HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.2 Att 6 Exh A with attch "B"-Initial Study Initial Stucl /
y
l��Iiti ated Ne ative
g g
Declaration
Pf•oject:
General Plan Amendment/EDSP Ainendment
for
Jordan Ranch
Sr.cba�•ea 3
Wa�llis Rancli
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
August 2015
Exhibit B
T��Ie of �c��te�ts
Introduction ..................................................................................................................2
Prior Enviroiunental Impact Revie�vs.......................................................................2
Applicant/Contact Persons........................................................................................7
ProjectDescription.......................................................................................................7
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected..........................................................24
Determination.............................................................................................................24
Evaluation of Environmental Iinpacts ....................................................................26
Environmental Impacts.............................................................................................27
Earlier Analyses/Incorporation by Reference.......................................................37
Discussion of Checklist ............................................................................................. 39
1. Aesthetics ........................................................................................................ 39
2. Agricultural & Forestry Resources..............................................................43
3. Air Quality ......................................................................................................44
4. Biological Resources ......................................................................................54
5. Cultural Resources.........................................................................................60
6. Geology and Soils ..........................................................................................63
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions...........................................................................66
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................67
9. Hydrology and Water Quality.....................................................................72
10. Land Use and Planning...............................................................................76
11. Mineral Resources........................................................................................77
12. Noise ..............................................................................................................78
13. Population and Housing............................................................................. 87
14. Public Services.............................................................................................. 88
15. Recreation......................................................................................................90
16. Transportation/Traffic................................................................................93
17. Utilities and Service Systems.................................................................... 106
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................................................... ]09
Initial Study Preparers ............................................................................................ 110
Agencies and Organizations Consulted ............................................................... 110
References ................................................................................................................. l l 1
Attachment 1-Traffic Analysis/Supplemental Me1no........................................ 112
INITIAL STUDY
Eastern Dublin Planning Area-Jordan Ranch,
Wallis Ranch & Subarea 3 Properties
City of Dublin
Environmental Checklist/
Initial Study
Introduction
This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA", Pub. Res. Code �5 21000 et seq.,) and the CEQA
Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs. title 14, �� 15000-15387). This Initial Study analyzes
�vhether any further environmental review is required for portions of three properties
located in the Eastern Dublin Planning area under the standards of Public Resources
Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163. Developinent of
the three properties has Ueen previously analyzed in one environmental iinpact report,
three supplemental environmental iinpact reports and a number of Addendums to
these documents. These are fully described below in tl�is Initial Study.
This Initial Study analyzes whether additional ininor changes to the development
program for the Jordan Ranch property, Subarea 3 property and the Wallis Ranch
property would result in any new or substantially more severe significant
environmental impacts than those analyzed in these prior CEQA documents or �vhether
any otller of the other standards requiring furtller environmental review under CEQA
are met.
This Initial Study assesses program changes and development-level activities to
implement that progranl through a General Plan Amendinent, ai1 Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1 rezoning and other related entitlements for the three
Subareas.
Prior Environmental Impact Review Documents
This Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief
explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. A considerable
amount of CEQA work has been done already for future development in Eastern
Dublin, including the project Subareas. These are identified below.
Eastern Dublin EIR (all Sl{ba��errs) A prograin-level EIR was certified by the City of
Dublin in 1993 that includes all of three properties that are the subject of this
document. C.ertified through Resolution No. 51-93 by the City of Dublin in 1993,
for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific P_lan (Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact
City of Dublin Page 2
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Report, State Clearinghouse No. 91103064). This document�vill be referred to as
the "Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR" in this Initial Study. Tlze Eastern Dublin
EIR evaluated the follo�ving iinpacts: Land Use; Population, Einploynlent and
Housing; Traffic and Circulation; Comnntnity Services and Facili�ies; Se��er,
Water and Storin Drainage; Soils, Geology and Seismicity; Biological Resources;
Visual Resources; Cultural Resources; Noise; Air Quality; and Fiscal
Considerations. As part of the City's approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specitic Plan through Resolution I�TO. 53-93, the City Council
ado�tee� a State?ne�1k of(�verricli,�g Con�ider�tic�i�s fnr the fc�llc�wing iii�paets:
cumuiative loss of agriculture and open space Iand, cumulative traific, extension
of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service),
consumption of non-renewable natural resources, increases in energy uses
through increased water treatment and disposal and through operation of the
water distribution system, induceinent of substantial growth and concentration
of population, earthquake grotind shaking, loss or degradation of botanically
sensitive habitat, regional air quality, noise and visual. The Eastern Dublin EIR
was challenged in court and was found to be legally adequate. The City Council
also certified an Addendum dated May 4, 1993 whicll assessed the inoditications
to th� Reduced Plaru-�ing Area alternative and coilcluded that this alternative
"will have no enviroiunental impacts not addressed in the Draft Environinental
Iinpact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Ainendment and Specific
Plan." (May 4, 1993 Addendum, p. 1.) The Addendum further concluded that r10
subsequent or supplemental EIR�vas required under CEQA Guidelines section
15162 or 15163 for approval of the inoditied alternative.
A second Addendtiin was later prepared, dated August 22, 1994. The second
Addendum updated plans tor�roviding sewer services to Eastern Dublin. The
May 10, 1993 certified EIR, the May 4, 1993 Addendum and the Augu.st 22, 1994
Addendum are collectively referred to 1lereafter as the Eastern Dublin EIR, or the
"EDEIR" and are incorporated herein by reference into this Initial Study. These
documents are available for review at the DuUlin Community Development
Departnlent during norinal business 1lours.
Eastern Dublin Pro�ertv Owner Su�Ulemental EIR (lo��dali Rr��icli Si�ibr�rer�). In 2001, the
East Dublin Property O�vners (EDPO) requested annexation, pre-zoning and related
approvals for a 1,120 acre Project Area, including the Jordan Ranch Property. The
Project Area was �Nitlun t11e developinent area previously approved by the City in 1993;
and was witllin d1e scope of the project/program analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. In
response to EDPO and consistent with the City's practice for projects in Eastern Dublin,
in 2001 the City prepared an Initial Sfiudy to deterinine if the annexation and pre-zoning
requests �vould require additional environmental review beyond that set forth in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. That 2001 Initial Study disclosed that many of the anticipated
impacts of the proposed annexation and pre-zoning were adequately addressed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. This �vas predictable given the comprehensive planning for the
development area; the Eastern Dublin EIR's analysis of buildout under the Dublin
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations and policies; the
long term 20-30 year focus of t11e Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
City of Dublin Page 3
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Eastern Dublin EIR analyses; the fact that annexation and pre-zoning actions �n�ere
specifically contemplated in the Eastern Dublin EIR; and the fact that the annexation
request proposed the same land uses analyzed for the Project Area in the Eastern
Dublin EIR. Althotlgh the 2001 Initial Study concluded that the Eastern Dublin EIR
adequately analyzed most of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
annexation and rezoning, it also identified the potential for some new significant
impacts or substantially intensified impacts Ueyond those analyzed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR. The City deterinined that the potential ne�-v and/or substantiall�T intensified
impacts required review at an EIR level and concluded that a Supplemental EIR should
be prepared. So, in 2001 and 2002, the Eastern Dublin EIR�vas updated and
supplemented by the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation
Supplemental EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114). That Supplemental EIR,
referred to in this Initial Study as the "2002 SEIR," provided updated analyses of
agricultural resources, biology, air quality, noise, traffic and circulation, schools, and
utilities. In certifying the 2002 SEIR and approving the prezoning, the City Council,
through Resolution No. 40-02, adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for
cumulative air quality and cumulative traffic impacts. The 2002 SEIR was challenged in
court and �vas found to be legally adequate.
In 2005, a second Supplemental EIR (identified as the "2005 Supplement" or "2005
SEIR" in this Initial Study) was prepared and certified by the City of Dublin tor the
Fallon Village project, which included the same properties as the 2002 SEIR (see City
Council Resolution No. 222-05). The second SEIR addressed new and detailed
inforination for the proposed development areas, as tNell as several changes in
circumstances since the prior EIRs which could have affected the impacts and/or
mitigations previously identified for the Fallon Village Project. Such changes in the
previously analyzed project and circumstances included, but were not limited to: 1)
continued development in the Tri-Valley area and beyond with potential changes in
commute patterns and traffic intensities, which also may affect air quality and noise
within or on the Project area; 2) chaizges in the provision and distribution of some
public services (schools) and public utilities (water, wastewater, and storm drainage), 3)
changes in circulation patterns on the Fallon Village site; 4) completion of a Resource
Management Plan (RMP) for biological and cultural resources on the Fallon Village site
and additional site-specific biological and cultural resources studies which did not
previously exist; 5) changes in the development density and intensity in the Fallon
Village Project area that inay increase impacts over those previously reviewed; and 6)
submittal of Stage 2 Development Plans, subdivision maps and other permit
applications containing detailed development plans for the northern portion of Fallon
Village lalown as Positano not previously reviewed at a project level.
Unlike the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2002 SEIR, the 2005 Supplemental EIR was a
coinbination Program-level document and a Project-level document. The program-level
portion of 2005 SEIR focused on the new or substantially increased significant impacts
of potential future development pursuant to a proposed General Plan, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, and Stage 1 Development Plan amendments for t11e entire 1,138-acre
project area, including the Jordan Ranch Project site. Additionally, the 2005
Supplemental EIR reviewed proposed individual development projects for t11e northern
City of Dublin Page 4
initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
portion oi the area, the enviroiunental impacts they�ti=ould generate, ai�d the avoidance
aizd mitigation measures they �NOUId employ at a project-level. The Jordan Ranch
property �vas analyzed at a progranl level in t11is clocument. Ho�n�ever, it was intei�cled
to be used as the environnlental revie�v for the approval of tuture project level
entitlements (such as the Stage 2 Planned Development Zoning, a Vesting Tentative
Tract I��Iap and SDR) unless the standards under Public Resources Code section 21166
�nd CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 �1%ere met.
In 2010, t11e Dublin City Council approved a Planned Developnlent Rezoning a�zd
related Stage 2 Developinent Plan, Site Development Review (SDR), a Vesting Tentative
Tract Map, and a Developznent Agreement on the Jordan Ranch property. An
Addenduin to the Eastern Dublin and otl�er applicable Supplemental EIRs was also
certified by the City Council (City Council Resolution No. 80-10, adopted on June 2,
2010). This action allo�ved a ininor redistribution of uses on the site as well as a minoi
change to the land use program. Under the 2010 approvals, a mix of 780 d�velling units,
up to 12,000 square feet of cominercial uses, a range of public parks, p�.rblic and semi-
public uses, open spaces and roadways were approved.
A second Addendum �vas approved by the City of Dublin in June 2012 for certain
portions of the Jordan property (City Council Resolution No. 91-12, adopted June 5,
2012). The project included an anzenclment to the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plai1 that approved a "Scllool" land use designation on 10.1 acres on the
easteril side of t�1e Jordan Ranch. The school ��vas programined to acconlinodate
�pproxi�natcly 50G students pius staff. At the saii�e time, an underlying land use
designation of Mediuin Density Residential land uses to allow developinent of
approxiinately 100 units in keeping with the mid-point of the density range if t]Ze
School was not constructed was also approved. The previously designated Seini-PLiblic
and Mediuin High Density Residential land uses south of the School site were replaced
with a Mecliuin Density Resideiltial land use designation witlz an undeilying Sen1i-
Public land use designation to allow for the potential expansion of t11e school site if
additional �creage was needed. Finally, previous 4.5-acre Open Space land use
desigilation was replaced wit11 a Mixed-Use designation that would have contained up
to 5,000 square feet of retail and non-residential uses and up to 115 residences.
Subarea 3 Stibarea. In 2014, tlle City of Dublin approved an Addendum to t11e
1993 Easteril Dublin EIR (City Council Resolution No. 17-14, dated May 20, 2014)
and anlendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dubliil Specific Plan
Amendinent to develop portions of the 64-acre Subarea 3 site located in the
Eastern Dublin portion of the City of Dublin. The Developineilt Plan includes
construction of up to 437 dwellings at various densities and product types,
internal roadways, open spaces and other related improvements. This action also
changed an existing Open Space land use designation to Rural
Residential/Agricultttre for a }�ortioil of the site.
Previously, in 1997, a Negative Declaration was prepared for multiple properties
in the Eastern Dublin area, including Plarltling Area A (approximately 363 acres
of land) and Areas B-E (approxiinately 468.5 acres of land), all located north of
City of Dublin Page 5
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
the I-580 Free���ay, east of Tassajara Road and west of Fallon Road. This will be
referred to as the "1997 ND," approved Uy the City Council on June 17, 1997, by
City Council Resolution No. 140-97. This CEQA document analyzed
amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan,
proposed Planned Development rezoning to ensure consistency between City
zoning an the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
The 1997 ND included the approximately 64 acres of land in Sub Area 3 of Planning
Area B, �vhich is the subject of this analysis.
Wallis Ranch Subarea. In 2004, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report�vas
certified by the City of Dublin for the Dublin Ranch West property, also known as the
Wallis Rai1c11 or Wallis Property.
The Dublin Ranch West SEIR�vas certified by the City Council on March 15, 2005, by
City Council Resolution No. 42-05. This CEQA docuinent analyzed annexation of the
property to the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD),
amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, a Planned
Development prezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan. Following certification of the
SEIR, the Cifiy of Dublin subsequently approved a PD rezoning with related Stage 2
Development Plan for the site, a Site Developinent Revie�v (SDR) permit, a vesting
tentative subdivision map and a Development Agreement.
T11e SEIR analyzed traffic and transportation and other ii7lpacts of constructing
1,034 dwellings on the site, although the City ultimately approved 935 dwellings.
This SEIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to project
exceedances of Bay Area Air Quality Management District air quality standards
on a project and cuinulative level.
In 2007, the City of Dublin approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to
analyze improvements within approximately 11.6 acres of land located
iinmediately north of the Wallis Ranch property that was the subject of the 2005
SEIR. T11is property is under the same ownersllip as the Wallis Ranch, but is
located in the unincorporated portion of Contra Costa County rather than within
Dublin and Alameda County. The analyzed the proposed placement of an
Emergency Vehicle Assess (EVA), a herpetological barrier and a bioswale within
this area. The MND was adopted by Dublin City Council Resolution No. 18-07
on February 20, 2007. Proposed land use approvals included an amended Stage 1
Development Plan for Dublin Ranch West as well as a Vesting Master and
Tentative Maps, Site Development Review and Development Agreement.
An Addendum (City Council Resolution No. 17-14, dated May 20, 2014) to the
Dublin Ranch West SEIR was prepared by the City of Dublin in 2014. The
Addendum analyzed a proposal to reduce the total number of dwellings on the
Wallis Ranch property than previously approved by the City. The project,
approved by the City in 2014 as well as the CEQA Addendum, reduced the total
City of Dublin Page 6
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
buildotrt ot the site from 935 to 806 d�vellings, incltrded a 3.0 acre private park
not iilcluded in the previous approval aild slightly relocated the aligrunent of oii-
site road�n�ays.
The Eastern Dublin EIR, 2002 SEIR, 2005 SEIR, 1997 ND and various EIR, MND and
Addendum documents referenced above are collectively referred to in this Initial Study
as "�rior CEQA documents."
This Initial Study has been prepared to addiess the most recently requested land use
entitlements for the three Subareas as described more fully below. This Initial Study
further exainines whether additional environinental review is required under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162 or 15163. The resolutions, ordinances and prior CEQA
documents referenced above are incorporated by reference, and are all available for
revie�-v by the public during norznal business hours at the Community Development
Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, 94568.
Applicant/Contact Persons
Tordan Ranch
Mission Valley Properties
Attn: Mr. Kevin Fryer
5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Phon�: (y25j 4�7 y900
Wallis Ranch
Truinarl<Homes
4185 Blacichawk Circle Road,
Suite 200
Danville, CA 94506
Christopher Davenport
Phone: 925-309-2503
Sub Area 3
Lennar Homes
6111 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 550
San Rainon, CA 94583
Michael Snoberger
Phone: 925-327-8306
Project Description
Project location and context. The project includes proposed General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Anlendinents for three Subareas in the Eastern Dublin Planning
Area. Exhibit 1 sho���s the regional location of Dublin within the larger Bay Area.
Exhibit 2 shows the location of the three Subareas comprising the project site. These
City of Dublin Page 7
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
three subareas are described below. Collectively, these three subareas constitute the
"project" w1-uch is the subject of this Initial Study.
• Jo���a�2 Rczncli subc�rect. The 189-acre Jordan Ranch is located east of Fallon
Road and north and south of Central Park�n�ay. Two portions of the
overall Jordan Ranch are included in the project, as follows. Exhibit 3
shows the location of the Jordan Ranch Subarea.
a) One portion consists of 11.1 acres of land located on the south side of
Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive, currently designated as a
"Community Park." The proposed land use designation would be to
a "Park/School" designation that would allow development of a
combination elementary and middle school by the Dublin Unified
School District (DUSD). The school is anticipated to accommodate
approximately 950 students with joint park facilities on the site.
Assuming this project is approved, the existing portion of the Jordan
Ranch designated for a future "School," located on the eastern side of
the Jordan Ranch, would be developed consistent�vith it's
underlying General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use
designation of Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14 du/ac). This
would allow between 68 and 154 d�vellings could be accommodated
on the site. Up to 112 dwellings are proposed on the former School
site if the project is approved.
b) The second portion of the Jordan Ranch Subarea would include
replacing an existing 4.6-acre "Mixed Use" land use designation that
would currently allow up to 115 residential units and up to 5,000
square feet of retail commercial uses with a "Medium Density
Residential (6.1 — 14.0 du/ac.)" land use designation that would
allow development of between 28 and 64 dwellings. Up to 45
dwellings are proposed on this site.
The two portions of Jordan Ranch Subarea are vacant and were used for cattle grazing,
but have been graded as part of the larger, approved Jordan Ranch project. Surrounding
land uses include Dublin Sports Park, being developed on the west side of Fallon Road,
west of the project site, single family residences in the Positano community to the north
and generally vacant lands to the east and south. Proposed General Plan and EDSP
Amendments included in this project indude:
• Suba��ea 3. The 64-acre Subarea 3 is located south of Central Parkway, west of
Fallon Road and north of Dublin Boulevard. Lockhart Street forms the western
boundary of the site. Exhibit 4 shows the location of this Subarea, The project
includes changing the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land
use designation from "Rural Residential/Agriculture" to "Parks/Public
Recreation" for 10.75 acres of the overall property. This area is generally located
City of Dublin Page 8
Initiai Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
in the soutlz-cent�al portion of the site, is vacaizt and is characterized by moderate
to steep slopes.
Land to the �vest ot SuL area 3, �vest of Lockhart Street, 1�as been
developed for attached d�velling uiuts or is vacant. Land north of Subarea
3 is currently vacant and is plaz�ned for a future expansion of Fallon
Sports Park. Property east of the Subarea is vacant Land use soutll ot
Subarea 3 ineludes a combination of commercial uses (Fallon Gateway
Center) and vacant land.
• Wc�llis Raltcli. The Wallis Ranch consists of 184.1 acres of land located in northeril
portion of Dublin generally bounded by the Alameda/Contra Costa line to the
north, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Parks RFTA) to the �vest, Tassajara
Road to the east and the Tassajara Creek to the south. The approved Wallis
includes approxiznately 1.9 acres of land that is designed for Semi Public uses in
the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The project
includes amei�dments to both of these documents to change the designation from
Semi Public to "Parks/Public Recreatioil" use. Exhibit 5 shows the location of the
�N�llis Ranch Subarea.
T11e sites on the Wallis Ranch property are currently vacant.
