes to six lanes); providing double
right- turn lanes on the eastbound approach of Dublin Boulevard to San Ramon Road,
triple left-turn lanes on the westbound approach lanes of Dublin Boulevard to San
Ramon Road,. four lanes of through traffic, on Dublin Boulevard, eastbound to
Regional Street and attendant signalization ~mprovements. The project :]~m~ts are
from Donlon Way to Village Parkway in the City of Dublin for a total length of 0.S
rn~]es. (Figure 1)
2. NEED
Dublin Boulevard lacks adequate capacity to meet projected future trafficlevels. In
addition to poor levels of service 'on Dublin Boulevard this situation can potentially
cause problems downstream at the San Ramon Road and Interstate-SS0 interchange.
2.1 Regional Access Needs
Dublin Boulevard is a major arterial running parallel to and north of
Interstate-580, and is an integral part of the access system for the
Interstate-580 corridor. Capacity constraints of the present Dublin
Boulevard roadway may impact future operating conditions on the
interchange by causing evening peak hour vehicles to back up onto the
freeway. (Figure 2)
By virtue of the City of Dublifts location at the junction of Interstate-S80
and Interstate-680, Dublifts Central Business District (CBD) Serves a major
role as a retail center. Excessive traffic congestion levels on Dublin
Boulevard would discourage shopping and service 'oriented trips to Dublin's
CBD.
2.2 Local Access Needs
Since the adoption of the existing roadway design recent traffic studies, for
build-out conditions of downtown Dublin and projected planned community
LEGEND:
PIIOPOSED ADDITIOt4AL LANES
EXISTING LANES
SECTION A
I
I
|
SECTION
I
B
DUBLIN BLVD.
O
..4
Z
0
¢3
,
PREPARED BY:.
SAI'~fTIhtA & TIIOMI'SOII II|C.
d
0
<
r~
I
|
I
. i
t--:
fz:
AIJGII,';'/' ')-9, 'lgflII
DUBLIN BOULEVARD PROPOSED
"LANE CONFIGURATIONS
FIGURE No. 1
SECTION C
SECTION D
i
<
0
~d
0
<
<
PROJECT LOCATION
PREPARED BY: ....
S.AIklTINA & THOMPSON
AUGUST 29, 1988
INC.
PROJECT
FIGURE 2
LIMITS
growth, have revealed that unacceptable traffic levels will result at the
intersection of Dublin Boulevard and San Ram on Road. This is the busiest
intersection' in Dublin and is currently operating near capacity during peak
hours. '
Dublin Boulevard is one of four major arterial streets serving downtown
Dublin and functions as one of the boundaries for fie "central block" which
is the core of Dublin's retail and service center. Increased traffic congestion
on Dublin Boulevard could affect the econornqc well being of the community.
3. BACKGROUND
Many of the projects within Downtown Dublin were approved and constructed prior
to incorporation. The City of Dublin was incorporated in 1981. The City's General
Plan was adopted in 1985. To guide key development issues, the City commissioned
a Traffic and Parking Constraints study in 1986, which assessed seven growth
development scenarios. The City adopted a land use scenario which included a 1,200
stall BAKT parking lot located at the'south end of Golden Gate Drive. (Figure 8)
3.1 Local Significance
Development Growth in Area.
Several residential developments are planned north-west of Dublin
Boulevard. In addition, shopping center projects south of Dublin Boulevard,
and single-family areas to the east of downtown will be developed in the
next few years. These developments will add to the congestion on Dublin
Boulevard. The need to efficiently move traffic through intersections wilt
become more critical.
3.2 Regional Significance
Commute Traffic Growth.
Dublin Boulevard parallels Interstate-580. It functions as the primary and
most direct east-west access arterial through downtown Dublin. It also
provides the most direct route to Interstate-S80 for residential traffic from
the northern and western residential areas of Dublin.
Dublin Boulevard is re~onally significant for the efficient mobility of
projected commute traffic growth in the Tri-Valley area (Dub]in, San
Ramon, and Pleasanton - Figure 4). Assumptions for the future redohal
'system network include the extension of Dublin ]Boulevard to Springtotem
PREPARED BY:
SANTINA &' THOMPSON
-AUGUST 29, 1988
INC.
FUTURE BART
FIGURE :3"'
FAC1LITY.
f
PREPARED BY:
:SANTINA:' &'='THOMPSON INC.