Project Characteristics
Overview. Ainendnlents have been requested to both t11e Dublin General Plan and
�astern Dublin Specific Plan to change land use designations for three areas of the
Eastern Dublin Planiling area. The proposed changes are described by the subareas
described in the previous section.
• Jorc�r�n Ra�lcli si�br�rer�. Proposed General Plaii and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
land use changes to the t�vo�ortions of the overall Jordan Ranch property are
s}zown on Exhibit 6.
The City of DLiblin and the Dublin Unified School District have entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) whereby the proposed Elementary
School on the Jordan Ranch property would be relocated to another portio�.1 of
the property. The existing 10.1-acre "School" site located in the approximate
center of the overall Jordan Ranch would be developed as "Medium Density
Residential," consistent with the site's uilderlying General Plan and Specific Plan
land use designation. This portion of the Subarea would have a development
capacity of bet�veen 68 and 154 dwellings. Up to 112 dwellings are currently
proposed on this site.
The first portion of the Jordan Ranch Subarea consists of 11.1 acres of land
located on t11e south side of Central Parkway designated as a "Colnmtrnity
Park." The proposed land use designation for this site is proposed to be a
combined "School/Park/Public Recreation" to facilitate the developinent of a
City of Dublin Page 9
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
combination elementary school and middle school with a maximum enrollment
of up to 950 students and associated faculty. There �vould be some joint use ot
the si�e as a Cify park. Previous CEQA analyses conducted by the City assumed
development of a 500-stl.ident sc11oo1 �vithin the Jordan Ranch property.
The second portion of the Jordan Ranch affected by this application includes 4.6
acres of land located on the northeast corner of Central Park�vay and Fallon
Road. This property is currently designated for "Mixed Use." The proposed
change is from "Mixed Use" that�vould allow development of up 115 residential
units and up to 5,000 square feet of retail commercial space to "Medium Density
Residential (6.1 - 14.0 du/ac)" that would permit development of up to 45
d�n�ellings. TaUle 1 shows approved and proposed land use designations on the
Jordan Ranch property.
City of Dublin Page 10
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
�n
v c�
�� � �
� � m ,� � � r-, �r �
'� c�i �--� L� � ,-+ I I oo a� a
� � �' � � ,-� ,--� '-� N �+ � � �. r �
� k � �
a.�
N � � �
� O �+ � O �N
�G
� �
O � o � � �
� � L T �
^� 7
~ � rl ^'\ � � I Q
� � �-1 O ` O
� bA �, H � �, �
� � � � � � � ��
N � 0 v `� � � m � � � �
� z � �' " �' " � � W 3 °
� � �
A � � � �
s � �
� a o
� ` �
� � N � O j
w � � � � M V� c-� p0 L� � di p � C
� � V � � � di � � � N ' d°�'� 0�0 a�i � �
c� (7 � �-+ e-� � � s
-r/-i O 'o a� o
O
� � � � •�
� � � �
� � C/� + � a c�a '�
� � i r � b�j • �n a� -Y
i � Q � � � � m � .� O � i i i i i i � � j �
� � � � "Cj N `p N � � ¢,p� � � � � � � � j � c
� O oQ J
� � A � � � � ° �
� � a
� o U
� o �
� � N � � U
a � � y L� o m � ,-� �-+ �p � �--� et! ro �' cu
"� O � V N L� L� � O c-� � N i CYJ � � � ,.
1.f7 ('� c-I �-1 � `� � � O *-
m `V � � o
0 0 � � ti
S1, � °' .E
u a
0 � �--� v� cn a �c
'� p� '�., � � ,�-',�' v� as �
'� .'��' .��., �, �,., � � C. � � o
r" N ,.� c� ,..i tt� � d+ � a
� .-~r O � IS� � c� 2 � `n i i i i i i � .N � y .v_�
bA � �' �c�n N N N 'LJ �' � � 4` o � �
.r Q � + O � ��
.� � uj � � � 'aNit
� � ro
'j� � � :� � �
c �,
W .�=, a ° pa .� W
r-i v o � o � � °'
aJ � O y L� N oo � � � oo L� o � � t Q � c o .in
�
N O� l� O c--� (V � C� k
^� � i"'i v � N ,� � ,-i �-+ � N v tn � .c p � o a� �
[� O � � L� � U �' .�n � �
N o �° j �' � o
0 o .c �� � � �
Q' � --� O n c .n ° � c a�
V] td �+ �n •O � � x � 'C
O bA '+, � c,�, C � ro � v � o �
e-� �. � ,�,� o m ` � �n ,,, 4 Q
O � �i y c'� � 00 � � O ^ i i i i i i � � N aai ,C � C O
N � � � L!� O c--� -I- O �-+ i i i i i � � � C i.
y � N N N '� � p w h � a � _ .o � �..
� � � y' N ° � m �' � o �
Q � � `� a� � -°'oop � �
�E ;, °' � O �
� �n c `� cn
� � � o � � o �
� N a�b
� ,� � 'Cj 'C� � a� O@ � � c�n
� � G G-0 �'" O O � � 3 � - � c[S
`� .,� eJ � O O V v � � cn m ¢� c W
� � �, � c �n
'� iu Q iC r4 c� � � N � � r ca �a � � °Q o� .Q -6
� Q � � � � ,� � ,-� �C ,� ,� � � C1� o � '� � � � � CA
o G .--� ,�. ;-i i ^ ,..., � � v� � r � o
a 3 � 'TS � '� � � � � �•yi •� � r' � .� 4 U �s N p p (�
G � a� � v v � � ,� � '� � v � � o Q � o � cv � �:-
�-.a � � � � �1 � � cn V � � Z cn cn O E-� � M � U �
• Subaf�ea 3. The 64-acre Subarea 3 is located south of Central Parkway, v��est of
Fallon Road and north of DuUlin Boulevard. Locichart Street forms the �tiTestern
boundary of the site. The project includes changing the Dublin General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land Use designation from "Rural
Residential/Agriculture" to "Parks/Public Recreation" for 10.75 acres of the
overall property. This area is generally located in the south-central portion of the
site, is vacant and is characterized by moderate to steep slopes. Exhibit 7 sho`vs
the proposed General Plan and EDSP designations for this subarea. The
proposed park is intended as a primarily passive open space feature and
minimal activity is anticipated to occur on this portion of the site.
• Wnllis Rrt�ich S�tbarer�. The existing Dublin General Plan and Eastenl Dubliil
Specific Plan for the Wallis Ranch property includes approximately 1.9 acres of
land that is designated for "Semi Public" uses that would allow a range of uses
including but not limited to day care centers, youth centers, senior centers and
similar uses. The project includes amendments to the General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan to change the designation from "Semi Public" to
"Park/PuUlic Recreation" use. The proposed General Plan and EDSP
Amendment is shown on Exhibit 8.
PD Rezonin� and Stage 1 aild 2 Develo�ment Plan. Stage 1 Development Plan
amendments are proposed for all of t11e areas affected by this application. Stage 2
Rezoi�ing and Site Developinent Reviews (SDR) will need to be approved by the City of
Dublin in the future to allow future development on each of the properties affected by
this application.
Building De.�i�. Future building designs will be subject to SDR approval by the City
of Dublin.
Access, Circulation and Parkin�. Access to and froin each of the various properties
comprising the project would not change from existing patterns. It is anticipated that
the School p�oposed on the Jordan property would take priinary access at the signalized
Central Parkway/Sunset View Drive intersection.
Utilitv Services Utility services to support proposed land uses would be supplied by
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). DSRSD is currently providing domestic
water, recycled water and sanitary sewer service to the larger Jordan Ranch, Subarea 3
and Wallis Ranch properties.
Water Qualitv Protection. The future improvements on each of the various subareas
comprising the project area will be to be subject to Best Management Practices to
support�vater quality standards as enforced by the City of Dublin. This may include
but�vill not be limited to construction of vegetated bio-swales, bio-retention basins and
similar facilities. Water quality improvements �vill be required to be approved by the
City of Dublin prior to issuance of any building permits.
City of Dublin Page 12
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Pro�ect Gradin�. A lnajority ot the Subareas have beeil rough graded as part of
adjoining, approved development projects. �dditional fine grading �vould occur on
most of the Subareas to accoinznodate futuie iinprovements. An exception tvoulel
include 10.75 acres of S�.ibarea 3, �Nhich has been rough graded, but�n�Ilich is proposed
to reinain as a natural park area.
Develo�ment agreements. The City of Dublin has entered into Development
Agreements �vith the o�vners of three properties included in the application.
Ainendments inay be required to soine or all of these Development Agreements.
Amendments to the 'terms of 'the Development Agreeinent(s) are not anticipafed to
result in any significant environinental impacts beyond those caused by the
implementation of the project analyzed in this Initial Stttdy.
Rec�uested land use entitlements. The following land use entitleinents have been
requested to allo�v implementation of the proposed Project:
• General Plan Anlendment (GPA) to modify land tises as described above;
• Eastern Dublin. Specific Plan A�7lendment (EDSPA) to nlodify land uses as
described above;
• Plannecl Development rezoiuilg witll Stage 1 Developnlent Plan ainendn�ents for
consistency �vith t11e GPA/EDSPA;
• A�nendments to current Developinent Agreement(s), �vhere applicable
City of Dublin Page 13
Initial Study/Eastern Dubiin Properties August 2015
( i
I y I
i �
( 80 ,l
`�,.,_
5
Antioch � �`�
,
� 1
, ;�_ ...
4
•. �. 24
San �
.
�.
, .�a.
a Oaklan
� Francisco
� �,, 680
� Dublin
r
, �
San �
� � Tracy
I Francisco >
, Pacific Ocean � gay 84 Livermore �
'I sso
1 .:�.
' °>
;
� ` 101
�w.
� 237
�
8
� o N 10 Miles San Jose
� , � s5
I �—;—�—�
i
�
� � 9 101
i
Detail "
� � ���
I '
'�� Santa
�� California ��;� Cruz sz �
�I �„� �� 52
��;
, �
I =
� ...,. p, �.�.,�.. �.w�__�
, _ _ _
' EXHIBIT� 1
� REGIONAL LOCATION
i
rvoar H
I NTS GPA & SPA
I macKnY 8�SomPS M4Y Zo�s VICINITY MAP
I
/ � �
�/ ' �
WALLIS =�� / /
RANCH �„tc�'�`5�' i
..�fi°�' �
�� I
I
I
�'fj�
I
GOStP OU13C� �FJ I
co�,t�n�� / � I
'�/�4H�.� no I
/� 'O I
I
I
� �--------�
�'� I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 --------
�, �s JORDAN i
D UBLIN °°����_ �N��� ��
--' ,, �S��NO �i b
/�� "`7ARI:WA{^-� -���
o O AMONL / �'
� WAY / u7
�"�IIRIVG.... F % �i�
��` � � �<n `� °I
\ N f� N r� o��
\ o __"_—�." _ � DR1VE�''� po I o
q
�. �%�� � � �C
� � /� I�
�,. � CF,NIRAL N � I
�� L
��'�po ��AG �
\'G. 1.,.PARAR'AY PARAWA_ V�,�,
I
�� OCBLM ' D ,S/ � I
er.m� n r: `�
i � � o I
a �\ �°a �
---�/�� -----\—\\�------� --^------ � \�'— � �
� ____ `______ 1-$80_
1-SRO �� ---- �
UB ARE �
o°
� � 3
r' g �l��', ,�P4�9 s
oa� SPY Q,� ��o I
EXHIBIT 2
EASTERN DUBLIN
N O R T H
NTS General Plan Amendment
IIIACKAY 8c SOttIPS �Y Zols VICINITY MAP
05-'9-2015 4:30pm Amanoa Karcneiski P:\197?o\PLN\EXH-P\EASTERti DUBUN PROPERIIES EXHIBIT_20150519.DVJG
i
i
I
' �
�
i
i
� 1 �h— � Y ��. � + �;� ' ^`�,._
� � :�
� '�� r. F_ r�
� � _�r 7 t �� � � �# _ ���� �
. , c. f f � ::j � S �/'=, � r.����':
. F ,� , .
.
, .. .. , . ,,.
� " � i . �-- _�:_ ,_: > �t-, �s��
�r ' a,. `�. ,' ' , ' �--• w
` - �>.,...E� •.„_ , -:_ ., � . .
�� J � :'/��:
a yr", �j�. � •-r _ e� �-.
I ,. - �� ..; �.. . . ., . ,, x , ...
.
c,
_ a � :
3 ., � � �g/ , ( �.� . . . . .
`�. r P
� �. ' ... . . � d ,. � - ''� C �. .
, t�cwr ieor.-iov� � , k�
� �*- . �." ��� . ; F FY, '' . ti .. �� � .
,
, � �
� .,. ��°� , ° � �i �'? ,� '° -'
r �
� � ;�!�"����'R >. - ' � ,�`N`r 9a (`f j ' j-`' -f; � � .�
f �
;
' ' '�` � ` ?JORDAN RANCH SUB AREAS ���
, o
` .� �. t � ,�,� � � + F�#��� f�"= t
��' _ � _ ��1 . � fi� µ�
I �� . � `:� ' t '� i�`�+ "' �`�
��y ¢{�y'��5�,ry,��� 1 f r + flit�( j��� t � � $` Y�a� � f� {
. M�' �f � '°� - i � - � Yd� � C` �� ie
£�.. PCiF F N�. � a � t i �� �Pr ��t� ����� t4c� � 5 '� k t � .,�
�6i C.1T� ��'al .3 �� ^ ,�'� _ , . `
''" �y� �{ �t �}` ��
� � a�+ �a.� ,'@•l�� ��_ iiag / �. �� "
�� �• ' . , _. '. . ',°b `� `p� '�.'�� a"7c`^^.__/ � ' Q p t�-s �+ »F" a,.'�
��.. .,,. � v .
�,. „. � .t:.._. .. ':
. '�� � ��� �, , � �,��%` `� `�'� ���-i �, .,,.., ��' �.
„
I ," ., .} " �, .:
+"d-- ,,,} _� �� e. -. b � �
I ..Y 4,.� ^4m,�. �{ . . . �' �:'< � � (� Y `�� �' '� .f ��
�� +"� E�q,n-,� F ,J+. 4' ��f'.K.. f-I P_r�i` r
��� t �.�:�-�V,, ,t� ,. . ',.: ' . . OPcNSPACE - ,� �s.� :� 1,`-:�' 1" "'k�'., " ;c.F
i . . .. .. � . . f � �����`�� i�a �.�", �- �^r ..,� �. �.� .�..c�r, �
_ � � � ���� � � �x��� �r '�.�
� j # ¢� x .L r{,�"�• �. �t '.t� S _
� # +a f �r+? � j� N t� C' � � r �"
.
,. y . ,. .
�
� � � � a t = ` �. ` . - � -- -
.�� . ,� ' :; _ . � -
-� ,: : .. : , „ -
' `,��. . ;. ;1. , ,. a.. . '• ".°. {� w„,-� sF '^' ,.k
,' z � ....,,.�— - ' � - - :._._ �� t f ' �
t
� - .. _._ -•., -
� ;
. .. ..c - _ �� .. 1 � . . . �.�� . � �.�`� ��
� �s. - ' _ . � - .`' �. _� � _ .._ , . ., ,. ..
^r .
' . ....� . . � ��. - -� ,. ...�.�r _� . .�-'
� � �- . UPLhJSrACL . ` "�� �� �.;.n. �
r ! s
� . . "' _ .. ..
� � V
i ' ' ,i� ,...:� �
. - � .- y }'�.
� .-;`�' ��.� _ ,
�. �
I
; EXHIB IT 3
.
' � ' JORDAN RANCH
N O R T H I
' NTS i GPA & SPA
�,
macKAY&SomPS I SUB AREA LOCATION
---- I b1AY 2015
i I � _� I
I I I �
�-
I I / � ----
� I � ���
� � N��
1 � � , c� �
\ .�
-�
�� �
� �
SUB AREA �O \
�O \
� —
I \
�
I
I
�
w
Iw
� I
c�n /
I � /
_ / / � � I
O ��'J� I
J v��\� I
�
� � i I
� '� - i
- � ►�
_
,
� � - �
-
- � - � � i
EXHIBIT 4
SUB AREA 3
N O f? T H
NTS GPA & SPA
� . � � ��� SUB AREA LOCATION
MAY 2015
�2��?^i�1�5'02'�'24arrl�mcnaaAKroorr�;i��?!b1Q��Pda�'��P'`�H`i^�'����yC�4�`'c�GL�cA�?+.��1G'�;1`�3.�7�'t1DY_F?;'-;IB�T �_SJf33.DWG
/ �.
/ ,../
,..
V \ /
�..
l ,..
i '
1`
i`
� � \ �',
.' �
, � �� - �-- -
� ` � �
� ��
, �
) ; .
� ►
� '
_ ���� - �
��
� � ,
� ' �� � ��
� � �`� ��
� ��
� - - - _�
\ i
�
WALLIS RANCH SUB AREA � � I
�
� I
I
�- �
�
�
EXHIBIT 5
N o R T M WALLIS RANCH
NTS GPA & SPA
��(pY�s� � SUB AREA LOCATION
E��� �� �� Ji7NE 2015
06-23-2015 9:07om Amanda KorchefsW?:\19604\PLANNING\GPA_EDSPA\INITIAL STUDY_EXH181T S.DWG
- - -- �
�
, � _ ,�:
� .
.
� , :
� �
�� � � - �, � . �,.,�
�� � �,� � .
, . � _ < , .
� , . �,
;
, � ;-5r , . _.. � f
- : _ , . � ,. ..
., . . . , ' . . ._. �.- ' ,. _ � .... `��.., f _
�, ,
r � <
.
� v « t �
i + ".� r . f'
„ , .,.
. d , , .:. ..
� � �. � ��°� � ` '�� � � ,- ' . -�� < " � �:. ���
�
� ,.
_ �` ,
, - .�� � a. ��..
� �� ., . '".° , .� ,�.
I � t•lElQ,ilo0,�100D
,.
i .-r �� � , .. �., � _. � F F'Y _
:�. f �
. . �. _ / f . . .
c 1 � � �'-�: �� � +. ..,, ',.
� ?�.� � I�� �EXISTING L41D L'SE: � � ��`� � _
. '-
�. �
:
ti, � .,
� . . ;'.
-
MUlED USE
� , �, ' �„�<
�,.. , ;
� �. � . ` PXOPOSF_D L.4:�D L;SE: � . �
,� , -:.: e� ` - , . ,.,.MEDIUM DENSITY :' � Y, �
� ` RESIDENTIAL `
-
�i � . � ��. � ..._ " �� , � r � � � � �
�, �. �
. ' ' �d. ... , � ,..� ' � �.;: F';. ;�i �
. .,Ffl�'.I h r;Y. � - j P � . . . - tit�,s _ /, r:r �
, _
�.
,. . �'d'C Gl I ✓'_�I ' " ' �
- __ . . ' ' . ;. ' I . . ; .' -�y "�-:} , �
.._ . : . � -��
I . . s. ' " ^ .... .. ., ,:T
� �., ... , � r
. a . �F �a. 1 _
:� _. . . �. .. : ,. . �
r
I ° ' ?w
. �_' . ..+7", ,�tiry .� 4�..
� .. � .... .k . . . , .. �
, .1_:, r . ':`y . ., �
n. )
�
' � 4
: r -,.x.,n' :� _�. ". A' `tA e�y,.1� - ..�� 1 f�`
� . `�� ., �� . . � . ;A. M1&.�� x N ��
I �y ` v' � C�f'Lf��`>�ACE . _ � I ` •
,'�' a,t.' . ��° �� � ,.,n ... �j" A�f ' . i
'- E.LISTI.NG L.4�\D L'.SE: — ---�
. COb4biLJNITY PARK _, , �
i � � _ - �
? � k _; � . t•": LdUDC SE � '
� , PROPOSED . . -
�� � � .,� � -r � , ��
: ...�_-_. °_._ � r � � '��SCHOOL/PARK " ' �
.� .
� ..
i � .. .,. �
� � or���.�',�<<�� �� � - —
�I .
,
I�i
'' EXHIBIT 6 --
%� ' JORDAN RANCH
N O R T H �
�, ,���TS �, GPA & SPA
IIIACKAY&SOIIIPS ' EXISTING & PROPOSED USES
.. .. . .. MAY 2Q15
i ; _ _ - _ -�
i i , ,p� _
, I � , ��-�FzP�-
� � � c
\ �,
EXISTING LAND USE: �
RURAL �� \
RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURE 2 \
PROPOSED LAND USE: �
/� PARK O \ \
\ -
I \
\
I
I
F-
W
Iw
�
C� � I
I � /
_ / � � I
O ��'J� i
��,,,�
o I
� \ I
_ J � �� — I
, �
— � I
— � - - � I I � i
EXHIBIT 7
N O R T H SUB AREA 3
NTS GPA & SPA
��5 EXISTING & PROPOSED USES
.,.�+r�k sua.��a��
MAY 2015
�r�@6�P�15s:s2�,{,Zpma,mandoAi(va�vd�k�t�i�?Y�'diN\EX'i�R��i�'�8\f���DA�E��\�.�'R1DY_EY.HiBIT 4_SUB3.DWG
i �
i Ii �
�..
U
�'
i '
\� �' ''
i
�.` � \ � I
` �,,��
,`� ��� - �=- -
� � i �
ti \�
1 /
i
� i �
� �
� i
�_;
/� i
� �� ;.�, i� - -/
I ,� � �
�� �-�
�l" ' �
�� � I �
> ��.
I �. �
� � � '�
� ----------\-
�
� - - -
� �
_�� �� �
I
Ij �
�
EXISTING LAND USE:
PUBLIGSEMI PUBLIC
PROPOSED LAND USE: I
PARK �--- -�
�
� �
EXHIB IT 8
WALLIS RANCH
N O R T H
NTS GPA & SPA
IIIACKAY�[S�S I EXISTING & PROPOSED USES
E„� s,,,,E�,� MAY 20t5
06-17-2015 229pm Amanda KarchefsN?:\19604\PLANNING\GPA_EDSPA\INITIAL STUDY_EXHIBIT S.DWG
1. Project descriptian: The applicant rec�uests approval ot a General
Plan Amendment, an amendment to the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Planned
Development rezoning and Stage 1 Planned
Development amendments for portions of the
following properties in the Eastern Dublin
Planning area:
Jo��cicr�i Rc��icli: Redesignatiilg an existing �
Community Park site on the south side of
Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive to a
j oint School/Park site; changing an existing
Mixed Use land use designation on the
northeast corner of Fallon Road and Central
Parkway to Medium Density Residential.
Sul�c���ect 3: Redesignating 10.75 acres of the site
from Rural Residential/Agricultural to
Park/Public Recreation.
Wr�llis Rrr�icli: Redesignating a 1.9-acre site in
the south portion of this property from Semi-
Public to a Park land use designation.
2. Lead agency: City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94583
3. Contact person: Mike Porto, Dublin Planning Department
(925) 833 6610
4. Project locations: jorc�nn Rr��lcli: East of Fallon Road, nortll and
south of Central Parkway.
Srtbr�rerr 3: South of Central Parkway, north of
Dublin Boulevard.
Wallis Ra�TCh: West of Tassajara Road, south of
City limit line and east of Camp Parks RFTA.
5. Project contact persons: jordan Ranch
Mission Valley Properties
Attn: Mr. Kevin Fryer
5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Phone: 925 467-9900
City of Dublin Page 22
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
�'Vallis Panch
Trumark Homes
=�185 Slacichatti�l<Circie Road,
Suite 200
Danville, CA 94506
Christopher Davenport
Phone: 925 309-2503
Sub Area 3
Lennar Homes
6111 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 550
San Ramon, CA 94583
Michael Snoberger
Phone: 925 327-8306
6. Existing General Plan & jordr�li Rr��icli: I��ixed-Use, School &
Specific Plan Land Use Community Park
designations: S��tbrzrect 3: Rural Residenti�l/Agricultiire
WRllis Rr��icli: Se1ni-Public.
7. Proposed General Plan & jo��clmi Raaidi: Mediuln Density Residential
S�ecific Plan Land Use (6.1-14.0 du/zc.)/ School/Park
designations: Sl��arerr 3: Park/Public Recreation
Wrrllis Rn�7d�: Park/Public Recreation
S. Existing & Proposed PD-P1an�led Development
Zoning:
9. Other public agency necessary, potential and/or desired approvals:
• Gradiilg Plans, Improvement Plans, and
Building Permits (Dublin)
• Se�-ver and water connections (DSRSD)
• Enci-oachment permits (City of Dublin)
• Notice of Intent (State Water Resources
Control Board)
City of Dublin Page 23
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Environm�ntal Factors Potentially Affected
The environinental tactors cilecked belo��� inay �e potentially aftected by this
Project, invalving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as
indicated by the checiclist on the follo�Ning pages.
- Aesthetics - Agricultural - Air Quality
Resources
- Biological - Cultural Resources - Geology/Soils
Resources
- Hazards and - Hydrology/Water - Land Use/
Hazardous Quality Planning
Materials
- Mineral Resources - Noise - Population/
Housin
- Public Services - Recreation X Transportation/
Circulation
- Utilities/Service - Mandatory
Systems Findiilgs of
Si i�ificance
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluatioi�:
_I find that the proposed Project could not have a significant effect on the
environinent and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
_ I tind that the proposed Project could not have a significant effect on the
environment and a Addendum will be prepared.
X 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
initigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to t11e
Project. A Mitigated 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 inlpact" or
City of Dublin Page 24
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
°potentially significant unless init�gated." An Eziviranmental I�pact IZeport
is required, but must aizly analyze the eftects that reinain to be addressed.
;,
� •
� , . ,• ,� r
Signature: �,�',��� � ��'�' Date: �..,�y. ^?� �.� �� ��->
Printed Nan1e: Michael Porto, Planning Co�lsultant
For: City of Dublin Comn-�unity Developinellt Departn2ent
City of Dublin Page 25
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Evaluatior� of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all ans�n�ers. Certain "no impact"
answers are supported by the inforination sources the lead agency cites in
the p�renthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is
adequately supported if the referenced informafion 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 ne�v impact" ans�-ver
applies where there is no iinpact of the proposed project beyond that
which was considered previously in the 1993 EIR, the 2002 SEIR, the 2005
SEIR, or other prior EIR or MND. . A "no impact/no new impact" ans�ver
should be explained �Nhere 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 �vell as
direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial
evide�lce that an effect is signiticant. It there are one or more "potentially
sigrtificant impact" entries when the determii�ation 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 inust describe the mitigation
measures and briefly explain 11o�v they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level.
City of Dublin Page 26
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Envia�onmei�tal Iin�acts (Note: Sotu�ce df deterinination Iisted in pat-entl�esis. See Iistii�Q
of sotu-ces at end of checklist�ased to cletern�ine each potential in�pact).
Note: A fiilI discussiol� of each item is found Potentially Less Ti,a�l Less chan No Ne��
f0llOwlil� the ClleCklist. Significant Significant Significant Impact
Imp�ct With Impact
Mitigation ,
1. Aesthetics. ���oarld the pt�oject: �
a) Have a substantial adveise impact on a scenic X
vista? �
b) Substantially dama�e scenic ►•esources,
including but Ilot limited to trees, rock
outcroppings and historic buildings within a X
state sceiiic hiQhway? (Sourc.e: 2,3,4,8)
c) Substantially deQrade the existin� visual
char�cter or quality of tl�e site and its X
suri-ourldings? (Source.: 2,3,4,8)
d) Create a new source of substantial li�l�t or
glare, wl�icl� would adversely affect day or X
ni�httime views ii� the area? (Source: 8)
2. Agricultural Resources. Wor�ld the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance, as show
on the n�aps pre��ared pui-suant to the X
Farn�land Mappinb a�ld Monitoring Progra�n
of tlie California Resoucces Agency, to a
I�oii-agricultural Lise? (Source: 2,3,4)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture
use or a Williamson Act coi�tract? (2) X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezonin� of forestl�»d (as defined by PRC
Sec. 12220(g),timberland (as defi»ed in
X
PRC Sec. 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined in PRC
Sec. 51 104 (�)? (Source: 1 ,2,7)
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use? (1 ,8)
X
e) Involve other chan;es in the existing environment
that,due.ro their location or nature,could result
in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural X
use or conversio❑ of foresCland to a non-forest
use? (Source: 8)
� �
City of Dublin Page 27
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Potentially Less Than Less than No Ne«�
Significant Si�nificant Sionificant lmpact
Impact With Impact
�lil a�lllOtl
3. Air Qualit� (Where available,the si�nificance
criteria established by the applicable air
quality manageinent district may be relied
on to make the following determinations).
Woasld t/�e project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of X
the a�plicable air quality plan? (Source: 2)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air X
quality violation? (Source: 2,9)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for wl�ich
the pi-oject region is non-attainme�lt under an X
applicable federal or state arnbient air
quality stai�dard (iucluding releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds foi- ozone precursors? (2)
d) Expose sensitive i•eceptors to substantial X
pollutant co�lcentrations? (2,8)
e) Create objectionable odoi-s affectin� a X
substantial number of people? (2, 8)
4. Biological Resources. Woc�ld the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly
through habitat modifications,on any species
identified as a candidate,sensitive or special X
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? (2,3,4)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparia�i
habitat o�-other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,policies or X
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or the U.S. Fisli and Wildlife
Service? (2,3,4)
c) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally
protected wetlands (iucludin� but not limited to
marsh, vernal pool,coastal,etc.) through direct X
removal,filling,hydrolo�ical interruption or
otller means? (2, 3,4)
City of Dublin Page 28
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
, Po�lly Less Tlzan Less tlran No Ne«��
SiQnificant Sianificai7t Sianificant Impact �
Impact� With � Impact
� Ivlitigation �
d) I�itiel�ei-e substantially with the movement of
any native resident or mi�ratoly fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resideut or mi�i-atoiy wildlife corridors or � X
impede the use of native wildlife nurseiy
sites? (2,3,4)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances X
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance'?
f) Conflict witl� the provision of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natucal
Community Conservation Plan or other X
approved local, reQional or state I�abiCat
conservation plan? (Source: 1, 2)
5. Cultural Resources. Wo��ld the project
�) Cause a substantial adverse impact in Che
si;nificance of a historical resource as X
defined iii Sec. 15064.5? (So�irce: 2,3,4j
b) Cause a sLibstantial adve�se� cllange i�1 the
si�nificance of an arche.olo�ical resoiirce X
pursuant to Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 2,3,4)
c) DirecCly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resow�ce or ui�ique geologic X
feature�? (Source: 2,3,4)
d> Disturb any human renlains,including those X
interred outside of a forn��l ceil�ete�y? (2, 8)
G. Geology and Soils. Would the project
a) Expose people or structut-es to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss,injury,or deatll i�lvolvi�l�:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Fau(t Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist or based on X
otller kno��vn evidence of a known fault?
(Sow�ce.: 1,3)
ii) Sti-ong seismic �round sl�aking? (2,3,4) X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, includin� X
liquefaction? (Source: 2,3,4)
iv) Landslides? (Sou1-ce: 2,3,4) X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X
topsoil? (Source: 2,3,�-)
� � i
City of Dublin Page 29
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Potentially Less Than Less th�n No Ne�v
Sianificant Si�nificant Si�nificant Impact
I Impact With � Impact i
Mitigation � � �
c) Be located on a �eoloQic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in X
on- and off-site landslide, lateral spreadin�,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (2)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code X
(1994),creatin� substantial risks to life or
property? (Source: 2)
e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers X
are tiot available for wastewater disposal?
��)
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Woarld tlle
p�-oject:
a) Ge.i�erate �reenhouse gas e�nissions,either
directly or indii-ectly,that may have a X
significant impact on the environment? (7)
bj Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
i-educing the ernissions of greenhouse �ases? X
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would
tl�e project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the }�ublic o►- the
environment through tl�e routine transport, X
use or disposal of hazardous materials?
(2,3,5 5)
b) Create a significant l�azard to tl�e public or the
environment throu�h reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the X
release of hazardous into the environment?(2,3)
c) Emit hazardous enlissions or handle hazardous
n�aterials,substai�ces,or�vaste within one- X
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Source: 2,3,4)
City of Dublin Page 30
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
' Potentially Less Than Less than h�o Ne«
Si�nitic�nt Si�nificant Si�nificant Impact
Impact Wi�h lmpact
IV11tIa3t10I1 �
d) Be located on a site which is inciuded on a �
list of hazardous materials sites complied I �
pursuant to Government Code Sec. 659625 X
and, as a i-esult, would it create a si�nificant �
hazard to the public or the ei7vil-onment? (9)
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, whei-e such plan has i7ot been
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or X
public use aii-port, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residin� or
working in the pt-oject area? (Soui-ce: 2, 9)
t� For a project witl�ili the viciility of private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
(Iazard for people residii�� or workiila in the X
project ai-ea? (Source: 2,9}
�) Iii�pair implementation of or physically
interfere with tl�e adopted emei-�e�ICy
response plan or emer�ency evacuation X
plail? (Sou►-ce: 2, 9)
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injuiy or death involving
��ildland fires, includinff where wildlands X
are adjacent to urbanized lreas or wl�ere
residences are intermixed with wilcllands?
�2)
9. Hydrology and Water Quality. Worrld the
pro ject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste X
discharge require�nents? (Soui-ce: 2,9)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there ��vould be a net deficit in aquifer
��olume or a lo�vering of the local groundwater X
�able level (e.g. the production rate of eaistiug
nearby wells would drop to a level «�Ilich would
not support existin� land uses or planned uses �
for wl�icll permits have been grantedj? (Source: � �
2) 1
�
City of Dublin Page 31
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Potentially Less Than Less than No Ne�v
Si�nificant Significant Sianificant Impact
Impact With Impact �
I i
� Mitigation i
c) Substailtially altei- the existin� drainage
pattern of the site or ar-ea, including throu;h
the alteration of the course of a stream or X
river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site? (Source: 2,3,4,7)
d) Substantially alter the existin� drainage
pattern of the site or areas, including through
the alteration of a course or stream or river, X
or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source:
2,3,4)
e) Ci-eate or contribtite i-unoff water whicl�
would exceed the capacity of existing or X
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted rtinoff? (Sou1-ce: 2,3,4)
fi) Otherwise substantially deQrade water X
qliality? (Source: 2,3,4)
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazai°d
area as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary
oc Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood X
delineation map? (Soui-ce: 7)
1�) Place within a 100-year flood hazai-d area
structures which i�npede or redirect flood X
flows? (Source: 7)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, ii�jury,and death involving X
flooding, including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam? (Source: 7)
j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami or mudflow? X
10. Land Use and Planning. Would tlle project:
a) Physicall.y divide an established community?
(Source: l,2,3,4) �{
City of Dublin Page 32
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Potenti�ll}� Less"I'han Less than No Ne�a� �,
�
Significant Significant Sitrnificailt Inlpact '
Impact � With Impact �
j Niiti�ation ' j
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an aQency with �
jtu�isdiction ovei-the project (includina but i � X
not limited to the gelleral plan, specific plan, j �
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect? (Source: l,2)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or i7atural community X
consel-vatio�l plan? (Source: 1,2)
11. Mineral Resources. Would tlze project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to X
the region and the residents of the state? (1)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
importal�t mineral resource recovery site
de.lineated on a local general plan, specific X
plan or oCher land use plan? (Source: 1)
12. Noise. Wo�rld the proposal resrflt i�r.:
a) Exposui-e of��ersons to or ne�ieration of �IOise
levels in excess of standards established in X
the ge�leral plan or iloise ordivance, or
applicable standards of otl�er agencies? (2,5)
b) Exposure of persons or to aeneration of
excessive �i°oundborne vibra�ion or X
grou�Idborne noise levels? (Soui•ce: 2,5)
c) A substantial permanent increase i�i ambie�lt
�IOise levels in the project vicinity above X
existing levels witllout tl�e project? (2,5)
d) A substa��tial tem�orary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels i�l tlle project vicinity X
above levels without the project? (2,5)
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has �lot been
adopted, witl�in two nliles of a public aiiport X
or public use airport, would the �roject
expose people residin� or worki�l� n tlle
project area to e.�cessive noise levels? (2, 5)
City of Dublin Page 33
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Pote�ntiall}� Less Than Less than No Ne�i�
Si�nificant Si�nific�nt Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
f) For a project witl�in the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people X
residing oi• working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (5)
13. Population and Housing. Woulc�tl�e project
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area,either directly or indirectly (for X
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (1,2)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the coilstruction of X
replacement housing elsewhere? (l, 8)
c) Disp(ace substantial nu�nbers of people,
necessitatin� the replacement of housing X
elsewl7ere? (Soiu-ce: 1, 8)
14. Public Ser��ices. Would the j�ro�os�zl:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the
provision of�lew or physically alte►-ed
governinental facilities,the construction of
which could cause significant eirvironmental
i►npacts, irl order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other
pei-formance objectives for any of the public
services? (Source: 7)
Fire protection? X
Police ��rotection? }{
Schools? X
Parks? �{
Other �ublic facilities }{
15.Recreation:
a) Would the project increase the use of e�xistii�g
neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial X
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be aceelerated? (Source�: 7)
b) Does the project include reereational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities �vhich mi�ht have an X
adverse physical effect on the environme.nt?
(Source: 7)
City of Dublin Page 34
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Potential(}� , Less Thai� � Less than � No Ne�v
�
Sianificant � Signi;icant ; Significant Impact
Impact With � lmpact �
NlitiQation �
16. Trans�ortation and Traffic. t�oirld tl�e I '
j�roject: �
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinaiice �
or policy establishing measures of �
effectiveness for the perfolmance of the X
circulation systenl,Yaking into account a(1
modes of transportation, includi�lg mass
transit and all non-motorized travel and
relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to
intersections, sti-eets, hi�hways and �
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths and
mass transit? (Source: 2,3,4,6)
b) Conflict with ai� applicable congestion
management program, ii�cluding but not
limited to, level of service and travel X
demand measures, or other standards
established by tlle cou»ty congestion
il�anaQement a�ency for desi�ilated roads or
hi�hw�ys?_(So�u-ce: 2,6)
c) Result ii� a chanQe in air U�affic patterus,includin�
eitller an increase in traffic levels or a change iii X
location that results in substantial safety risks'?
(Source: 2,6)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous X
intersectious) or incompatible uses,such as farm
equipment? (Source: 6)
e) Result in inadequate emer�ency access? (6j X
f) Conflict with adopted policies,plans or pro�rams
regarding public trai�sit,bicycle or pedesh-ian
facilities or otherwise decrease the perfonl�ance X
of safety of such facilities? (1)
17. Utilities and Service Systems. Would tl�e
project
a) Exeeed cvastewater treatment requiren�ents of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control X
Board? (Source: 7)
City of Dublin Page 35
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
� Potentially Less Than Less t1�an No Ne«�
Sianificant Si�nificant Significant Impact
lmpact With Impact
Miti�ation
b) Require or result in the construction of new
wate.r or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansioil of existing facilities, the X
construction of which could cause
sianificant environmental effects? (7)
c) Require or result in the construction of iiew
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of X
which could cause significant environmental
effects? (7)
d) Have sufficient watel- supplies available to
serve the project from existing water X I
eiltitlements and resources,or are new or
expailded entitlements needed? (7)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or n�ay
serve tl�e project that it has adequate X
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the providers e�isting
commitn7ents? (Source: 7)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient }�
permitted capacity to accommodate tlle
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Con�ply with federal, state and local statutes X
and regulations related to solid waste? (7)
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the pi-oject l�ave tl�e potential to degl-ade
the quality of tl�e environ�nent, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife populatioii to
drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to X
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 Califorl�ia history or prehistory?