'AUGUST 29, 1988
REGIONAL.SETTING DUBLIN.
~ OUL EVARD' .IMPR O'VEi".,~NT S
RGUhE No. 4 "' .... '
Boulevard in Livemore. This extension is predicated upon projected
commuter traffic increases from the San Joaquin Valley to jobs in the
Tri-Valley area.
3.'3 Adopted Growth Scenario Traffic Implications
Intersection traffic analysis results indicate that the four intersections
along Dublin Boulevard nearest the future BART station would all be at or
near unacceptable traffic levels. The intersection of Dublin Boulevard and
San Ramon Road would actually worsen due to the redistribution of traffic
from the residential area on the west side of San Ram on Road, which would
orient itself 3to the BART parking lot rather than to the Interstate 580 or
680 freeways..
Under present conditions the San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard
intersection is operating at capacity. Without the proposed improvements
only short-term traffic conditions'of an acceptable nature can be anticipated
up to 1990. Cumulative local residential traffic growth and the effects of
a BART station upon LOS at major intersections are shown on Table 1.
4. CAPACITY C ONSTR~L'N'rS
TrafHc volumes for the adopted development scenario for major intersections along
Dublin Boulevard during the peak hours were compared with the capacity of the
intersection using a modified critical movement analysis which yielded
vol~m e~to-capacity (V/C) ratios. (For an explanation of volume-to-capacity ratios see
Appendix A.) This procedure determined the capacity of the existing lanes for each
critical Signal phase. Table 1 shows the results of the intersection tr~.dTic analysis
(conducted in 1986).
TABI,E 1
EXISTING VOLUME,TO-CAPACITY
AND
P.M. LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
Major Intersections with Dublin Boulevard
Future
without
Present Proiect
1986 2005
Intersection
Golden Gate Drive
Amador Plaza Road
Re~onal Street
Village Parkway
San Ramon Road and Dublin
Boulevard
Ratio~LOS Ratio I LOS
.59 ~ A .91 ~ E
.59 J A .89 t D
.67 ~ B .88 D
.77 I C ~ .76 C
.99 E 1.15 F
4.1 Intersection Analysis Results
A/1 intersections, with fie exception of San Ramon Road are operating at
very acceptable to acceptable levels of service. The intersection of San
Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard, is the busiest intersection in Dublin
and has a rating of 0.99. This means that during evening peak hours the
intersection is currently operating at capacity. With the existing plan line
configuration, the V/C ratio for the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and
San Ramon Road during the evening peak hour, at build-out of downtown
Dublin and planned community development, would be 1.15 LOS F.
4.2 Study Conclusions
A "no-project" scenario will result in continued deterioration of LOS on
major intersections. Implementation of this project will improve LOS
conditions by at least one level and in some cases by two levels. For
example, with the proposed revised plan line configuration for the
intersection at Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road, the p.m. peak hour
V/C ratio would be lowered to .88 or LOS D.
Road widening is necessary on Dublin Boulevard between the intersections
of Regional Street, Golden Gate Drive, and Amador Plaza Road in order to
create a uniform 100 foot right-of-way to accommodate additional lanes.
Minor widening at the San RAm on Road and Regignal Street intersections
would be required to accommodate exclusive turn lanes to improve traffic
5. ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION MODES AVAILABI,E
Public transportation services are provided by Wheels and A.C. Transit. Both use
Dublin Boulevard to access the CBD.
Wheels routes #1, 2, and 3 provide weekday, hourly service on Dublin Boulevard.
Reduced frequency of service is offered on weekends.
AC Transit provides feeder bus service to the BART station in Hayward. Bus stops
are located on Dublin Boulevard at Regional Street and Village Parkway. Service is
provided at 30 minute intervals.
6. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTIONS
6.1 Proposed Improvements
This project consists of modifications to the existing Dublin Boulevard
roadway for a length of approximately 0.8 miles. These modifications consist
of.'
· Roadway restriping
· Intersection widening
· Modifications to major intersection signal systems to accommodate
additional turning movements.
6.1.1 Roadwav RestriDin~ (Figure 1)
The existing roadway design is two lanes of through traffic in each
direction with right and left turn lanes.