City of Dublin Page 36
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Poienti�ll}� Less Than � Less than No Ne��� �
Sianificant Si�nificant Si�nifican� Impact j
I�npact With � Impac�t �I
Mitiaation
I
b) Does the project have impacts that are � I
individually limited, but cumtilatively ; j �
considerable? ("Cui��ulatively considerable" � X j
tneans that the incremental effects of a ' � I
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, �
the effects of other cln•rent projects and the
effects of probable future projects).
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects X
on human beings, eitlier directly or
indirectly'?
Sources used to deterinine �otential environmental im�acts
1. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendinent/Specific Plan
2. Eastern Dublin General Plan Anlendnlent/Specific Plan EIR
3. 2005 �astern D�zblin Property Owners' Supplemental EIR
4. 2005 Dublin Ranch We�t Suppleineiltal EIR
5. Project Acoustic Analysis (Illingworth & Rodkin) (2015)
6. Project Traffic Impact Analysis (Fehr & Peers) (2015)
7. City staff or other regulatory agency
4. Site Visit
9. Other Source
XVII. Earlier Analyses and Incorporation By Reference
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier 1i��lyses and state where they are
available for review.
"1'he following Eizvironmental Iinpact Reports have been used in the preparation
of the Initial Study. All are available for review at the City of Dublin Conlmunity
Developinent Departnleilt, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA, during norinal business
hours. Each of the follo�ving documents are hereby incorporated by reference
into this Initial Study.
• Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, May, 1993, (SCH
#91103064)
• East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Developmeilt Plan and Annexation Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, January 2002 and Final SEIR
(Marc112002) (SCH #2001052114)
City of Dublin Page 37
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
• Falloi� Village Project Dratt Supplemental Environmental Impact Report,
August 2005 and Final SEIR (SCH #2005062010)
� Initial Study/EIR Addendum, Jordan Ranch Property, City File #PA 09-
011, A.pril 2010.
This Initial Study analyzes whether any further environmental revie�v than that
performed in these prior certified CEQA documents are required for the proposed
�roject under the standards of Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA
Guidelines section 15162 and 15163. This Initial Study analyzes whether the
proposed changes to the Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin and other applicable
regulatory documents for portions of the Jordan Ranch, Subarea 3 and the Wallis
Ranch pr�operty will result in any new or substantially more severe significant
environiriental impacts than those analyzed in prior CEQA documents or��hether
any other• of the standards requiring further environmental review under CEQA are
met.
If the Initial Study determines that there are no netiv or substantially more severe
environrr�ental iinpacts than those analyzed in the piior CEQA documents and no
CEQA standard for subsequent or supplemental review is met, then the impact is
identified as "No New Impact." If the particular topic was not analyzed in a
previous CEQA document and no impact is identified in this Initial Study, this be
identified as a "No Iinpact" finding.
City of Dublin Page 38
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
�i�ct��sio�l �� C�tec�c��st
1. Aesthetics
Environmental Settina
The project subareas are set in a formerly rural area of Eastern Dublin that has
tr�nsitioned to urban uses under the auspices of the City of Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, adopted in 1993.
Jo1�c�rrai Rc��icli S���bc�rea: The overall Jordan Ranch site is characterized by a coinbination of
rolling hills and grasslands with shallo�N to moderate topographic relief. The �Nestern
portion of the site adjacent to Fallon Road are typically flatter than the eastern portion.
The areas included in this application is vacant but has been rough graded as part of the
larger, approved Jordan Randz development. No creeks streams or other bodies of
water are located on the three portions of the site nor are any major stands of trees or
major rock outcroppin�s. Similarly, no existing parks, playgrounds, scenic vistas or
places of public gatllering are located on any of the subareas.
Sz.�br�rerr 3 Si�br�rerz: The overall Subarea 3 is characterized by two snlall btrt distinct
hills in the northern and central portions of the site that slope to the soutll and
w�est. The hills are identified as "Visually Sensitive Hillsides-Reshicted
Developn�ent" in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (see EDSP Figure 6.3). No
public parks, scenic vistas or scenic overlooks are located on the site.
Wrrllis Rr��ic11 Sril�m•er�: The existing natural topography of the Wallis Ranch
includes consists of steep slopes in the �Nestern portion of the site adjacent to
Parks RFTA transitioning to moderate to gentle slopes in the approximate center
of the site. The portion of the site lying adjacent to Tassajara Creek is generally
flat. Land included in this subarea is located in the flatter, southern portion of
tl�e Wallis Ranch property. No parks or other public gathering places currently
exist on this property.
Scenic highways within and adjacent to the Eastern Dublin Plaiuung area include the I-
580 freeway south of Eastern Dublin and Tassajara Road that extends ii1 a norkh-south
direction through Eastern Dublin.
Development is under�vay on all three properties (Jordan Ranch, Subarea 3 and Wallis
Ranch) but not on the various Subareas that are included in this project.
No light sources exist on any of the project Subareas.
IZegulatorv framework and Previous CEQA documents
Errsterrl Du�liat Specifi'c Plr��1. The City of Dublin adopted the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
(EDSP) ii1 1993 to guide the future development of approxiinately 3,400 acres of land in
tlle Eastern Dublin area.
City of Dublin Page 39
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Ec�ster�i Dubli�i EIR. The Easteril Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated visual reso�rce impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project.
These include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.8/1.0 reduced project impacts related to standardized tract
development (IM 3.8/A) to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation requires
future developers to establish visually distinct communities which preserves the
character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and
inaintaining views from major travel corridors.
• Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0 reduced the impact of converting the rural and open
space character of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM
3.8/B) but not to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires
implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant
natural features. Even with adherence to this measure, IM 3.8/B would remain
significant and unavoidable on both a project and cumulative level.
• Mitigation Meastire 3.8/3.0 reduced the impact of obscuring distinctive natural
featui-es of the General Plan Amendinent and Specific Plan area (IM 3.8/C) but
not to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires
implementation of the land use plan that einphasizes retention of predominant
natural features.
• Mitigation Measures 3.8/4.0-4.5 reduced tlle impact of altering the visual quality
of hillsides (IM 3.8/D) to a less-than-significant leveL These initigation measures
requixe implementation of appropriate Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies
inclttding but not liinited to use of sensitive grading design to ininimize grading,
use of existing topographic features, limiting use of flat pads for construction,
using building designs that conform to natural land forms, recontouring hillside
to reseinble existing topograplly and miniinizing the height of cut and fill slopes.
• Mitigation Measures 3.8/5.0-5.2 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality
of ridges (IM 3.8/E) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures
limit development on inain ridges that border the Specific Plan area to the north
and east but allow developinent on foreground hills. The measures also limit
development in locations where scenic views would be obscured or would
extend above a ridge top.
• Mitig�tion Measures 3.8/7.0 and 7.1 reduced impacts on scenic vistas (IM 3.8/I)
to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require protection of
designated open space areas and directs the City to conduct a visual survey of
the EDSP area to identify and map vie�vsheds.
Jordayi Silbarerr: No new or more significant aesthetic resource impacts the 1993 EDSP
EIR�vere identified in the 2002 or 2005 Eastern Dublin Supplemental EIRs or an
Addendum documents.
City of Dublin Page 40
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Sttl�rtl�ert 3: No ne�n� or inore significant aesthetic��z�pacts �vere identified in the Subarea 3
Addenduln or the 1997 ND.
VV�zllis Ra�tch: No new or more significant im�acts to aesthetic resources were identified
in the 2005 Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR, the 2007 MND or any Addendum
docuinents prepared for this propert��.
Er�ster�l DltUli�i Sce�2ic Corridor Policies r��id Str��ldnrds. In 1996, the City of Dublin adopted
scei2ic policies and standards for the Eastern Dublill area, known as the Ectste�•�i Dl.t2�li�t
Sceaiic Co��ridor Policies rz�id Stcz�2d�rds. This document identifies the Jordan Ranch as lying
within Zone 5, the Fallon Village Open Space area. This corridor area is defined
primarily by lands adjacent to public rights-of-way, which should be park, rural
residential, open slopes or riparian drainage areas.
Policy 11 states that development should "celebrate open space, with distant views as
well as with foreground vie�v and right-of-way landscaping."
The proposed project�vill be required to adhere to all applicable initigation ineasures
from previous EIRs and other land use regul�tions dealing with aesthetics, visual
conditions and light and glare.
Project ImUacts
a) Hi�ve a s1��bstr��itial r�dverse i�»pr�ct o1i rt sce»ic vistr�? No New Impact. Approval and
iinplenlentation ot tl�e proposed project would result in no new or significant
severe impacts regarding scenic vistas, since no scenic vistas currently exist on
aily of the Subareas.
Approval and implenleiltation of tlle�roject �NOUId relocate an approved school
site frorn th� eastern portion of the Jordan Ranc11 to a site on the south side of
Central Parkway. A proposed Community Park in this location would be
eliininated. However, the proposed School would be constructed with a joint
public park that would allow a public gathering place and views of nearby
hillsides and other features.
Proposed public parks on Subarea 3 and the Wallis Ranch project would facilitate
t11e public's ability to view scenic vistas.
No new or substantially more severe impacts regarding substantial adverse
impacts on scenic vistas have been identified with regard to the proposed Project
that have not been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or other CEQA
documents.
b) Sl�bst��itir�lly dcr»Zr��e sce�iic reso��rces, i�TClTidi�ig visttr�l resoi.�rces �vithi�i stcrte sce2iic
ltigltwcry? No New Iinpact. All of the Subareas have been graded as part of
approved adjacent development projects (Jordan Ranch, Subarea 3 and �Nallis
Ranch), so that no scenic resources exist on these Subareas.
City of Dublin Page 41
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Appr�val and implementation of the proposed project�vould result in a public
schoal on the south side of Central Parl«vay, ��vhich is currently designated for a
Comrnunity Park. Vie�vs of the proposed school �vould be largely blocked by a
range of small hills that exist nortll of I-580 ancl south of Central Park�n�ay. No
other major structures would be allo�ved by the project that���ould result in a
substantial damage to scenic resources, including any resources located adjacent
to a state or local scenic high�vay.
All of the mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and visual
policies contained in the EDSP would apply to the current project. The Project
would result in no new or substantially more severe significant impacts
regarding scenic resources than have been analyzed in the prior CEQA
documents.
c) Sx2�str�ritic�lly c�eg��rrde existifig vis1��R1 dim•rreter oa� tlie quc�li�y of tlle site? No New
Impact. The proposed Project includes consideration of a General Plan
Amertdment and Eastern DuUlin Specific Plan Amendment that`vould relocate
approved uses (Jordan Ranch Subarea) and reduce future potential development
on the Subarea 3 site and the Wallis Ranch Subarea. All ot the Subareas have
been graded and no significant visual resources remain. The Eastern Dublin EIR
addr�ssed the following potential impacts related to visual and aesthetics
impacts of implemeilting the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan:
Impact 3.8/B: Urban developinent of the project site will substantially alter
the existing rural and open space qualities tllat characterize Eastern Dublin
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following measure to mitigate this inlpact
Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0, "Implement t11e land use plan for the Project site
whicll einphasizes retention of predominant natural features..." However, the
EIR concluded that even with adherence to this mitigation, alteration of rural and
open space in the Project area would remain a potentially significant impact.
With adherence to Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies to protect visual
resources in Eastern Dublin and appropriate Eastern Dublin EIR initigation
measures, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts than
analyzed in previous CEQA documents that affect the three Subareas.
d) CreRte light or gla��e? No New Iinpact. The three subareas contain no light sources
and construction of tl�e proposed project would add additional light sources on
the Jordan Ranch Subarea in the form of streetlights along collector and interior
roads, lighting associated with school uses, as well as new housing and yard
lights. Additional lights would be installed within future parks in the Wallis
Ranch Subarea.
For the Jordan Ranch subarea, the potential effect of increased light and glare
was analyzed in the Initial Studies for the 2002 SEIR (p. 77) and the 2005 SEIR.
City of Dublin Page 42
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
These anal5�ses concluded tllat no signiticant light and �Iare iinpacts would
result frozn development of t�1e EDSP in the Pallon Village area, including the
Jordan Ranch property.
No lighting �NOUId be installed on the proposed parl<on the Subarea 3 site.
The Initial Study adopted as part of the EIR for the Wallis Ranch Subarea found
that the potential for significant light and glare impacts from build-out of the
overall VVallis Raiuh would be less-than-significant (p. 28).
City development requirements to restrict spillover of unwanted light�vill apply
to t11is proposed Project. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts have been identified with respect to ligllt and �lare iinpacts
than have been previously analyzed in prior CEQA documents.
2, Agricultural & Forestry Resources
Enviroiullental Settin� and Previous CEQA Docuinents
Figure 3.1-B contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR identities the three Subareas as "lands
ot locally important farinlands."
�DSP Impact 3.1/F fotuld t11at the cunlulative loss of agricultural lailds was a
significailt and unavoidable ii�npact of urban development in the Eastern Dublin
planning area. Inlpact 3.1/C found the discontinuance of agricultural operations to be
less-than-significant.
No other iin�acts with respecr to priine agricultural lands for any of tlle tree Subareas
beyond those analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR.
None of t11e Subareas contain any significant trees or forests.
Project Impacts
a,c) Co�lvert pri�rie frrr�nla�id to a ��o�i-ng��ici.iltt�r�rl t�se or iaivolve otlie�� cJirt�iges zulticli coi�ld
��esult i�t conversio�t of fr�r�mlmtd to rr �io�i-r�g��iclslti���nl T.�se ? No New Inlpact. None of
the land encompassed in the three Subareas are currently used for agricultural
production. Future uses of the various Subareas as parks, a school and/or
residential land uses would therefore not result in such a conversion. Therefore,
approval and impleinentation of the proposed project would result in no new or
substantially more severe significant impacts tllan have been analyzed in prior
CEQA documents.
b) Co��iflict wifli existi�ig zo���itig for ng��ici.�ltl.��-r�l lise, o��r� Williat�isoti Act co�ifi��crct? No
Ne�v Iinpact. Two of the three Subareas coinprising the project are presently
zoned for non-agricultural urban uses and would not conflict with any existing
agricultural zoiung and would not conflict�vith aily Williamson Act Agreenlents.
City of Dublin Page 43
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Sttbarea 3 is presently designated for IZural Residential/Agricultural Iand use
and ��Tould be converted to future Park.
Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts would result w�ith respect
to these topics than have been previously analyzed.
d) Resi�li`iii tlie loss of forest lcznd or eo�zversio�i of forest la�2d to c� �ion forest i.tse?
No Iinpact. No forest land exists on any of the project Subareas and no
impact would result �vith respect to this topic. No additional analysis is
required.
d) Ia�volve otlzer dir�liges zvltich, di�{e to tlzeir locatio�i or�ic�ture, coi�ld resi.tlt of forest
Imzd tu �c �io�z forest T�se? No Impact. See item "d," above.
3. Air Quality
Back�round. The project is located in tlle San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
Ambient air quality standards have been established at Uoth the State and
FederalleveL The Bay Area meets all ambient air quality standards with the
exception of ground-level ozone, respirable particulate inatter (PMlo) and fine
particulate matter (PMz�).
High ozone levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic
gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). These precursor pollutants react under
certain meteorological conditions to form high ozone levels. Controlling the
emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area's attempts to
reduce ozone levels. Highest ozone levels in the Bay Area occur in the eastern
ai�d southern inland valleys t11at are downwind of air pollutant sources. High
ozone levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduced lung
function, and increase coughing and chest discornfort.
Particulate r�latter is another problematic air pollutant in t11e Say Area.
Particulate matter is assessed and measured in terins of respirable particulate
matter or particles that have a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM,o) and fine
particulate matter where particles have a diaineter of 2.5 micrometers or less
(PMZ s). Elevated concentrations of PM,o and PM,5 are the result of both region-
wide (or cumulative) emissions and localized emissions. High particulate matter
levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung function,
increase mortality (e.g., lung cancer), and result in reduced lung function growth
in children.
The ambient air quality in a given area depends on the quantities of pollutants emitted
�vithin the area, transport of pollutants to and from surrounding areas, local and
regional meteorological conditions, as well as the surrounding topography of the air
basin. Air quality is described by the concentration of various pollutants in the
City of Dublin Page 44
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
atnlosphere. Units ot concentration are ge��erally expressed in parts per million (p�m)
or micrograms per cubic meter (F�g/m'). The project is located jvitllin the Livermore
��alley. The Liverinore Valley forms a sinall sub regional air basin distinct from the
larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Livermore Valley air basin is surrounded
on all sides by high hills or mountains. Significant breaks in the 1lills surrounding the
air basin are Niles Canyon and the San Ramon Valley, ���hich extends north�vard into
Contra Costa CoLU1ty.
T11e terrain of the Livermore-Aznador Valley influences both the cliinate and air
pollution potential of the sub-regional air basin. As an inland, protected valley, the area
has generally lighter �n�inds and a higher frequency of calm conditions �vhen coznpared
to the greater Bay Area.
The occurrence ot episodes ot 11igh atmospheric stability, lvlown as inversion
conditions, severely liinits the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants vertically.
Inversions can be found dLlring all seasons in t�1e Bay Area, but are particularly
prevalent in the summer months when they are present about 90%G of the tiine in both
znorning and afternoon.
According to the Bay Area Air Quality Manageinent District (BAAQMD), air�ollution
potential is high in the Livermore Valley, especially for ozone ii1 the suinmer and fall.
High teinperatures increase the potential for ozone, and the valley not only traps locally
generated pollutants btrt can be the receptor of ozone and ozone precursors from
upvvind portions of the greater Bay Area. Transport of pollutants also occurs bet���een
the Liverinore Valley and the San Joaquin Valley to the east.
During the winter, the sheltering effect of terrain and its inland location results in
frequeilt surface-based inversions. Under these coilditions pollutants such as
carbon nlonoxide froin autoinobiles and particulate inatter generated by
fireplaces and agricultural burrzing can become concentrated.
Natio�zal and state ainbient air qualitv standards. As required by the Federal
Clean Air Act, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been
established for six inajor air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide
(NO�), ozone (03), particulate matter, including respirable particulate matter
(PM,o) and fine particulate inatter (PM,5), sulfur oxides, and lead. Pursuant to t]Ze
California Clean Air Act, the State of California has established the California
Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Relevant Current State and Federal
standards are suminarized in Table 2. CAAQS are generally the same or more
stringent than NAAQS.
Air Quality Monitorin�Data. The sigi-�ificance of a pollutant concentration is
deterinined by comparing the concentration to an appropriate ambierlt air
quality standard. The standards represent the a11o�Nable pollutant concentrations
designed to ei�sure that the public health and welfare are protected, while
including a reasonaUle margin of safety to protect the more sensitive individuals
in tlle population. The San Francisco Bay Area is considered to be one of the
City of Dublin Page 45
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
cleanest metropolitan areas in the country with respect to air quality. BAAQMD
monitors air quality conditions at more than 20 locations throughout the Bay
Area. The closest monitoring station to the project site is in Livermore at the 793
Rincon Avenue monitoring station. Summarized air pollutant data for this
station is provided in Table 3. This table shows the highest air pollutant
concentrations measured at the station over the three-year period from 2012
through 2014. Note that BAAQMD discontinued monitoring of carbon monoxide
in 2009 at this station. These data show that ozone levels exceeded State or
federal standards each year over the past three years. The PM�.S 24-hour
standard was exceeded in 2013 and 2014.