Provide three lanes of through traffic by restriping and removing
on-street parking lane. Provide double right-turn lanes on the
9
eastbound approach of Dublin Boulevard to San Ramon Road
(presently there is one flight turn lane).
Provide triple left-turn lanes on the westbound. approach lanes. of
Dublin Boulevard to San Ramon Road (presently there are two).
6.1.2 InterSection Widefins (Fim~re 5)
The project involves modifying the lane striping and the median
location on Dublin Boulevard between 400 feet west of San Rsmon
Road and Golden Gate Drive. Figure 5 shows typical cross sections
of existing and proposed lane widths, The proposed project will not
result in sub standard lane widths.
Provide four westbound lanes of through traffic on Dublin Boulevard
at the westbound approach of Regional Street.
6.2 Right-of-Way Needs (Dublin Boulevard. Figure 6)
Eastbound approach to San Ramon Road, double right-turn lanes and
double left turn lanes (Figure 1, Section A). Requires the acquisition of
up to 12 feet of fight-of- way from the Shell service station on the
southwest corner of the intersection.
.Triple left-turn lanes plus a through lane and a fight-.turn lane on the
westbound approach at San Ramon Road (Figure 1, Section A).
Requires the acquisition of up to 8 feet of fight-of-way fat the northeast
corner of San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard for approximately 400
feet.
Four lanes for through traffic flow on westbound approach to Regional
Street and three lanes of through traffic on eastbound approach to
Areadot Plaza Road (Figure 1~ Sections B, C, and D). Additional
right-of- way is required on the north side of Dublin Boulevard between
San Ramon Road and Regional Street. On the :south side of Dublin
Boulevard and San Ramon Road the requirement is for approximately
180 feet west of Regional Street and between Regional Street and
Golden Gate Drive. Right-of-way is required at Crown Chevrolet (8
feet) for third through lane and widening at Village Parkway.
6.3 Alternatives to the Proposed Action
The "no project" alternative would result in traffic congestion along Dublin
Boulevard with unacceptable levels of service at four of the five
10
FI/W- '
: THRU LANES
SIDEWALK: ~' 55
.-./
i /~,. ; //, ,
PROPOSEDTYPICAL
- R/W
1~' ~ ~,.5' j ~' SIDEWALK
~~:.
CROSS SECTION
MEDIAN
THRU LANES
SIDEWALK ~ ==: 1/":' "~
PARKING'
EXISTING TYPICAL
CROSS SECTION
SIDEWALK
SCALEiT= 20'
pREPARED BY:
SANTINA.-& THOMPSON INC.
-AUGUST 29, 198S
11
DUBLIN BOULEVARD
IMPROVEMENTS
FIGURE 5.
PREPARED BY: '
'.SANTINA & THOMPSON INC.
~U~UST 29, 1988
12
ADDITIONAL PJ GHT-OF-WA"r'
REQUiREN~'ENTS FIGURE#
intersections. In addition, the "no project" alternative would result in lower
air quality due to idling vehicles; and lack of efficient access to downtown
commercial areas of regional significance which could adversely affect the
economic viability of the businesses.
During the review period on the EnviroDmental Assessment, the City
received a cornrnent proposing that another alternative be considered (refer
to the letter from Harvey E. Levine, Howell & Hallgr~rasen, dated May 30,
1990). The alternative involves acquiring a section of land from the north
end of Dublin Boulevard between Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street.
This alternative would be considerably more expensive than the proposed
projection because it would affect the existing alig-Dment of Dublin
Boulevard which would require extensive median work (i.e., the existing
median would have to be relocated to the north). It would also affect a
greater m~rnber of properties. Unless a portion of the existing Grand Auto
supply building on the north side of Dublin Boulevard were removed, this
alternative would result in a curve in Dublin Boulevard between Golden
Gate Drive and Regional Street. If a portion of the Grand Auto Supply
building were removed, this would impose a greater economic impact
compared to the proposed project. Finally, this alternative would involve
acquiring additional right-of-way on the north side of Dublin Boulevard.
Such an acquisition would not be consistent with the alignment in the plan
line that was established for Dublin Boulevard (between i)c nl~u Way and
Areadot Plaza) in 1984.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
7.1 Topography. The terrain of the road is essentially fiat, as are the adjacent
properties.
7.2
Geolozv. The Calaveras Fault is located to the west of this project: The last'
major earthquake along the Calaveras Fault was in 1561, but no recordings
were made of its intensity.
7.3 Vegetation. The area has been developed and supports orrmmental
landscaping. There is no native vegetation.
7.4 Landuse. The existing land use is commercial' of~ce, retail use. The
proposed project is in conformance with the Dublin General Plan.
¸13
8. ~'~~T/L~L Si~C~IqZE ~.i~T
p'.-l'_=l,l~L. Will tine ~:cucsa! eitiner directiv or
!. C~.a-.ge tlne tc_~G_~_zhy cr grc~-_~ surface relief
2. Dest_'-~Z, cover, cr ~_=y a_-z.y uri~de {eo!c~.ic or _zhysic-:_!
4. Result in or he ~=.-'=~-=; by soil erosion cr si!ta~cn
(w~.e~aer b' ~ner cr
5. Result in ~ne ~-~-===~=. use cf ~ae! or encer=/in lane
aT~nts cr in a ~zste_=d! ~=~r. er?
6. Result in an increase in the r~te of use of a~ rat,at-c!
re_~urce? ~
Result in tlqe suhsts~ntia! des!erich of a~./r~rzer. e~-cb!e
r_~tur~2 .rescurc e?
Violate e_~-Z 'F '~iish~ Feder-c!, State, or local
_Der~ ~i~ to z!id ~_ste cr litter cr.t~l?
!0,
!!,
12, Kesu!t in t2-.e use cf ~ter 5~ ~ =~_e a?c~nts or i~ a
w'cSte~d! re=Jr. or?
1 '~ ?-===~ w=+n~.nd~ cr ri=e_~lan vec-eta+~.~
if yes, is
it sigr._;fi-
Yes or c~.t? blo,
',YO v~c cr ~
No
Nc ,
:;o
.Yc
"-;o
*See fo! !owing section: Discussion cf'Envircr~menta! Evaluation and Mitic. atic.-.
Meas'~res · '
14
Yes or
if yes, is
it sigrlfi-
c=_nt?
Yes, cr *
14. Violate cr te L-.ces~istent -wi~ Federal, State, or !cca!
%~tar c_dality st~-~a_~s?
15.
Result
ature, or a..~.y C!iratic ccrdjLticr~?
16-
Result in an i-.crease in =~.'r ~!!r~=.n.t e~!ssicn_c, adverse
effez_ts cn cr detericr=-~cn cf a~ioient air
-Yc
i7'. Result in ~d-.e creation cf cbjec-_-.'cpab!e olCrs?
N?
20- Violate cr be inccDsistent ~i~n Fe~_'.er-=! design r~ise
levels cr State or !co=~, ~TDiSe s~=~_~ja_~s?
91 P~uce ne.v I ~cln+ clare or shad~c9
E!Cr~G!C~-L. Will One Dmrsa! result in (ei.~qer direct!v cr ir~irz_-_~!y):
22.
Cn~nc_e in tl~-e diversit'..; of s?~ecies or nuT~er of
s~_~ecies of ~D!~.-ts, ( i~!udL.-G trees, slt-'j_-s, 9~ss,
~ic~_o2, ~ a~tic p!~s)?
23-
KeduC_icn of tlne ringers cf cr er~r~ed~=ant u-con tlne
critical ~?_bitat of a---y u----~ce, l-are cr er~=_~Fered
s~_~ecies or D!~_~_s?
:io
24.
25.
R~__luC_icn in acreage of ~_7_; ag~_cu!t~a_~! crop cr
cc~.erci~_! tirazer sta_~ni?
No
Re-e! or deterioration of -=xisti-~F fish cr ~-L!d!ife
k~bitat?
*See fo!!cwing section:
~ess'dreS.
Discussion of Envircr_T. enta! Evaluation and
15
Yes cI'
BZC.L~iC~L. Will fine ~c~sa! result in (eitlner dire__~3; cr indirec-__!y):
< c'cnt. )
27.
ChanGe in tine diversity of s.~ecies, cr r.u=~ers of any
szecies of a~im~s (biis, !~ aim~s inclu~
ren~les, fish a~ skel!fisln, her.~c cma~s, ~-=<s
or ~c~fa~) ?
28-
Reduction of tine n,z~..icers cf or erErcacl-menz u~n tine
critical b~itat of ~.-y ~!que, r=_re or er~ncered
s-cecies of an
29.