Ambient Air Quality Status. Areas with air pollutant levels that exceed adopted
air quality st:andards are designated as "nonattainment" areas for the relevant air
pollutants. Nonattainment areas are sometimes further classified by degree
(marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme for ozone, and moderate and
serious for carbon monoxide and PMlo) or status ("nonattainment-traizsitional").
Areas that comply with air quality standards are designated as "attainment"
areas for the relevant air pollutants. "Unclassified" areas are those with
insufficient ��ir quality inonitoring data to support a designation of attainment or
nonattaininent, but are generally presumed to meet the ambient air quality
standard. State Implementation Plans must be prepared by states for areas
designated as federal nonattainment areas to demonstrate how the area �vill
come into attainment of the exceeded federal ambient air quality standard. The
Bay Area is considered a marginal nonattainment area for ozone under the
NAAQS and nonattaininent for ozone under the CAAQS (both 1- and 8-hour
standards). The Bay Area is also designated as nonattainment for the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. The Bay Area is also considered nonattainment for the State
annual PM2�, standard and the 24-hour PMlo standard. The region is designated
attainment or uiulassified for all other ambient air qtrality standards.
Sensitive Rece�tors. There are groups of people more affected by air pollution
than others. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has identified the
following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children
under 14, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and
chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive receptors.
Locations t11at may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population
groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities,
elementary schools, and parks. The closest sensitive receptors are newly
constructed on-site residences on the west site of Sunset View Drive, northwest
of the projec� construction site. Additional residences are located at farther
distances from the site to the east, west, and north.
City of Dublin Page 46
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Ta�Ie 2. Fte�evaytt C�la�or�tia �nd Nationai A�bie�1#Air Qualit� Standards
Polluta�t Averaging Time California Standards National Standards
8-hour 0.070 ppm 0.075 ppin
Ozone (137 µg/in3) (147,ug/ln��
1-hour 0.09 ppm —
(180 �tg/m3)
1-hour 20 ppm 35 ppm
Carbon (23 mg/in3) (40 mg/n1')
monoxide 8-hour 9.0 ppin 9 ppm
(10 m�/m3) (10 in�/in�)
1-hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm
Nitrogen (339 µg/m�) (188 µg/m3)
dioxide Annual 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm
(57 Eta/m�) (100 µ /m�)
Sulfur Dioxide 1-hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppin
(655 µ /m�) (196 µ /in�)
2�-hour 0.04 ppin 0.14 ppm
(105 ��/in3) (365 �t /in�)
Annual — 0.03 ppin
(56 E� /m�)
Particulate Annual 20 � /m3 —
Matter (PM��,) 24-hour 50 �a/m3 150 �l /m�
Particulate Annual 12 µ /m' 12 ,u /m3
M�tter (PM,,$) 24-hour — 35 �� /m�
ource: an , 15.
Notes: ppm = parts per million mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter �g/m3 = micrograms
per cubic meter
Toxic Air Contan2inants. Toxic air co�ltaminants (TAC) are a broad class of
compounds lalown to cause morbidity or mortality (usually because they cause
cancer). TACs are found in ainbieilt air, especially in urban areas, aild are caused
by industry, agriculture, fuel coinbustion, and coinnlercial operations (e.g., diy
cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source
(e.g., diesel particulate matter near a freeway). Because chronic exposure can
result ii2 adverse 1lealth effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, state, aild
Federal level.
City of Dublin Page 47
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Table. 3. Highest Measured Air Pollutant Concentrations at Livermore Station
Station
Measured Air Pollutant Levels
Average 2012 2013 2014
Pollutant Time
1-Hour 0.102 ppm 0.096 ppm 0.093 ppm
Ozone (03)
8-HOttr 0.090 ppm 0.077 ppm 0.080 ppm
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8-Hour ND ND ND
1-Hour 0.053 ppin 0.051 ppm 0.0�9 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide (NOz)
Annual 0.010 ppm 0.011 ppm 0.010 ppm
Respirable Particulate 24-Hour ND ND ND
Matter (PM,�) Annual ND N� ND
Fine Particulate Matter 24-Hour 31.1 ug/n,3 40.1 ug/m3 42.9 ug/m3
(PMZ s) Annual 6.6 ug/�n3 8.4 ug/m' 7.6 ug/m3
Source: CARB, 2015.
Notes: ppm = parts per million and ug/m3= micrograms per cubic meter.
Values reported in bold exceed ambient air quality standard.
ND = �lo data.
Diesel exhaust is the predoininant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent
about three-quarters of the cancer risk froin TACs (based on the Bay Area
average). According to the CARB, diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases,
vapors aild fine particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects
of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some of the cllemicals in diesel
exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as
TACs by the CARB, and are listed as carcinogens either under the state's
Proposition 65 or under the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants programs.
CARB has aclopted and impleinented a nuinber of regulations for stationary and
mobile sources to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM). Several of
these regulatory programs affect medium and heavy duty diesel trucks that
represent the bulk of DPM emissions from California highways. These
regulations include the solid waste collection vehicle (SWCV) rule, in-use public
and utility fleets, and the heavy-duty diesel truck and bus regulations. In 2008,
CARB approved a new regulation to reduce emissions of DPM and nitrogen
oxides from existing on-road heavy-duty diesel fueled vehicles.l The regulation
requires affected vehicles to meet specific performance requirements between
2012 and 2023, with all affected diesel vehicles required to have 2010 inodel-year
� Available online: htt�:!;'G���1����.��rb.ca �_=o��:��m�pro«%onrdie5cl!o��rclie�cl htm. Accessed: July 8,2015.
City of Dublin Page 48
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
eizgines or equivalent vy 2023. These iequirements are phased in over t11e
compliance period a�zd depend on the inoclel year of the vehicle.
BAAQMD. The BAAQMD is the regional agency tasked �n�ith znanaging air
quality in t11e region. At the State level, CARS (a part of t11e California
Environmental Protection Agency) oversees regional air distiict activities and
regulates air quality at tlle State level. The BAAQMD published CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines are used in tlus assessment to evaluate air quality iinpacts of
proj ects.
Previous CEQA documents
Er�ster�2 Dl�bli�i EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR ailalyzed both construction and operational
iinpacts and contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated air quality
impacts from implementation of the General Plan and EDSP project. These include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 reduced project construction dust impacts
(IM 3.11/A) to less than significant through measures such as watering
construction sites, covering exposed construction surfaces and trucks, and
cleaning constructioil vehicles. The cunlulative impact remained
sigrtificant and unavoidable.
• Mitigation Measures 3.11/2.0-4.0 reduced proj�ct and cuinulative impacts related
to vehicle einission fi oin construction equipinent (IM 3.11/B) but not to a less-
than-sig�lificant level. These mitigations require emission control froin on-site
equipment, completion of a constructioil iinpact reduction�lan and others. Even
wit11 adhereilce to tl�ese initigations, this iinpact remained significant and
unavoidable.
• Mitigation Measures 3.11/5.0-11.0 reduced mobile source emissions from POG
arzd NOx (IM 3.11/C) but not to a less-than-sig�lificant level. Mitigation measures
require coordination of growth with transportation plans and other ineasures,
inany of which are at a policy (not a project) level. Even wit11 adherence to
adopted mitigations, IM 3.11/C renlained sigilificant and unavoidable.
• Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0-13.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts
related to stationary source emissions (IM 3.11/E) but not to a less-than-
significant level. The t�vo adopted initigations require reduction of stationary
source einissions to the extent feasible by use of energy conservation techniques
and recycling of solid �vaste material. Even wit11 adherence to the two measures,
stationary source emissions remained significant and unavoidable.
2002 F�zllo�i Villr�ge SEIR (Jorc�c�T7 Rrrtzcli). The 2002 Supplemei�tal EIR found t�vo
supplemental air quality im�acts, as follows:
• Suppleinental Impact AQ-1 found that mobile source emissions of Reactive
Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) and Particulate Matter (PM-10)
City of Dublin Page 49
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
�vould be significant as related to the overall EDPO Project. Even wit11 adherence
to the Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures, these emissions �vould be a
significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.
• Supplemental Impact AQ-2 found that emission of carbon monoxide that�vould
be generated froin vehicle trips as a result of project buildout�NOUld not exceed
local, state or federal standards for emission of carbon monoxide. This impact
�vas therefore less-than-significant.
2005 Frzllo�i Villrrge SEIR (Jo��dr��i Rrz��dt). The 2005 Supplemental EIR found three
supplemental air quality impacts, as follows:
• Supplemerltal Impact SM-AQ-1 identified supplemental impacts with respect to
consh-uction related air quality impacts and that the overall development
envelope associated with the Fallon Village project was larger than analyzed in
previous CEQA documents. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation SM-AQ-1
requires more stringent measures to be undertaken by individual developers in
the Fallon Village area to reduce construction air quality impacts to a less-than-
significant level.
� Supplemental Impacts SM-AQ-2 and SM-AQ-3 found that regional air emissions
associated with vehicle trips in the overall Fallon Village project area would
exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors. The SEIR
included Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-2 to reduce these impacts,
ho�vever, the items included in this Supplemental Mitigation Measure would not
reduce regional einissions below BAAQMD standards and these impacts
remained significant and unavoidable.
2005 Wrrllis Rcz�zcli SEIR. This docunleilt identified t11e following significant
suppleinental impacts and suppleinental air quality mitigation measures.
• Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1 reduced impacts related to construction
einission from construction activities (Suppleinental Impact AQ-1) to a
less-tltan-significant level. Specific items listed in this measure rec�uired
contractors to cover stockpiles of debris, sweep paved access roads and
parlcing areas and construction staging areas and install sandbags or
equivalent to prevent silt runoff from construction areas.
• Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-2 reduced Supplemental Impact AQ-2 but
not to a less-than-significant level. Supplemental Impact AQ-2 noted that
the project would result in a regional emission increase exceeding
BAAQMD thresholds for emission of ozone precursors. Mitigation
Measure SM-AQ-2 required the project proponent to coordinate with the
regional public transit provider to extend service the site along witll
transit improvements, the project developer to provide bike paths and
sidewalks, consider a local shuttle service to regional transit hubs and
City of Dublin Page 50
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
consider installing a telecoinznute center. Even�vith adherence to all of
these features, this i�npact would reinain significant and unav�idable.
� Supplemental Impact AQ-3 noted that project emissions of ozone would
exceed t11e BAAQNID threshold of significance for this pollutant.
Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-2�vould partially
but not fully reduce this iinpact to a less-than-significant level and this
impact tvould remain significant and unavoidable.
No significant air quality impacts were identified in the Subarea 3 CEQA docuinent.
The proposed project will be required to coinply witll applicable mitigation measures
set forth in previous CEQA documents.
Pro�ect Im�acts
a) Wou�lc� t]ie project co�tflict witli or obstrl.�ct i�lTplenze�itrrtio�i of�r�i c�i�� r�l.�c�lity plcrti? No
New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.11/E regarding increased
stationary source air einissions from future development of Eastern DuUlin that
would remain significant even�vith implementation of Mitigation Measures
3.11/12.0 �nd 13.0. The Eastern Dublin EIR also assuined increased development
in other areas, such as the San Joac�uin Valley, and relateci cozi�inutes to tl�e Bay
Area, and ideiltified cumulative inobile source impact IM 3.11/C as significant and
unavoidable, even atter mitigation. Upoi1 approval of the Eastern Dublin General
Plan Ainei�dment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the City adopted a Stateinent
ot Overriding Considerations for these two iinpacts.
The Bay Area Air Quality Manageinent District's (ABAG) Clean Air Plan is
�redicated on population projections for local agencies within the District based on
ABAG's regional population projections, which, in turn is based oi1 a compilation
of local agency general plan docurnents. Development allowed under the
proposed project would be generally consistent witl.l the type and amount of
developinent allowed under the Dublin Geileral Plai� and the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan although it could contain slightly inore resideiltial units than
currently approved (35 units, see Table 1). Previous approvals in 2005 for the
overall Jordan Ranch property included developinent of up to 1,064 dwellings, as
analyzed in the 2005 SEIR, as opposed to the 899 dwellings currently being
considered on the overall Jordan Ranch �roperty plus a 900-student Elementary
School.
There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts
with respect to conflicts with the regional air quality plan than has been previously
analyzed in prior CEQA documents.
b) Wot�ld tlie project violate r��1�y r�i�� qt�iality str���ldaa�c�s? No New Iinpact. The air quality
analysis focuses on the proposed 950-student elementary and middle school
development, since this project eleinent�vould generate the most vehicular traffic
City of Dublin Page 51
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
and contain future sensitive air quality receptors. Other project elements would
include local parks that��ould generate ininimal velucular traffic.
Project and cumulative air emission im�acts. The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR
identified emission of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
from vehicles as a significant and unavoidable impact (Impact IM 3.11/C).
Although the EIR identified several possible measures to mitigate this impact,
includi�g but not limited to implementation of a transportation demand program,
encouragement of mixed-use developments and similar measures, any reduction
of mob�_le source emissions could not be reduced to less-than-significant levels.
This conclusion was reiterated in the 2002 and 2005 SEIR documents as well as the
2010 Addendum as related to the Jordan Ranch property.
Construction air im�acts. The current BAAQMD significance thresllold for
construction dust impact is based on the appropriateness of construction dust
controls. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air
pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less-than-
significant. Mitigation Measure MM 3.11/1.0 in the East Dublin EIR identifies the
construction controls that provide reduction of air emissions during construction
phases of development projects and the Project applicant will be required to
adhere to these requireinents. Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0
has been supplemented with 2005 SEIR Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1 to ensure
that current BAAQMD construction air quality impacts are reduced to a less-
than-significant leveL There would therefore be no new or substantially more
severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has Ueen previously
analyzed in prior CEQA documents.
Air pollutant emissions were not quantified in the 2012 Initial Study for
Jordan Ranch Phase 2. For comparison, a model run was conducted for the
2014 Approved uses, which induded: 550-shxdent "Elementary School,"
19.6 acres entered as "City Park," 513 dwelling units entered as "Single-
Family Housing," 238 d�velling units entered as "Apartments Low Rise," 61
dwelling units entered as "Congregate Care," and 35,000 square feet of
retail entered as "Strip Mall." A construction build-out scenario, including
CaIEEMod default equipment list and phasing schedule for a project of this
type and size was used. As shown in Table 4, construction of the 2014
Approved uses would also not exceed BAAQMD thresholds, though
emissions would be slightly increased over the proposed project.
Construction activities, particularly during site preparation and grading
would temporarily generate fugitive dust in the form of PMIO and PMZ.S.
Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction
site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly
controll�d, vehicles leaving the site would deposit mud on local streets,
which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. Fugitive
dust emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and
magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions. Fugitive
City of Dublin Page 52
Initial Study/Eas�tern Dublin Properties August 2015
dust ei��issions ivould also depend on soil nloisture, silt content of soil, �vind
speed, and the alnount of ec�uip�zlent operating. Larger dust particles �n�oulcl
settle near the source, ���hile fine particles would be dispersed over greater
distances from the construcfion site.
Table 4. Construction �'eriod Emassions
PMlo 1'Mzs
Scenario ROG NOx Exllaust Exhaust
Total Construction emissions ?0.42 tons 52.89 tons 2.18 tons 2.03 tons
(tons)
Average daily emissions 9.8 lbs. 25.41Us. 1.0 lUs. 1.0 lbs.
( ounds)'
BAAQMD Thl�eslzolds (�oa�lzds per 54 lbs. 54 lbs. 82 lbs. 54 lbs.
da1�)
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
2014 A roval 11.3 lbs. 30.21bs. 1.21bs. 1.1 lbs.
Notes:
'Assunles 4,160 workdays.
EDSP EIR air quality Mitig�tion Measure 3.11/1.0 and Supplenlental
Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1 from t11e 2005 Fallon Village SEIR provides
specific methods for reduction of fugitive dust from constniction sites. Tl�e
BAAQMD has adopted updated measures to furtller reduce construction
level impacts. and future project developer{s) of individual projects within
t11e three subareas will be required as a conditioi� of pioject approval to
impleinent tlze most current BAAQMD dust r�duction methods.
No new or more severe significant air quality impacts would result
regarding violation of aii quality standards tlzan have been previously
ai�alyzed.
c) Wo1�ld tlle �roject resi�lt r�i cr��nTil�fiveli� co�isider�vle rr�r �olll�itr��its? No New Iinpact.
See itein "b."
c�,e) Ex-��ose se�isitrve receptors to si���Tific��it polli�trrr2t co�ice�2t��crtio�7�s or crente objectio�irr2�le
odol-s? No New Impact. A portion of the proposed project (Subarea 1) would
incluc�e approval and construction of a 950-student elementary school and iniddle
school on an 11.1-acre site located on the south side of Central Parkway east of
Fallon Road. The school would be occupied during a portion of the day by young
children that are sensitive receptors. Adllerence to Mitigation Measure 3.11/10
supplemented by Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1 and current
BAAQMD standard measures for dust control, this impact would remain less-
than-significant.
The proposed park in Subarea 3 zvould be located in a generally topographically
steep area and used as a natural, passive park. Few users of the park are theretore
anticipated that would expose a significant number of people to significant
City of Dublin Page 53
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
pollutant concentrations. T11e t-wo proposed park sites on the Wallis Ranch
Subarea are not located near regional free�-vays or znajor road�vays that would
result in exposure of a significant number of users to significant pollutant
concentrations.
None c�f the existing or proposed uses �NOUId, by their nature, generate significant
pollutant concentrations or objectionable odors. Therefore, significant impacts on
adjacerit sensitive residence uses �vould not result and there �nTould be no new or
substaritially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has
been previously analyzed in prior CEQA docLiments.
4. Biological Resources
Environmental Settin�
Plant and wzldlife resources for the three Subareas were analyzed in the Eastern Dublin
EIR as well as CEQA documents for each of the Subareas. All of the previous CEQA
documents also analyzed wildlife and riparian resources, fish and wildlife corridors
and cumulative impacts to biological resources.
Plant coinmunities. Five habitat types have been identified on the various Subareas.
These include:
A�ui�.ir�l gr�zsslrr�ids. Annual grasslands consist of grass and forb species suc11 a wild
oat, soft chess, ripgut brome, thistle and similar species.
Wetln7lds. A number of seasonal and perennial wetlands, seeps and others waters are
present on portions of the Jordan Ranch Subarea, but likely not on the other two
Subareas.
Ri�a��ir�n. Riparian habitat was observed in the southwestern corner of the site at the
confluence of three swales on the Jordan Ranch Subarea. A number of willow trees
form a dense to moderately dense canopy over the lower reaches of the swale area.
Stock�o�zd/or��i�r»ietitrrl potid. Three stock ponds are found within the drainage swales
located o�1 the Jordan Ranch Subarea. A 0.29-acre pond is the largest of the ponds
and is surrounded riparian vegetation, such as cattails, coinmon rush and fiddle
dock. No ponds have been identified on other Subareas.
Developed/Ic��idscaped. A portion of Jordan Ranch Subarea was formerly occupied by
the residence and associated outbuildings, since demolished. This Subarea is
characterized by non-native ornamental landscaping, such as eucalyptus trees,
juniper and similar material. Other Subareas remain vacant/
S�eci�rl-statT.�s s�ecies a�id Itabitats
City of Dubiin Page 54
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
AIl three Subareas ��ave been �rac�ed pursuant to grading permits issued by the City of
Dublin and any former special-status plants, wildlife species or habitats have been fully
initigated pursuant to certifiect or approved CEQA docunleizts.
Previous CEQA docL�inents
The regulatory fraine�vork for this Project includes previous EIRs and regulations for
protection of biological resources.
Enste���i Dtttili3i EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR coi�tains a number of mitigation ineasures
to reduce anticipated irnpacts to biological resources froin the General Plan and EDSP
project Tllese include:
• Mitigation Measures 3.7/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts related to direct habitat loss
(IM 3.7/A) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigations require
minimization of direct habitat loss due to development, preparation of
vegetation management and enhancement plans and development of a grazing
nlanagement plan by the City of Dublin.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0 reduced impacts related to indirect loss of vegetation
removal (IM 3.7/B) to a less-than-significant leveL Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0
requires revegetation of graded or disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
• I��litigation Measures 3.7/6.0-17.0 reduced in�pacts related to loss or degradation
of botanically sensitive habitats (IM 3.7/C) to a less-than-significlnt leveL These
measures require a wide ra�zge of steps to be taken by future developers to
minimize impacts to sensitive habitat areas, including preserving natur�l stream
corridors, illcorporating natural greenbelts and open space into developine�zt
projects, preparation ot illdividual wetland delineations, prepaiation of
individual erosion and sediinentation plans and siinilar actions.
• Mitigation Measures 3.7/18.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to t11e San Joaquin lcit
fox (IM 3.7/D) to a less-th�n-signiticant level. These measures require
consultation �vith appropriate regulatory agencies regarding the possibility of kit
fox on project sites and preparation of and adherence to a kit fox protection plan.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7/28.0 reduced iznpacts related to special status
invertebrates (IM 3.7/S) to a less-than-significant level. This rneasure requires
coinpletion of special surveys for individual species prior to site disturbance.
The Eastern Dublin EIR also addresses potential impacts and mitigation ineasures
regarding bald eagle, peregrine falcons, red-legged frog, California tiger salamander,
western pond ttirtle the prairie falcon, northern 1larrier, black-shouldered kite, sharp-
shizuled hawk, Cooper's hawk, short-eared owl and California horned lizard, as well as
other protected species.
City of Dublin Page 55
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
The proposed projecf���ill be required to adhere to applicable biological resoLZrce
initigation zrieasures contained in t11e Eastern Dublin EIR.
2002 Sa��plef�ie�itc�l EIR (Jordn�i Ra�icli). This EIR identified a large nunlber of
supplemental biological mitigation lneasures for the entire Fallon Village project area,
including the jordan Ranch Subarea . T11ese are identified as Suppleinental Mitigation
Measures SM-BIO-1 through SM-BIO-45. The supplemental mitigation measures
require completion of rare plant and wildlife surveys, preparation of a Resource
Management Plan (RMP), avoid or replace wetlands.
2005 ST��pplet�lefTt (Jordc�li Rr��zclt). This Supplement identifies additional supplemental
impacts and mitigation measures, as listed below, for the Fallon Village project area,
including the Jordan Ranch Subarea. A number of the supplemental mitigation
measures are revisions to mitigation measures contained in earlier EIRs. Supplemental
mitigation ineasures are:
• Mitigation Measure SM-SIO-1 rec�uires the restoration or enhancement of
riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio (on an acreage basis), preferably within the
propased aquatic and buffer zone or corridor zone manageinent areas on-site. If
mitigation �vithin the Project area is not feasible, then the developer shall
mitigate impacts to central coast riparian scrub through the restoration or
enhanceinent of riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio (measured by acreage) at an off-site
location acceptable to the City.
• Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2 rec�uires that if avoidance is infeasible, then
initigation lands providing siinilar or better habitat for CRLF shall be preserved
and protected in perpefiuity.
• Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-3 requires individual developers of parcels to create
and/or enlarge suitable breeding ponds at a 2:1 ratio, in or adjacent to areas
currently supporting CTS and with sufficient surrounding upland habitat to
provide a high likelihood of establishment and persistence of a breeding
population.
• Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-4 requires developers of individual parcels to
acquire, preserve, and manage suitable upland habitat at a 1:1 ratio in or adjacent
to areas currently supporting CTS and within 2200 feet of a suitable breeding
pond.
• Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-1 (revised) rec�uires special steps to be taken by
individual developers if special-status plants cannot be avoided during project
construction.
• Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2 (revised) rec�uires that during the breeding season
(February 1-August 31) prior to submittal of Stage 2 development proposals for a
particular parcel, or during a subsequent breeding season but prior to the
initiation of construction, a survey shall be conducted according to CDFG
City of Dublin Page 56
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
protocols to determine �ti�hetller Burrozving O�nTls are presel�t, and if present, t11e
number of nestin�pairs of Burrotnring Owls present on the parcel.
• Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-3 (revised) requires pre-construction surveys far
burro���ing o��Tls be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to any ground
disturbance bet�Neen September 1 and January 31.
• Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-4 (revised) requires that if corlstruction is scheduled
during the burrowing o�vl nesting season (February 1 — August 31), pre-
construction surveys should be conducted on the entire site-specific Project area
and within 500 feet of such Project area prior to any ground disturbance. A
minimum buffer (at least 250 feet) shall be maintained during the breeding
season around active burrowing owl nesting.
• Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-5 (revised) requires that if destruction of occupied
(breeding or non-breeding season) burrowing owl burro�vs, or any burrows that
�vere found to be occupied during pre-construction surveys, is unavoidable, a
strategy will be developed to replace such burrows by enhancing existing
burro�vs or creating artificial burrows at a 2:1 ratio.
The proposed project will be required to comply with applicable initigation ineasures
set forth in previous EIRs.
Resol�n�ce Mr�farrge�tle�tt Plmi (RMP) (Jot�c���t Rrr�idi S�tibc�rea). Consultants working for the
City of Dublin completed a Resource Manageinent Plan in 2004 for the Fallon Village
overall area. Conlpletion of the RMP was rec�uired as a result of Supplemental
Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-1 contained in the 2002 Supplemental EIR. T11e RMP
evaluated potential inlpacts to sensitive biological resources on tlle Eastern Dublin
Property O�vners' area, an approximately 1120-acre area that was analyzed in both t11e
2002 and 2005 Supplemental EIRs. T11e RMP includes a compreheilsive analysis of
seilsitive plant and wildlife species within the area, poteiltial habitat for such species
and the presence of wetlands and other �vaters. The RMP also includes a constraints
analysis to guide future development of properties included in t11e RMP study area.
2005 Dl.�bli�i Ralicli West SEIR (Wr�llis S��br�rerz). Chapter 4.3 of this SEIR contained
a comprehensive update regarding potential species and identified the following
significant biological impacts.
• Supplemental Iinpact BIO-1 noted an impact to California Tiger
Salainander (CTS) species. Suppleinental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-1
through BIO-7 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by
requiring preparation of a CTS Management Plan, installation of a barrier
fence, conducting CTS larval studies, acquiring compensatory CTS
estivation 1labitat area, coinpletion of an Open Space Manageinent Plan,
appointment of a biological resource monitor during construction and
providing biological resource education to construction staff.
City of Dublin Page 57
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
• Supplemental Impact BIO-2 found a signiticant impact with respect to
California red-legged frogs (CRLF). This impact�n�as reduced to a less-
than-significant level through adherence to Supplemental Mitigation
Meas�ures SM-BIO-8 though BIO-10. These supplemental measures
requi�red CRLF avoidance measures during prior to alzd during
construction, provision of coinpensatory upland and dispersal habitat
land and limitations on grading activities during the rainy season.
• Supplemental Iinpact BIO-3 noted an impact regarding breeding birds.
Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-5 through 7 and
11 and 12 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by limiting
tree removal to appropriate times of the year, establishing buffers around
trees 1Nith nests and conducting pre-construction surveys for protected
birds prior to construction.
• Supplemental Impact BIO-4 noted an impact with regard to bat species.
Adhe:rence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-5 through 7 and
13 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level Uy requiring
preco:nstruction surveys for bat species. If occupied bat nests are found, a
qualified biologist shall implement an exclusion plan to prevent further
occupancy.
• Supplemental Impact BIO-5 found an impact with respect to Burrowing
O�vls. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-5
through 7 and 14 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by
requiring preconstruction surveys for owl species, limiting construction
periods and creating alternative burrows away from construction areas.
The initigation requires the project developer to develop a management
plan f�r enhanceinent of burrows, monitoring of burrows, funding
assurance and similar measures.
• Supplemental Impact BIO-6 found an impact with loss of special-status
plants. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-5
throu�;h 7 and 15 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by
requiring compensatory habitat for loss of Congdon's tarplant lost to
construction and be requiring the project developer to prepare a detailed
mitigation and monitoring plan for this species.
• Supplemental Impact BIO-7 noted an impact regarding loss of riparian
habitat. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-5 and 6,
16 and 17 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by
mandating replacement riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio and completing a
Riparian Habitat Management Plan to compensate loss of this habitat
type. A Tree Removal and Preservation Plan is also required to protect
trees from construction activity and to require replacement trees for those
lost to construction.
City of Dublin Page 58
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
� Supplemei�tal Impact BIO-8 t�und a tenzporary impact with loss of
ac�uatic 11al�itat. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-
6 and 18 redLtced this impact to a less-th�il-significant level by requiring
all aquatic habitat to be replaced to pre-project conditions. A Restoration
Plan far Tassajara Creek�vas also required that would ininiinize impacts
to aquatic resources during construction.
No ne�v or znore significant biological resource impacts �,vere identified in the Subarea �
Addendum or ND.
The proposed project�ti�ill be required to adhere to applicable biological resource
nlitigation measures contained in t11e above documents.
Pro�ect IinUacts
a) Hrrve rz sitbstr��ztic�l ndverse il�i�act o�i a ccr2ididr�te, sensitive, o�� specirrl-str�tl.�s s�ecies? No
New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR and other applicable prior CEQA
docuinents the presence of special-status plant and �Nildlife species within the
general project area. Numerous mitigation ineasures are included in prior CEQA
documents to reduce ilnpacts to candidate, sensitive and special-status species to
a less-than significant level. These are listed above and continue to apply to the
proposed project, as applicable. Also, all of the Subareas have been graded as
part of eacll respective underlying project so tllat they have been disturbed.
Therefore, no new or inore severe impacts with respect to candidate, sensitive or
special-status species would occur than have been analyzed in the two previous
CEQA docutnents and no additional analysis is rec�uired.
The Eastern Dublin SpeciFic Plan iilcludes �olici�s to protect special status
species (Policies 6-17 and 6-20). The proposed development project will adhere to
the Specific Plan policies and all previously adopted nlitigation measures, as
applicable.
As identitied in previous EIRs tor the Eastern�Dublin area ��zd otller CEQA
docuinents for the project area, impacts associated with loss or degradation of
botanically sensitive habitats on a project and cumulative level (Eastern Dublin
EIR Impact 3.7/C, and 2002 SEIR Impact BIO 3) will remain Significant and
Unavoidable for this project as well. There would therefore be no new or
substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this iinpact t11an has
been previously analyzed in prior CEQA documents.
b, c) Hrrve r� st�bsta�itir�l adverse i��lprtct o�i ripRricr�i 11r�bitrrt or federr�lly�rotected zuetlr��Tds?
No New Impact. Wetlands and�vaters of the United States have been identified
adjacent to The Jordan Ranch Subarea. Mitigation measures 11ave been included
ii1 the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2005 SEIR to reduce such impacts to a less-
than-significant level. Property included in the Subarea 3 and the Wallis Ranch
Subarea are generally located on upland elevations and do not contain wetlands,
riparian habitat or other �vaters. There would therefore be no ne�v or
City of Dublin Page 59
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
substailtially more severe significant inlpacts with respect to tl-tis impact than has
been previously analyzed in prior CEQA doctiments.
d) I�zte�f���e with 2nove�fie�it of�iafi�e fisli or wildlife species? No New Impact. The
Wallis Ranch and Jordan Ranch Subareas �NOLiId be located on generally upland
ground elevations surrounded by existing development, proposed development
or roadways. The Subarea 3 site is linear in nature and �NOUld provide for
�vildl:ife migration. This Subarea �-vould be retained as a natural park and �vould
provide no barrier to on-site migration There would therefore be no new or
subst��ntially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has
been:previously analyzed in prior CEQA documents.
e, f) Cof2flict witli local policies or ordiaiarices pf�otecting biologicc�l resou��ces o��a�iy czdopted
Hr�bit��t Cortservc�tiorl Pln�is oi•Natur�l Co�fi»iu�zity Co�iservation Pla��is? No New
Impact. No significant standard of trees are located on any of the stibareas, since
all of the Subareas have been previously graded pursuant to approved grading
plans. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in prior
CEQ� documents.
5. Cultural Resources
E�lvironmental Settin�
The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and Supplemental EIRs contain a comprehensive listing of
historic, arcl�eological, Native American and other cultural resources in the overall
Eastern Dublin area. No structures exist on any of the three SuUareas and no evidence
of forinal or informal ceineteries 11ave been identified in any previous CEQA document
completed iri the Eastenl Dublin Planning Area.
Previous CE��A documents.
The Eastern FJJublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated
iinpacts to cultural resources from the General Plan and EDSP project Mitigation
measure applicable to this Project include:
• Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts that could be caused as a result
of disruption or destruction of identified prehistoric resources. These measures
require approval of a prograin for testing for presence or absence of midden
deposits and, if significant deposits are found, recordation of such resources on
State survey forms, and retention of a qualified archeologist to develop a
protection plan for such resources in accordance wit11 CEQA.
• Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0-6.0 reduced impacts related to the disruption or
destruction of unrecorded prehistoric resources (IM 3.9B) to a less-than-
significant level.
City of Dublin Page 60
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
2005 SEIR (jc���dr�1z R�r3�cli Si��baren). The 2005 Supplemental EIR that affected the Jordan
Rancl� property identified Supplemental Iinpact CUL-3 regarding cultural resource site
C-ALA-508H on tlle Jordan site but not on the citrrent Subarea. Suppleznental
Mitigation I��Ieasure SM-CUL-3 requires a detailed cultural resources assessment for the
identified cultural site prior to t11e approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan on the
Jordan Ranch. The assessment shall determine if the cultural site is eligible for listing on
the California Register of Historical Resotirces and any recommendations rnade in the
cultural resources assessment shall be incorporated into the Stage 2 Development Plan
as conditions of approval. This assessinent has been performed by Basii� Research
Associates as described below.
As required by Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-CUL-3 contained in the 2005
SEIR, a site-specific cultural resource assessment was prepared by the firm of Basin
Research Associates dated June 9, 2009 for the entire Jordan Ranch property. The Basin
Report is incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and is available for review at
the Dublin Development Services Department during normal biisiness hours.
The Basin Report summarized comprehensive research on Site CA-Ala-508H on the
Jordan Ranch site, including a field visit and subsurface testing using a backhoe. The
Report found a less-than-significant quantity of subsurface cultural inaterial at this
identified site. Previous archeological materials reported ii1 the 2005 SEIR on the Jorda�z
Ranc11 site v��ere not found. The one artitact found (a slab metate) was likely a former
surflce artifact that was buried tllrough natural or mechanical means. The Basin Report
did ilot recommend additional testing, however, the follo��ving recommendatioi�s
should be iilcluded as conditions of project approval which inlplements the mitigation
measures in tlze prior EIRs for protection of cultural resources:
1) Spot inonitoiing of construction excavatioils shall be undertaken during site
clearing and exclvations of up to five feet in depth. `I'he inonitoring prograin
shall be at the discretion of the Project archeologist.
2) Project grading specifications s11a11 iilclude warning language to alert the
contractor as to tl�e potential for buried cultural resources.
3) A minimuin of one meeting shall be held betweeil the Project arclleologist and
grading contractors for a briefing on procedures to be follo�Ned in the event of
discovering a cultural artifact.
4) If any cultural artifacts are exposed or discovered durii�g site cleaiing or grading,
operations shall cease within a 30-foot radius of the fiild and the Project
archeologist consulted for evaluation and further recommendations. Possible
recommendations could include further evaluation, collection, recordation and
analysis of such find, followed by cornpletion of a professional report.
5) Treatment of any Native Ainerican burials found during construction shall be in
accordance �vith the requirements of the State of California Public Resources
Code, in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission.
No cultural resources �hTere idenfiified in the Wallis Ranch SEIR or the Subarea 3
Addendum.
City of Dublin Page 61
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
T11e proposed project�tiTill be required to comply �vith applicable culh.�ral resource
mitigation iiieasures contained in previous CEQA documents.
Pro�ect Im�acts
a) Caifse si�ibstmztirrl c�dve��se cli��ige to sig�iificcr��it liistoric f�esoit��ces? No New Impact. No
histor�ic resources exist on any of the three Subareas, based on a historic resources
survey conducted as part of the Eastern Dublin EIR, so there would no impacts
with regard to historic resources on the site that have not Ueen analyzed in
previous EIRs. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe
significant im�acts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed
in previous CEQA documents.
b, c) Cczi.ise a substa�2tir�1 crdverse i»ipact or destri.tction to archeologic�rl or
paleofitologicc�l resou��ces or]iz.tfliaii ��e�tiaifis? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin
EIR identifies a remote buf potentially significant possibility that construction
activii�ies, including site grading, trenching and excavation, may uncover
signif:icant archeological and/or paleontological resources on development sites.
Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0 through 3.9/4.0 (page 3.9-6 —3.9-7) require
subsurface testing for archeological resources if such are found during site
distur�bance; recordation and mapping of such resources; and development of a
protection prograin for resources which qualify as "significant" under Appendix
K of the CEQA Guidelines (now included in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5).
Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0, described above, also �vere adopted to
address Eastern Dublin IM 9/B, the potential disruption of any previously
unidentified pre-historic resources and would apply to the project as may be
appropriate.
The Basin Report coinpleted for the earlier Jordan Ranch project in 2009 did not
identiEy the presence of significant archeological resources on Jordan Ranch
property, although a number of recommendations are included in the Report
(listed above) that have been inet.
No new or substantially more severe impacts with regard to archeological or
paleontological impacts 11ave been identified thail were previously analyzed in
previous CEQA docuinents.
No new or substantially more severe impacts with regard to archeological or
paleontological impacts have been identified than were previously analyzed in
previaus CEQA documents.
d) Disturb c�ny liif�rtan i�e�riai�is, iridudi�ig tJiose iT2terred outside of r�for»ir�l ce»ietery? No
New Impact. A remote possibility exists that historic or pre-historic human
resources could be uncovered one or more of the project subareas during follow-
on grading and construction activities. At the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was
certified, the potential for impacts on unlalown and unsurveyed human remains
�vas not a separate CEQA checiclist item, as in current Appendix G of the CEQA
Guidelines. Former Appendix K, Archeological Impacts, specifically addressed
City of Dublin Page 62
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
hunlan remai��s, ���Thich pr�visions now have been incorporated into CEQA
Guidelii�es Section 15064.5 and apply to the project pursuarit to Mitigation
MeastYres 3.9/5.0 and 6.0. Ho�vever, this potential impact was analyzed as part
of the 2005 SEIR for the Jordan Ranch Subarea and addressed by Suppleinental
Mitigation Measure SI��1-CUL-1.
No new or more substantially severe impacts are anticipated �vith regard to
disfiurbance of human remains than have been previously identified and no ne�v
mitigation measures are required.
6. Geology and Soils
Environinental Settin�
Soils, geologic and seisinic conditions �Nere analyzed in Chapter 3.6 of the Eastern
Dublin EIR.
Previous CEQA documents
Er�sterrl D1�bli�i EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a rntiilber of initigation ineasures
to reduce ailticipated impacts related to Soils, Geology and Seismicity froin the Geneial
Plan ai�d EDSP project. These include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 reduced impacts related to primary etfects of
earthquake ground shal<ing (IM 3.6/B) but not to a less-than-significant level.
This mitigation measure requires that futtiire structure and infr�structure
facilities be designed to applicable local and state building codes.
• Mitig�►tion Measures 3.9/2.0-8.0 reduced impacts related to t11e secondary effects
of eartllquake ground shaking (IM 3.9/C) to a less-thail-significant level.