SCCL~-L ~ EC~iC.~EC. Will t~ne zrc~sa! dirz~-ct!v cr ir~irec-~!,vi
30. Cause disrc~+_icn cf clerlv ol~ned develcrant?
31.
33- Affect life-styles, cr neic_i~i~rlnccd dna~-~cter or
s~=~abi!ity?
34 ~-==~-~ mins_~._tv cr c{ter scecific interest c_rc.u~=~
Divide or disru~
~2fecj~ existrig }susir~, re=aire ti~e disolace:e~= cf
oec~!e or create a deT. a_n~ f-or additicr~
values cr C~.e !cca! tax kase?
if .~s, is
it sigr/fi-
C=n+O
Yes, cr *
*See fo!!cwinc. section: Discussion of Envircrr~enta! Ev~!uaticn and M'itigatiCr_
Measures -
16
Yes cr
Zf yes, is
it si.c--ifi-
c~-.t? bTc,
Yes, cr *
Will Cne
39.
~ ~. ~ F=-_~ ~ub] ~ ~ uti!i~es, cr re!ice, fire er. er=~erQ;
cr cti~.er ~ub!ic serjices?
4i.
42. ~.-'fect vebic'~_lar ~v~.~nts cr' c. enente additicp~__~
traffic?
im/olve a su~z3_n~i.a! risk cf a~- e~!csicn cr fine re!esse
of hazardous s'~s~nces in t2~.e event of Ln accident er
45- Result in a!te_~ticm~ to ~ter~rr.e, nil cr air
traffic?
46.
public hee!C~, ~_c~se .zeople to ~ter.+~i==i h~ea!tin
~aza_~ds, or create a
Result L~ s-abst~_ntie! i~=ac+.,_s associated ,~-.'_+2~.
raffic de~s a~ t~.~Jy access, etc.
*See re! lcwing section:
Measures.
Discussion of Enviro~F~..enta! Eva!uaticn arj Mitigaticr
17
52.
Cda!itV Of ~ne e~zL~n=, ~'~s~n~=~ ~'v r~uce ~e
babitaz cf a fish or '~_!~ifa ~ies, cause a fish or
wild!ire ~Tu!~ticn to d~p he!cw se!f-suszaiFi~ levels,
Ene nu~/~r cr restlot Ene m~e of a 2re cr er~yer~
Digit or a-iT~ er elii~te ~r~nt e~=~=~ of
rajcr ~ri~s of ~ifo~ia l~sZcTz or
Eces ~=e Tmj~t ~av~ ~qe ~t=~=] ~ adhere
tern, to C~e ~sad,r~n~ge of !o~G-tem e~'i~.en~!
gce!s? (A sl~m-ter, i~c= cn ~e er:;~c~e~t is cne
~/ch ~curs in a re!azive!y brief, ~==~= Teri~
53.
...Nc
*see fo!!cwing section: Discussion of Envircment;a! Evaluation]and Mitigaticn
~!easures,
18
9. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION
MEASURES
Impacts Upon Physical Environment
9.1 ENERGY
Question #6 Result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource?
Question #7 Result in the substantial depletion .of any nonrenewable natural
resource?
Setting
The project is located within an urban built environment. It is expected that benefits
~vill accrue to the environment and to the community by increasing the efficiency of
the existing roadway which will decrease the idle time of vehicles stopped at
intersections. This will result in savings of nonrenewable natural resources, as well
as, a decrease in their rate of use.
Impact
The project would result in a beneficial impact on the use of non-renewable natural
resources.
Mitigation
No mitigation is required.
9.2 AIR QUALITY
Question #16 Result in an increase in air po]lutant emissionS, adverse effects on
or deterioration of ambient air quality?
Question #18 Violate or be inconsistent with Federal, State, or local air standards
or control plans?
Settin~
Dublin is located within the San Francisco Bay Area air basin, which encompasses
a total land area of approximately 5600 square miles. The entire basin is designated
by the California Air Resources Board as a non-attainment area for ozone
(photo'chemical oxidant) and carbon monoxide (CO). Non- attainment means that the
, 19
Federal ambient air quality standards for these pollutants have been violated within
the past two to. three years.