Mitigation nleasures mandate building setbacks from landslides, stabilization of
unstable land forms, removal and reconstruction of unstable soils, use of
engineered retaining structures, use of appropriately designed and engineered
fill, a11d design of structures to account of potential soil failure.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/9.0-10.0 reduced impacts related to substantial
alteration to landforms to a less-than significant level (IM 3.6/D). Mitigations
require minimal grading plans with ininimal cuts and fills and careful siting of
homes and iinprovements to avoid excessive grading.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0-16.0 reduced impacts related to expansive soils (IM
3.6/H) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures require formulation
of site-specific designs to overcome expansive soils, reducing the alnouilt of
moisture in the soil and by appropriate foundation and pavenleilt design.
� Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to natural slope
stability (IM 3.6/I) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures mandate
City of Dublin Page 63
lnitial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
torm,llation of use of site-specific designs based on follow-on geotechilical
revie�ws of individual developments, limiting the location of improvements on
dowrtslopes of unstable soils, removal/reconstruction of potentially unstable
slope areas and installation of surface and subsurface slope drainage
improvements.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/20.0-26.0 reduced impacts related to cut and fill slope
stability (IM 3.6/J) to a less-than-significant level. These measures include
developing grading plans for hillside areas that minimize grading and associated
cuts z�nd fills, ensuring that grading plans comply with appropriate building
codes�, utilizing keys and benches as part of grading to ensure slope stability and
minii-nizing use of unreinforced fill slopes, appropriate compaction of fill areas
and on-going maintenance of slope drainage areas.
• Mitigation Measure 3.6/27.0 reduced the impact related to short-term
const�ruction-related erosion and sedimentation (IM 3.6/K) to a less-than-
significant leveL This measure includes limiting timing of construction to avoid
the rainy season and implementing a number of other specific erosion control
measures.
• Mitigation Measure 3.6/28.0 reduced the impact related to long-term erosion and
sedin�.entation (IM 3.6/L) to a less-than-significant level. This measure includes
installation of erosion control facilities into individual development projects,
including sediment catch basins, creek bank stabilization, revegetation of graded
areas and siznilar measures.
2005 Sl�pple��ze�ital EIR (Jorcl�rri Si�tUa��ea). The 2005 SEIR included one additional
nzitigation nleasure. Suppleinental Mitigation Measure GEO-1 deals with grading of
steeper slopes on properties north of the Jordan Ranch and does not apply to this
Project.
The topic of soils and geology was not identified as a significant environmental topic in
the 2014 SuUarea 3 Addendum or the 2004 Wallis SEIR.
Pro�ect Im�acts
a) Expose�eople or structTtires to poteritial substrz�ttic�l adverse i»z�c�cts, inclr��c�i�tg loss,
i�ijr.��-y or deatlt relr�ted to gror.��i� ru�ture, seismic groa�nd shaki�ig,g��ori�id fail��re, or
Irrndslides? No New Impact. Although none of the project Subareas are located
within an Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone), the Eastern
Dublirl EIR identified that the primary and secondary effects of ground shalcing
(Impacts 3.6/B and 3.6/C) could be potentially significant impacts on proposed
improvements. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 the priinary
effects of ground-shalcing are reduced to a less-than-significant level by using
modern seismic design for resistance to lateral forces in construction, which
would reduce the potential for structure failure, major structural damage and
loss of life.
City of Dublin Page 64
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Mitigation Measures �.6/2.0 through 3.6/7.t� contained ii1 the Eastern Dublin EIR
will l�e implemented to reduce the secondary effects of ground shaking on
proposed project improvements to a Iess-thail-significant level.
Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.6/20.0 through 3.6/26.0 by the project
developer will ensure that effects of landsliding and ground failure on proposed
project iinproveinents will be less-than-significant.
There would therefore be no ne�N or substantially more severe significant
impacts v��ith respect to t11is impact than has been previously analyzed in
previous CEQA documents.
b) Is tjie sife s1.�bject to sr�bstc��itial e��osio�i �r�id/or tlie loss of topsoil? No New Iinpact.
Althougll the Jordan raiuh and Wallis Ranch Subareas are currently vacailt and
have been rough graded pursuant to City approvals, further construction of the
project improvements on the Jordan Ranch Subarea and the Wallis Ra�1ch
Subarea would inodify the existing ground surface and alter patterns of surface
runoff and infiltration. These actions could result in a short-term increase in
erosion and sedimentation caused by grading activities (see Eastern DuUlin EIR
Inlpact 3.6/I<). Long-ternl inlpacts could result from nlodification of the ground-
surtace and removal of existing vegetation (Eastern Dublin EIR Inlpact 3.6/L).
No additioilal grading is anticipated on the Subarea 3 site.
Witl� implementation of Mitigation Measures contained i�z the Eastern Dublin
EIR and an erosion control plan, ilnpacts related to substantial erosion and loss
of topsoil would not be significant. There would therefore be no new or
substantially more severe significant inlpacts with res�ect to t11is iinpact than has
been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents.
c,d) Is t11e site locr�fed o7r soil tlirtt is �.t�istr�ble or ex���TSive or ��esult i�i potejatirrl latea�rrl
s�re�zdi7ig, li�T�efr�ctTO�i, 1R�ic�slide o�� collc��se? No New Impact. Portions of the project
Stibareas are underlain by soil types with l�igh sllrink-swell potential, which
have the potential to caLlse damage to foundations, slabs, and pavement (Eastern
Dublin EIR Iinpact 3.6/H). With aciherence to the initigation measures coiltained
ii1 the Eastern Dublin EIR, potential shrink-swell impacts would be less-than-
significant. Consistent with applicable mitigation ineasures, project developers
will be required by Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures to retain a qualified
soils and geotechnical consultant to prepare a site-specific analysis of future
Uuilding sites. Recommendations included in each of site-specific soil reports
will be reviewed by the City of Dublin Public Works Departinent and will be
included in grading and constructions plans and specifications to coinply �vith
Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation ineasures and EDSP policies regarding soil
hazards. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe
significant unpacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed
in previous CEQA documents.
City of Dublin Page 65
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
e) Have soils iriccrpaUle of sLip�orti7�zg o�i-site se�tic ta�2ks if sewef�s nre �iot r�vrzilr�ble? I�To
New Impact. Proposed residences and other land uses that�-vould be approved
as part of this application would be connected to sanitary se�Ners provided by
DSRSD, so there would be no impacts �vith regard to septic systems. There
would therefore Ue no new or substantially inore severe significant impacts with
respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA
documents.
7. Greenh��use Gas Emissions
Environmer�tal Settin�
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993 and the SEIRs in 2002, 2004 and
2005, the issue of contribution of greenhouse gasses to climate change has become a
more promi�lent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of AB 32 in 2006. On March
18, 2010, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines took effect which set forth
requirements for the analysis of greenhouse gasses. The topic of the Project's
contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change was not analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2002 and 2005 SEIRs. Since the Eastern Dublin EIR and
SEIRs have been certified , the determination of whether greenhouse gasses and climate
change needs to be analyzed for this proposed Project is governed by the law on
supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA
Guidelines, ��ections 15162 and 15163). Greenhouse gas and climate change is not
required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of
substantial i�nportance, which was not lalown and could not have been lalown at the
time the pre�aious EIR was certified as complete (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3).)
Greenllouse gas and climate change impacts is not new information that was not known
or could not have been lalown at t11e time the Eastern Dublin EIR and SEIRs were
certified. The issue of climate change and greenhouse gasses was widely lcnown prior to
the certificatr`_on of these EIRs. The United Nations Frainework Convention on Cliinate
Change was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce
climate change iinpacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early
1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto
Protocol in 1397. In the early and mid 2000s, GHGs and climate change were
extensively discussed and analyzed in California. In 2000, SB 1771 established the
California Climate Action Registry for the recordation of greenhouse gas emissions to
provide infot-mation about potential environmental impacts. In 2005, the Governor
issued Executive Order # S-03-05 establishing greenhouse gas emission reduction
targets in California. AB 32 was adopted in 2006. Therefore, the impact of greenhouse
gases on climate change was lalown at the time of the certification of the Easter�l Dublin
EIR in May 1993 and the certification of the SEIRs in 2002, 2004 and 2005. Under CEQA
standards, it is not ne�v information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or
negative declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of the Project's impacts
on this issue is required under CEQA.
City of Dublin Page 66
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Pl O�eCt II21paCtS
a,b Ge�zerr�te o��eea2lTOi.�se gns e��iissio�is, eitjier dia�ectly or ia�dil�ectl�, tliat »Ia� li��e r�
sig�iificr��it i>>t�crct olt flie e�tvi��o�zl�ieltt or eoliftict zuitlt eza2 applicrtUle plrtti, �olici�or
rega�latio�i r�do�tec�fo�� tlie�i.�r�ose of��educi�ig tlie e�aiissio�is of greerilio�.tse or�ses? No
Ne�v Impacts. As discussed above, no additional environmental analysis is
rec�uired under CEQA Section 21166.
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Settin�
The topic of hazards and hazardous materials was not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin
EIR Hazardous inaterials coilditions on the project Subareas are identified below.
Jorc�aai Rrr�lcl�. The 2005 SEIR, �repared for the Fallar1 Village Project area of which the
Jordan Ranch Property site is a component, identified a number of Suppleinental
Impacts and Supplemental Mitigation Measures for individual properties included in
tl�e overall Fallon Village project area.
Supplenlental Impact HAZ-2 identified the possibility of soil and/or groundwater
contanlination and the exposure of individuals froin release of such materials, including
portions of the Jordan Property. Supplemental Mitigatioil Measure HAZ-3b requii es
remediatioil of containination on a number of sites �vitlziil the Falloii Village area,
including the Jordan Ranch. In addition, Supplemental Mitigation Measure 3b requii es
the Jordan Panch owner to inform t11e Alameda Cow�ty Environinental Health Services
Department of an un�iuthorized release of fuel hydrocarbons (diesel and gasoline) in the
vicinity of a removed underground storage tank on the property. Additional subsurface
investigation was then required to identify t11e extent of possible contamination and to
evaluate the potential for grotind�vater contamination. Also, the supplemental
Tnitigation nleasure required completion of a P11ase II Eilvironmental Site Assessinent to
determine if any soil or ground�n�ater contamination exists near former barn structures.
A Phase I and II Environinental Site Assessment was prepared for the overall Jorda�l
Ranch by the firin of ATC Associates, Inc., dated June 9, 2008, which includes two
portions of the Subarea. The report is hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial
Study aild the report is available for review at the Dublin Coinmunity Developinent
Department during normal business hours. These studies noted that an underground
storage tank (since removed) existing on a portion of Subarea 3 as well as several other
sources of containination in surrounding area, such as above-ground fuel tanks and a
former diesel fuel tank storage area.
Subsequently, a Corrective Action Plan and an Updated Plan to remedi�te hazardous
inaterials on the site have been pre�ared by the firin of ENGEO, Inc. A copy of the
Updated Action Plan is available for review at the Dublin Community Development
Department during norznal business hours. With adherence to the Corrective Action
Plan, there would be no significant impacts with respect to release of hazardous
materials into the environment.
Gity of Dublin Page 67
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
As of nlid-2015, remediation of the Jordan property 11as been completed and necessary
clearance documents from applicable regulatory agencies filed v��ith the City of DuUlin
(source: M. Porto, Dublin Comznunity Development Department, 7/13/15).
The Jordan IZanch Subareas are all located out of an Airport Hazard Area as identified
on the latest Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (2012).
St�ba��err 3. The Initial Shidy for this property prepared in 2014 did not find any
significant iinpacts on this property related to the release of hazardous materials into
the environrnent. This conclusion is based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
prepared far� the site by Haley & Aldrich, Inc. in 2012. This document is available for
review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business
hours.
This portion of t11e project area lies inside the Airport Influence Area (AIA) for
Livermore Municipal Airport.
Wrrllis Rr�iicli. The 2014 Addenduin did not identify the presence of significant
environmeni.al substances on the property that could be released into the environrnent.
This conclusion �vas based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the
overall Walli.s Ranch property in 2013 by Cornerstone Earth Group. The Cornerstone
Phase I repo:rt is available for review in the Dublin Coinmunity Development
Departrnent during norinal business hours.
The Wallis Ranch portion of the project lies northe�st of t�le Livermore Airport and
outside of tlze AIA. Portions of the Wallis Ranch may be subject to infrequent
overflights of helicopters from Parks RFTA that lies �vest of the site.
Previous CEQA docunlents
The 2005 Fallon Village SEIR contains the follo�ving supplemental mitigation ineasures
related to hazards and hazardous materials that pertain to the Jordan Ranch Subarea.
• Suppl�mental Mitigation SM-HAZ-1 requires preparation of site-specific analysis
to determine the presence of lead based paint and/or asbestos in structures to be
demolished in the Fallon Village area.
• Supplemental Mitigation HAZ-2 requires the removal of identified hazardous
conditions on sites in the Fallon Village area prior to future development on
properties.
• Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ-3b requires remediation of contaminated
areas of the Jordan Ranch property. In addition, the Jordan Ranch owner shall
inform, the Alameda County Environmental Health Department of an
unauthorized release of fuel hydrocarbons (gasoline and diesel) in the vicinity of
an underground storage tank that had been previously removed. Additional
subsur�face investigations are required to determine the lateral and horizontal
City of Dublin Page 68
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
extent of any potential contamination and, if found, is i equired to be reinoveci as
directed by the Alameda County Environznental Health Deparhnent. The
additional investigations �n-ere also required to determine the extent of
contamination caused by diesel fuel storage druins, �n�eed 1<iller and other
containinants ii1 fornler barn structures on the Jordan site.
� Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ-3f requires abandonment and deshuction of
any private wells on the site.
• Supplementa? Mitigation SM-HAZ-3g requires septic systems and leacll fields
�vithin the Fallon Village project area to be pumped out and removed under
permits from the Alameda County Environmental Health Departrnent.
Proposed developinent on the Jordan Ranch Subarea will be required to adhere to the
above initigation measures. No mitigation measures have been adopted for the Subarea
3 site or the Wallis Ranch Subarea.
Project LtnUacts
�) Crer�te a sig�lifi'crriit lirrzrr��c� to tlze pifUlic or tlie e��z�iro�iliie�zt tliro��gli tlle �roi�tirle trn�is�orf,
��se or disposrzl of jirrzm�cloris �izrrterials? No New Impact. T11ere wotrld be no impact
witll regard to transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, since the
proposed project would include a school use, additional residences and parks. The
proposed school use would include storage and use of small amounts of lawn and
garden supplies and storage of cleaning s�ipplies and paints, these would not be
substantial quantities. None of the otl�er proposed land uses would involve o use,
storage or transport of si�nificant quantities of hazardous inaterials. There would
therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect
to this inlpact than has been previously analyzed in pievious CEQA docunlents.
b) Crer�te n sig�rifi'cr��it Irr�za�•d to tlie �r�tilic o�� tlie e�lviro�il�ie�it tlu�oit�lt rer�so�zr�bly fo�resee�tile
�r�set mid r�ccide�Tt co�ic�itioiis i�2volvi�ig tlie release of luzzardoi�is t�zcr�e�•icrls i�ito tlie
eaTViro�lnle�tt? No New Inlpact. The 2005 Fallon Village SEIR alld supplemental
environmental site investigations for the Jordan Ranch property identified the
presence of containinated soils and groundwater on the site as a result of previous
agricultural operations on the site. To conl�ly wit112005 Fallon Village
S�.ippleinental Mitigation Measures, the project developer has completed a Phase I
and II Environmental Site Assessment and has contacted the Alameda County
Environmental Health Departrnent. Suppleinental Mitigation SM-HAZ 3b requires
reinediation of identified contaminated areas. In order to implement this Mitigation
Measure, the applicant's consultant (ENGEO, Inc.) has prepared a Corrective
Action Plan to remediate contaminated soil and groundwater contamination on tlle
site. Proposed remediation actions that have been com�leted include a conlbination
of excavating contaminated soil from the site, extracting contaminated
groundwater under the site and pumping biodegradable/oxidation material into
the subsurface via a well.
City of Dublin Page 69
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
No significant impacts related to the release of hazardo�is materials 11ave been
identified for Subarea 3 or the Wallis Ranch property based on recently completed
Phase I Environmental Site Assessments.
No nev�� or substantially more severe impacts with respect to release of hazardous
materia.ls have been identified in this Initial Study than has been previously
analyzed in previous CEQA documents.
c) Elrait lzczczrdoifs »i�zterials o��lza�zdle lic�za��dous �nr�teric�ls or aci�tely liazczrdoT�s i�Tr�terials,
sz.t�sta�zces, or w�ste wit1zi37 o�ie-c�zf�f•ter niile of c�3i existiiTg o�•�ro�osed scjiool? No New
Impact. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would have a less-
than-significant iinpact with respect to this topic.
A future elementary school site is shown on the Jordan Ranch property. The
proposed project includes a relocation of an existing school site already designated
on the�ordan Ranch, which was planned for the northeast portion of the site. The
proposed site of a joint school alzd park would be on the south side of Central
Parkway. As noted in subsection "b," above, the Jordan Ranch property has been
fully retnediated from identified soil hazards.
Althou;�h the Quarry Lane private school is located just to the east of the Wallis
Ranch Subarea, approval and implementation of the proposed General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment would have no impact with regard to
this topic, since a substantial quantity of hazardous materials or acutely
hazardous inaterials would not be released from the project site. Proposed uses
on the Wallis Ranch Subarea would be parks.
No existing or proposed schools exist within one-quarter inile of the Subarea 3
portion of the project.
There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts
�vith respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA
documents.
d) Is tlie site listed crs a lzazm�dorrs ��irrtericzls site? No New Impact. No properties
comprising the project area are listed on the State of California Department of
Toxic Substances Control as an identified hazardous site as of May 27, 2015. There
is therefore no impact with regard to this topic. There would therefore be no new
or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than
has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents.
e,f) Is tl�e site located witlzi�i e�ii Ri��port la�2d i�se pla�T of ct publie air�ort or privc�te r�irstri�? No
New Impact. The Jordan Ranch Subarea is located north of the Livermore Airport
and outside of any airport safety zone and the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the
airport. However, this Subarea does lie within the airport height referral area of
the airport, as documented on Figure 3.1-D. Pursuant to Supplemental Noise
Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-1 contained in the 2005 SEIR, Jordan Ranch project
City of Dublin Page 70
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
developers, �ncl�idii2g those incltided in this Subarea, will be required to provide
notificatioi� to future purchases of d�h�ellings about the presence of Livermore
Airport.
Subarea 31ies �vitlun the AIA and Safety Zoi1e 7 of the Liverinore Municipal
Airport. �ny General Plan Amendment that proposes ne�v land uses in the AIA
znust be revie�ved for consistency �h�it11 Chapter 8.35 (Airport Overlay Zoning
District) ot the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The proposed General Plan Ainendment
would change approximately 12 acres of Rural Residential/Agriculhzral (RRA)
lands to Park. The Park designation is not contrary to the allowed Lises within the
AIA and Safety Zone 7 and is a comparable open space use to RRA. Since RIZA and
Park are comparable open space land use designations there would be no new or
more severe significant impacts �vith respect to this topic The Eastern Dublin EIR
discussed the potential for land use incompatibilities with respect to the airport,
but identified the impact as less-than-significant based on the land uses being
consistent �n�ith the requirements and policies of the designated areas (Impact
3.1/H). The project proposes a similar type of open space in the sanle location as
existing RRA lands and does not propose additioilal development within the AIA.
Therefore, there ��Iould not be a new or more severe significant impact than
analyzed in the prior CEQA documents. No additional analysis is required.