The air quality monitoring station in Livemore, produced the following air pollution
data which was published in the' April, 1988 issue of Air Currents. The data is
organized by contaminant and indicates the number of days that the Federal Air
Quality standard was exceeded in 1987.
TABLE 2
AIR POLLUTION DATA
LIVERMORE MONITORING STATION
CONTAIMLNANT
NO. DAYS STANDARD EXCEEDED
Os - OZONE 3
CO - CARBON MONOXF)E 0
NO2 - NITROGEN DIOXIDE 0
SO2 - SULFUR DIOXIDE 0
TSP - TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES 0
Impact
Consistency with the State Implementation Plan
This project is in an air quality non-attainment area which has transportation control
measures in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP which was approved by
the Environmental Protection Agency on December 28, 1983. The Federal Highway
A~m~nistration has determined that both the Transportation Plan and the
Transportation Improvement Program conform to the State Implementation Plan.
The Federal Highway A~]m~nistration has determined that this project is included in
the Transportation Improvement Program for the Metropolitan Transportation
Comra~ssion. Therefore, pursuant to 23 CFR 770, this project conforms to the State
Implementation Plan.
Mitigation
No mitigation is required.
9.3 NOISE
Noise and Vibration
20
Question #19 Result in an increase in noise levels or vibration for adjoining areas?
Question#20 Violate' or be inconsistent with Federal design noise levels or State or
local noise standards?
Settin~
Most of the surrounding land is utilized for mixed use office, commercial and retail.
The 1983 Commu_riity Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) measurements for the project
area was 65 CNEL.
Impact
A temporary increase in noise levels due to construction is anticipated. Noise impact
studies for similar modifications to San Ramon Road, in residential areas north of
Dublin Boulevard, yielded the noisiest hour Leq in the design year to be 68dB. The
year 2005 projected CNEL is 70. The City of Dublin has incorporated Noise and
Land Use Compatibility Guidelines into the Noise Element of the General Plan which
designates an Leq of 70 or less to be the normally acceptable range for office: retail
and commercial land use zones. These guidelines are shown in Table 3.
21
TABLE 3
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMIXNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS
COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE (dB)
Land Use NOrmally
Category Acceptable
Residential 60 ~or less
Motels, hotels 60 or less
Schools,
churches, .
nursing homes 60 or less
Neighborhood
parks 60 or less
Offices:
Retail/
commercial 70 or less
industrial 70 or less
Cond~onally
Acceptable
Noise
Insulation
Features
Required
Normally Clearly
Unacceptable Unacce'
70-75 Over 75
70-80 Over 80
60-70
.60-70
60-70 70-80 Over ~S0
60-65 65-70 Over 70
70-75
'70-75
75-80
Over 75
Over 80
Dtable
Source: California Office of NOise Control, 1976, as modified by Charles M. Salter
Associates, Inc.
FITWA Noise TroDaCt Assessment
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has established noise standards for
federally-funded roadway projects. The noise standards are contained in Federal Aid
'Highway Program Manual (FHPM) 7-7-3, Procedures for' Abatement of Highway
Traffic Noise and construction Noise. FHPM 7-7-3 defines a traffic noise ~mpact to be
"when the predicted traffic. noise' levels approach or exceed the noise abatement
criteria, or when the predicted traffic noise levels substantially exceed the existing
noise levels."
Because there are no sensitive receptors located within the project l~m~ts, a federal
noise study was not required:
, 22
Mitigation
Project related noise levels are within the normally acceptable range as set forth in
the General Plan and is not expected to exceed these levels.
The project is witMn a commercial area with no sensitive 'receptors. Because of
existing Town design guidelines, businesses are set back from the street and most
have parking spaces in front which provide additional noise buffering. The hours of
construction would be limited to between 7:30 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. and construction
equipment would be appropriately muffled.
Caltrans has developed construction noise performance standards for-new roadways.
The incorporation of these specifications into the. construction management for this
project wfil reduce construction noise.
9.4 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
Question #30 Cause disruption of orderly planned development?:
Question #31
Be inconsistent with any elements of adopted community plans,
policies, or goals, the Governor's Urban Strate~-:V.or the President's
National Urban Policy (if NEPA project)?
Question#37 Affect employment, industry or commerce, or require the
· displacement of businesses of farms?
Setting
Land Use - Existing land use adjacent to the project is predominately commercial
office and retail.
The City of Dublin General Plan desig-nates Dublin Boulevard as an arterial street.
The project limits are witMn the CBD of the City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin serves
a major role as aregional retail center. The City of Dublin together with the Cities
of San Ram on and Pleasanton are referred to as the Tri-Valley Area; The Tri-Valley
is projected to grow substantially over the coming fifteen years. The population
witMn the City of Dublin is projected to increase from approximately 18,000 to 40,000
residents.
One section of the project requires the acquisition of an eight foot wide strip oftand
in front of the Crown Chevrolet Automobile Dealership, resulting in about 3,200
square feet of land. This land use currently used as a landscape strip (five feet wide)
and as part of the paved vehicle display area for the dealership (three feet wide
· , 23
strip). This project would result in the reduction of the vehicle display area for the
dealership, the 3,9~00 square feet reduction is about 1.5% of the entire parcel
(9,16,000+ square foot parcel); or about 5% of the frontage display area. The reduction
will be noticeable to the dealership, however it will not displace the business. V~ith
the appropriate compensation for the acquisition of the property, the loss of 3,9,00
square feet of property is not considered significant. The m~mber of "lost vehicle
display spaces" would depend on the size of the vehicles being displayed and the
configuration chosen to display the vehicles and would range from 0 to 35 spaces. A
narrower new landscape strip (three feet) would lessen the ~mpact.
The City has prepared a revised parking plan for the Crown Chevrolet display area
which meets City. parking requirements with a three foot landscaped strip along
Dublin Boulevard. Compared to the existing parking for the display area (which
does not meet City parking requirements), the revised parking plan would result in
the loss. of approximately 18 to 20 parking spaces (i.e. 57 existing spaces would be
replaced with 39 revised spaces).
The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan calls for the retention of the existing automobile
dealerships (two locations in Downtown Dublin) on an interim basis, recognizing that
as land values increase in the downtown area it will be more economical for the
dealerships to sell their land and relocate.
ImDacts
The proposed project is consistent with the Dublin General Plan guidelines for
planned development of the CBD and is compatible with surrounding office,
commercial and retail uses. The project is also consistent with the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan's general goal to maintain downtown Dublin as a strong re~onal retail
center. Further, implementation of this project v~-ill carry out the recommendations
of the City ofDublin's Downtown Improvement Plan Traffic and Parking Constraints
study, to provide additional cap'acity in the CBD along Dublin Boulevard and at the
intersection of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road..
Improvements to Dublin Boulevard will not cause any displacement. The lack of
capacity improvements may affect the economic development of the CBD and
adversely affect employment, industry and commerce.
Mitigation
No m~tigation is required.
24
9.5 TRANSPORTATION
.Question #40
Affect public utfiities, or police, fire, emergency or other public
services?
Question #41
Have substantial impact on existing transportation systems or alter
present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods?
Question #42 Affect vehicular movements or generate additional traffic?
Question #43
Setting
Affect or be affected by existing parMng facilities or result in
demand for new parking?
The proposed project will not alter the present circulation pattern. It is an effort to
provide for additional capacity on the existing local circulation system to serve
anticipated growth and development.
Impacts
The proposed modifications will not adversely affect public utfiities or public services.
The increased capacity of the roadway and intersection ~-ill, in effect, enhance public
services. to the area. Project improvements will contribute to more effective
movement of emergency vehicles on Dublin Boulevard. Also, the proximity of the
intersection of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road to Interstate 580 makes it
important for the expeditious mob~ity of police, fire, and emergency vehicles
accessing the area to and from the freeway.
The proposed improvements are a design effort to mitigate existing and future traffic
congestion levels. They are improvements to the existing system and are not
anticipated to attract additional traffic, change or lmpact vehicular movements.
Right-of-way takings are minimal and only affect landscape and parMng areas. Two
parking spaces on private property will be lost near Golden Gate Drive and another
two near Vfilage Parkway. Restriping of these parcels will possibly gain a parallel
or diagonal space. As described above, the loss of vehicle display spaces can be
minjrn~ zed by working out a display configuration which optimizes the entire display
'area and by the reduction of new landscape strip along the frontage to three feet
(which would result in a net loss of a three foot strip of paved display area).
All on-street parMng (approximately 115 spaces) will be eliminated from Dublin
Boulevard in the project area. Parl~ng Studies for the downtotem area indicate a low
usage of on-street parking spaces. A parking survey conducted during the Christmas
season, which is traditionally the busiest time of the year, yielded a 4-9.5% occupancy
ratio for on-street parking. This project v, dI1 displace current on-street parked
vehicles to other cross-streets and perhaps to the adjacent off-street parking facilities.
There is a large supply of downtown par]ring both on- and off-street.
9.6 ARC~OLOGICAL AIVD HISTORIC
Question #47
Affect any significant archaeological or historic site, structure, object
or building?
Settin~
The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the proposed project falls entirely within the
area disturbed by Dublin Road improvements in the 1960's. There are no historic
street within the APE.
ImDacts
A recent search was conducted by the Northwest information Center, Sonoma State
University. An additional records searchad field surveys conducted by
Archaeological Services, Inc. of Stockton, California indicates that no previously
recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological sites have been found within the project
area.
Though the project site possesses some geographical features typical ofprehistorical
archaeological sites (located at the base of foothills and along a water course), it has
been disturbed (mostly paved) by previous Dublin Boulevard improvements in the
1960's.
Mitigation
Should buried archaeological materiMs such as bone, obsidian, chert, rn{dden, ceramic
or gtass fragments; square nails, or bricks be uncovered ·during excavation or
construction,. a qualified archaeologist should be retained to evaluate the finds and
make recommendations as appropriate.
10. MITIGATION OF IMPACTS' DUE TO RIGHT-OF-WAY NEEDS
Impacts due to the taking of fight-of-way in order to increase substandard lane
widths (10-12 feet) are minimall 'No structures will be demolished or moved. The
future right-of- way is currently used for private parking and landscaping.
Where the removal of existing landscaping and street trees occurs, new trees
platanus acerifolia, will be planted at a 1:1 ratio in the adjacent planting strip. All
26
new trees and shrubs will be a m~nim-m of 15 gallon and 5 gallon sizes respectively.
Trees and shrubs. removed from private property, will be replaced by the City as
desired by the property owners.
Impacts due to the t~Ic~ng of fight-of-way in order to increase substandard lane
widths (10-12 feet) are m{nimal. No structures will be demolished or moved. The
future right-of-way is currently used for private parking, landscaping and automobile
display area for a car dealership.
In some areas, the proposed fight-of-way eliminates existing parl~]ng spaces and
vehicle display area on private property. After road widening, these areas will be'
restriped for angled or parallel parking to replace the maximum spaces possible.
Where appropriate, spaces may be designated for compact cars only. The new
landscape strip in front of the automobfie dealership can be limited to three feet to
provide for mqnimal reduction of display area.
The net loss of parMng spaces is not significant. The Dublin Downtown Specific
Plan, adopted by the City Council on July 21, 1987; revised the parl~ng standards for
downtown development. Recent studies revealed that past standards had resulted
in an oversupply of parMng within the Central Business District.
Miti.~ation
All needed right-of-way will be acquired at fair market value which is based, among
other things, on the existing use of the lands.
27
A_°PENDIX A
Th'e theoretical maximum V/C ratio is expressed as !.~,
however, ratios greater than 1.G~ are often supplied tc
indicate the degree to which the demand for an intersection is
in excess of its physical capacity, Tins !.GG represents the
highest volume olf traffic that can utilize the intersection in
cuesrich during a one hour period. R=-tios cf less ~.an !.,~
fndicate increasingly improved traffic conditions. if tlqe
ratio is !.G~ the intersection is "at capacity" and c-~erating
at level of service (LOS) E.
Levels of Service range 'from 'A (!ialnt traffic) to _-" (sonces-
tion, traffic levels a:sove capacit'/). i~.tersezticns are
~.orma] !v cons~-e~ t~ ~.= co~at~ sa~=f~c~cri~v if they are
at LOS C or bezter.
LOS D is defined as "approaching unstab~ --'now cf cueration:
cueuse deve!oD but are cuick!v cleared. Te!erab!e de!av."
LOS E is defined as "unszab!e flow of c.zeraticn: tlne interseC-
tion has reached u !timers caoacity; this condition is not
uncommon in peak hours. Congestion and intolerable delay."
LOS F is "Forced f!o,~ of ooeration. intersection operates be!c~,¢
capacity. ja~{ed.
28