The Wallis Railch Subarea is located northwest of the Liverrnoie Municipal Airport
AIA and any airport safety zone and is i�ot subject to regular aircraft overflights.
However, as noted in the Eastern Dublin EIR, properties in the western portion ot
the Eastern Dublin Planning Area, generally locate adjacent to Tassajara Road, is
subject to occasio11a1 overfligllts froin military helicopters from nearby Parks
RPTA. This activity was not identified as a significant hazard impact ii� tlze Eastern
Dublill EIR.
Theie would therefoie be no new or substalltially more severe significarlt iinpacts
with respect to this impact tllan has been previously analyzed ii1 previous CEQA
documents.
g) T��te�fere�zce zoith r�iz e�iiergettcy e�ac�fatio�T �lr��i? No New Iinpact. The proposed
project would include changes to the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan t11at �-vould affect a local school site, residential and local park uses.
No emergency evacuation plan would be affected since i10 roadways would be
blocked. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous
CEQA documents.
h) Expose pe�ple a�id strz�ctl.�res to a sig�iifica�zt �-isk of loss, irzjlu�y or c�eatll ijivolvirig
zoildla�id fil�es o��zc�lie��e residelices are i�ite����Tixed witli wildla�ids? No New Impact. The
potential for wildfire impacts was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and, with
adherence to mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, impacts
related to �vildland fire would be less-tl�an-significant. These rnitigation measures
include Mitigation I��Teasure 3.4/6.0, requiring project developers to assist in
City of Dublin Page 71
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
funding new fire stations and other facilities in Eastern Dublin, �Zitigation
Measure 3.4/9.0 requiring use of non-combustible roof materials, and maintaining
�vater f�ire flow and pressure, establishing lo�ti�-fuel Uuffers bet�veen structures and
wildland areas and installing fire sprinlclers in buildings. There �vould therefore be
no ne��� or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact
than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents.
9. Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmei�tal Settin�
Local s1a fr�ce wrrter. The project Subareas are located within the Arroyo Las Positas
watershed, a sub-basin of the Alameda Creek watershed. This watershed drains
westerly into and through the Arroyo Mocho to the Arroyo de la Laguna, which
discharges i�1to Alameda Creek near Sunol and ultimately into San Francisco Bay near
Union City.
All of the SuUareas are located �vithin the jurisdiction ot Zone 7 of the Alameda County
Flood Contr��l and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). Zone 7 provides maintenance
of regional d'_rainage facilities within this portion of Alanleda County.
ST.0 fr�ce iur�ter r�urtlity. Water quality in California is regulated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), v��hich
controls the �iischarge of pollutants to water bodies from point and non-point sources.
In the San Francisco Bay area, this program is administered by the San Francisco Bay
Region�l Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Federal regulations issued in
Noveinber 1990 expanded the authority of the RWQCB to include permitting of
stormwater discharges from municipal storm sewer systems, industrial processes, and
construction sites that disturb areas larger than one acre of land area. The City of Dublin
is a co-permittee of the Alameda County Clean Water Program, which is a coordinated
effort by loc�il governments in Alameda County to improve water quality in San
Francisco Ba.y.
In 1994, the I�WQCB issued a set of recommendations for New and Redevelopment
Controls for Storm Water Programs. These recommendations include policies that
define watershed protection goals, set forth minimum non-point source pollutant
control requirements for site planning, construction and post-construction activities,
and establish criteria for ongoing reporting of water quality construction activities.
Watershed p�otection goals are based on policies identified in the San Francisco Bay
Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), and the entire program relies on the
implementation of Best Management Practices to limit pollutant contact�vith
storinwater runoff at its source and to remove pollutants before they are discharged
into receiving waters. The California Stormwater Quality Task Force has published a
series of Best Management Practices handbooks for use in the design of source control;
and treatment programs to achieve the water quality objectives identified by the Basin
Plan for the beneficial uses of surface waters, groundwaters, wetland and marshes.
City of Dublin Page 72
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Surtace �vater quaii�� is affected b�� u ntunber of pollutants �enerated from existing
st�uctures, parlcing areas azld open space uses on the project area, including but not
lii�zited to �etrochemicals (oil and grease), yard and landscape ehemicals (herbicides,
pesticides and fertilizers), and similar sources.
Flooc�i�zg. The project Subareas lies outside of a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by
the Federal Emergency Manageinent Agency FEMA (source: Flood Insurance Rate I�Zap
Comnlunity Panel #s 06001C032SG, 06001C0329G and 06001C0326G).
Previous CEQA documents
Easterji Di.ibli�i EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a nurnber of mitigation ineasures
to reduce anticipated impacts related to hydrology and storm drainage from the
General Plan and EDSP project. These include:
• Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0-48.0 �NOUId reduce impacts related potential
flooding due to increased runoft into creeks (IM 3.5/Y) to a less-than-signiticant
level. These mitigation ineasures requires ne�n� storm drainage facilities as part of
new developrnent, r�quires developers to prepare storin drain plans for
iildividual developznent projects and requires new flood control facilities to
alleviate downsheain floodi�lg potei�tial.
• Mitigation Measures 3.5/51.0 - 55.0 would reduce iinpacts related to non-poiz�t
source pollution (IM 3.5/AA) to a less-thairsignificant level. These initigation
measures rnandate that specific water quality investigations be submitted as pai-t
of development projects and that the City should develop coinmuiuty-based
programs to �ducate residents and busiilesses to reduce non-point source
polluti o�1.
2005 Fr711o�1 V�illr�ge SEIR (jo7�c�c�i1 Rnatcli). The 2005 SEIR identified two Suppleinental
I�npacts and Mitigation Measures related to hydrology and water quality:
• Supplemental Impact SD-1 found that surface water quality standards had been
updated from regulations in effect when the 1993 Easteril Dublin EIR was
certified. Mitigation Measure SD-1 requires that properties in tlle Stage 1
Developinent Plan adhere to water quality source control and hydrologic design
recommendations contained in the February 2005 ENGEO report. These
recoininendations relate to liiniting the volume and quantity of storinwater
runoff entering local and regional drainage facilities.
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SD-2 requires that individual development
projects in the Fallon Village area coinply with hydromodification provisions
contaiiled in the Alameda County Clean Water Program. If no Alameda County
Clean Water Program pennit has been approved before individual development
proposals are approved by the City of Dublin, applicants may be required to
City of Dublin Page 73
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
subrnit hydrologic and hydraulic analyses to be revie�ved and approved by the
Cit�� of Dublin azzd Zone 7. Payinent of Zone 7 fees is also required.
No significa.nt Hydrology and Water Quality impacts were identified in previous CEQA
documents :Eor either the Subarea 3 or Wallis Ranch properties. .
Future development on all of the project Subareas tivill be required to adhere to the
above mitigation measures.
Project ImU��cts
a) Violrrte ctziy water c�ti�ality strz�zdc�rds o��waste c�isdiarge recJuire��ze�its? No New Impaet.
Adherence to mitigation measures set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2005
SEIR (as applied to the Jordan Ranch Subarea) and the Alameda County Clean
Water ]?rogram as enforced by the City of Dublin will ensure that construction
allowed by the proposed project would not violate water quality standards or any
waste discharge requirements.
The Jordan Ranch developer has constructed a water quality basin in the
southwestern portion of the site to intercept storm �vater and cleanse contarninants
and erasion from runoff prior to entering the G-3 facility that would accommodate
future cievelopment on this property. The water quality basin has been constructed
to City of Dublin, Zone 7 and Regional Water Quality Control Board standards
and sp�cifications.
Project developers on the other t�vo Subareas �Nill be required to prepare master
storm drain and water quality plans to meet Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation
measure requirements as well as Alameda County Clean Water Program
require�nents.
There would therefore be no new or substantially lnore severe significant impacts
with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA
docuinEnts.
b) Sz��Usta�ttir�lly cleplete g�'ot.�7tdzvater 1�edtcrrge are�rs or lou�eri�zg of zvater t�ble? No New
Iinpact Major portions of all three Subareas have been slated for future urban uses
since adoption of the 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan. Proposed residential uses on the Jordan Ranch Subarea would rely on
imported water sources provided by Zone 7 and the Dublin San Ramon Services
District, not locally pumped groundwater. No supplemental impacts would
therefore occur with regard to this topic. As identified in Eastern Dublin EIR
Mitigati�n Measure 3.5/49.0, and as identified in subsection "a," above, future
individual developments will include features to minimize surface and
groundwater pollution, consistent with Alameda County Clean Water Program
and City of Dublin standards. There would therefore be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been
previously analyzed in the previous CEQA documents.
City of Dublin Page 74
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
c) Sl�bstr��itir�lly r�lter c�rc�inr�ge pc�tte��azs, i�ieludi�ig streat�zbed eoiirses slrcJi tlir�t szt2�sta�itir�l
siltrrtio�z or erosia�z wolfld occzta•? No New Impact. New impervious surfaces ���ould
be added to t�ze Jordan Ranch Subarea to accommodate ne�v d���ellings, a school,
road���ays, drivejvays and similar surfaces. Although the existing main drainage
swale on the Jordan Ranch would be used for prinzary drainage, existing drainage
patterns would be slightly modified based on proposed development to
cllannelize existing sheet flo�v into t11e inain s���ale and then transported to Zone
7's G3 box culvert just�tiTest of Fallon Road and north ot the I-580 free�vay.
As identified in su�section "a," a�vater quality basin has been constructed on the
Jordan Ranch site to miniinize impacts related to siltation and erosion, consistent
�-vith t11e Alanleda County Clean Water Program.
Adllerence to Mitigation Measure 3.5/46.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR
would reduce changed drainage patterns to a less-than-significant level for all
three Subareas. This mitigation measure requires the future project developers to
prepare a Master Drainage Plan for each respective development project with each
respective Subarea prior to comnlencement of construction.
Adherence to mitigation measures contained in t11e Eastenl Dublin EIR, the 2005
SEIR for t11e Jordan Ranch Subarea aild other local aild regional water quality
standards will reduce impacts froin Subarea developments such related to siltation
and erosion to a less-than-significant level.
With adherence to previously adopted mitigations, there would therefore be no
netv or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact
than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA doc�.rments.
d) STi2�stmifi�rlly r�lter c�rrri�lr�ge��tter�2s o��substr���itinlly incrense s�i�fnce wc�ter ��il�ioff thrtf
wol.�ld resz�rlt r'�i floodi��ig, eithea•o�i o��off tlie�roject site? No New Inlpact. T11e Eastern
Dublin EIR and 2005 SEIR for the Jordan Ranch Subarea identified a number of
mitigation ineasures to which future individual developinent projects oi1 the three
Subareas must conform to reduce drainage and flooding impacts to a less-than-
significant level. These include preparation of a Master Drainage Plan for eac11
individual development proposal, as required by Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation
Measure 3.5/46.0 and each individual project developer contributions to funding
regional drainage improvements, as required by Mitigation Measures 3.5/47.0 and
48.0. Payment of local and regional drainage fees to the City of Dublin and Zone 7
will meet the requirements of these mitigation measures. There would therefore be
no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact
than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents.
e) Crerrte sto���nwrrter ru�TOff tlir�t zuoitld exceed tl�e caprrcity of d��ai�lrrge s�sfellis or ndd
si�bstr��itirtl r��nol�rits of polh�ted ri�7ioff? No New I�npact. The ability of downstrealn
drainage facilities to accommodate additional quantities of stormwater runoff from
each Subarea have been addressed in previous EIRs. The City of Dublin will
require compliance with applicable initigation measures to ensure that drainage
City of Dublin Page 75
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
impact:s �n�ill be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Coilsistent with Eastern
Dublin�. EIR Miti�ation Measures 2.6/47.0 and 48.0, the individual developers on
each Subarea ���ill be reqi,iired to pay regional drainage fees to assist in funding
backbone drainage facilities identified in the Eastern Dublin Specitic Plan. There
�Tould therefore be no netiv or substantially more severe significant impacts with
respect: to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA
documents.
t) Subst�zrztially degrade wrzter c�r.�c�lity? No New Impact. This is a less-thctft-sigazifi'catit
issue a,nd has been addressed above in item "a."
g) Plr�ce lioifsifzg witlii3z i� 100-year flood Izrrzc�rd arect as �izrtpped by a Flood I�lsi�rr�lice Rc�te
Map? No New Impact. The Subareas lie outside of a 100-year flood hazard zone as
mappe�d by FEMA. This is identified in t11e Environmental Setting section of this
Initial ��tudy. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed
in the previous CEQA documents.
11, i) Plr�ce zu�'tlti�z rt 100-yea��flooc�liazr�rd boufidary strl.lcttu�es tliat i��zpeded o�� redif�ect floocl
flow, i�iclildi�2g c�al�i failT.�res? No New Impact. Refer to itein "g," above.
j) Resi�lt i��l i�ii���iclatio�r vy seiclze, tsi.i�����2i or n�itdflows? No New Impact. All three
Subareas are located well inland froin San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of
water to be impacted by a tsunami or seiche. Adherence to tnitigation measures
contain�ed in the Eastern Dublin EIR as identified in subsection 6 of this Initial
Study (Geology and Soils) will ensure that impacts from mudflows would be less-
than-si€;nificant. These measures include Eastern Dublin Mitigation Measure
3.6/20.0, that requires grading plans that ininimize areas to be graded, Mitigation
Measure 3.6/22.0, requiring completion of site specific geotechnnical
investigations and installation of retaining structures and Mitigation Measure
3.6/23.0, requiring placements of subsurface keys and benches to stabilize graded
slopes. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the
previous CEQA documents.
10. Land Use and Planning
Environmental Settin
Existi�ig land T,�ses. All of the three subareas comprisiilg the project are currently vacant
and contain n.o buildings.
Regulator�ttin�
Land use on the Project Subareas is regulated by the Eastern Dublin General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), both of which were adopted in 1993. The
applicants have requested City of Dublin approval of amendments to the General Plan
City of Dublin Page 76
Initial Study/Easi:ern Dublin Properties August 2015
�nd the Eastern DL�blin Specitic �lan as v��ell as otl�er l�nd use eiltitlen�ents documented
in the Project Description section of thzs Initial Study. Approval of the requested land
use entitleinents «Tould allo�v an increase of up to 35 d�lTellings on the Jordan Ranch
property troin the 2014 City approval (see Table 1 in the Project Description), relocation
of a pl�zned scllool on the same property in conjunction ivith a City Paik, deletion of a
planned Conuilunity Park on the saine property. Proposed actions �vould also include
converting a Rural Residential/Agrictilttzre area of approximately 10.75 acres on
Subarea 3 to a Park and converting an existing Public Semi-Public site on the Wallis
Ralzch Subarea to a Park.
Pro�ect ImUacts
a) Pltysically divide a�i estcrblislied co��i��zr��lity? No New Ii�lpact. Each of three Subareas
comprising the project site are vacant. Development of dwelliilgs and other land
uses on the site as proposed in this project�n�ould not divide any established
communities and no iinpact would result. There would therefore be no new or
substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has
been previously analyzed in previous CEQA docuinents.
b) Co�zflict witli R�i�r�p�lic�ble lr�lid Tfse�lrr�i, �olic� o�� regl.�lrrtio�i? No Ne�N Inlpact.
Amendments have been requested to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan to change land use designations on the Subareas. No changes are proposed to
any regulation regulating environmental protection. No new or more significant
iinpacts aie anticipated with regard to land use regulations t�1an hav� been
previously ailalyzed in c�ther applicable CEQA documents.
c) Co�lflict zvitlz a hcrUitcrt co�iserv�t2o�t �Irr�t or jtr�ti.ta�rzl com�liujiity co7iservc�tio�t pinn? No
New Inlpact. None of the project Subareas are located�vithin a habitat
conservation plan area or natural conlmunity conservation plan area. There would
therefore be no new or substantially z��ore severe significant impacts with respect
to this inlpact than has been pieviously analyzed in previous CEQA documents.
11. Mineral Resources
Environmental Settin�
No significant quantities of inineral resources exist on any of tlle project Subareas
according to the Eastern Dublin General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR or any of other CEQA documents that affect the
project site.
Pro�ect Imt�acts
a, b) Resi�lt i�i fihe loss of r�vailr�bilify of��egio�irrUy or locrzlly si�3iificr��it r�li�ie��rrl a�esor.�rces? No
New Impact. None of the City of Dublin land use regulatory documents or
applicable EIRs indicate t11at significant deposits of minerals exist on any of the
Subareas, so no impacts would occur.
City of Dublin Page 77
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
12. Noise
Environmeiltal Settin�
Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air
pressure above and below atmospheric pressure. Sound levels are usually
ineasured and expressed in decibels (dB) with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the
threshold of hearing. Decibels and other technical terms are defined in Table 1.
Most of the sounds heard in the environment do not consist of a single
frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies, with each frequency differing
in sound le��el. The intensities of each frequency add together to generate a
sound. The �nethod commonly used to quantify environmental sounds consists
of evaluatin;� all of the frequencies of a sound in accordance �vith a weighting
that reflects the facts that human hearing is less sensitive at lo�v frequencies and
extreme higlz frequencies than in the frequency mid-range. This is called "A"
weighting, and the decibel level so measured is called the A-zveig)rted solt�7d level
(dBA). In practice, the Ievel of a sound source is conveniently ineasured using a
sound level :rneter that includes an electrical filter corresponding to the A-
weighting curve. Typical A-weighted levels measured in the environment and in
industry are shown in Table 2 for different types of noise.
Although the A-weighted noise level may adec�uately i�ldicate the level of
environment:al noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary
continuously. Most envirorunental noise includes a conglomeration of noise from
distant sources which create a relatively steady background noise in which no
particular source is identifiable. To describe the time-varying character of
environmental noise, the statistical noise descriptors, Lol, L,o. L50, and Lyo, are
commonly used. They are the A-weighted noise levels equaled or exceeded
during 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of a stated time period. A single number
descriptor called the L�,i is also widely used. The L�� is the average A-weighted
noise level during a stated period of time.
In determining the daily level of envirorunental noise, it is important to account
for the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During
the nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than the daytime
levels. However, most household noise also decreases at night and exterior noise
becomes very noticeable. Further, most people sleep at night and are very
sensitive to n�ise intrusion. To account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise
levels, the D�y/Night Average Soulid Level (L�„ or DNL) was developed. The La�
divides the 24.-hour day into the daytime of 7:00 am to 10:00 pm and the
nightfiime of 10:00 pm to 7:00 am. The iughttime noise level is weighted 10 dB
higher than tl�ie daytime noise level. The Co��imu�tit�Noise Eqitivale�lt Level (CNEL)
is another 24-.hour average which includes both an evening and nighttime
weighting.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties Page 78
August 2015
Existing noise environment. TI1e project site is Iocated sottth of Central Parki�ray,
about 800 feet east of Fallon Road �nci about a halt-mile north of Interstate 580 (I-
5�0) in Dublin, Califorl�ia. The project site is bounded by Central Parkway to the
north, netv development property to the east, and hillsides/open space to the
south and �vest. Illing�vorth & Rodkin, Inc. completed a series of noise
nzeasurelnents to quantify existing ambient noise levels. The noise inonitoring
survey consisted of one long-term noise measurement beginning Wednesday,
May 27, 2015 and ending Friday, May 29, 2015. T��vo short-terin (10-minute) noise
measurements were also made to complete the survey. Noise monitoring
locations are shown on Exhibit 9 and lcng-term measurement data are sho�vn in
Attachment 2. The proposed project location is currently an undeveloped, vacant
property. Noise-sensitive residential land uses are located east of the project site
and north of Central Parkway, primarily near the Sunset View Drive intersection
(in t11e current stage of development). The nearest residences are across Central
Parkway approximately 150 feet from the project site. The noise environment in
the site vicinity results priinarily from local traffic along Central Park�vay, Fallon
Road, vehicle traffic along I-580, and construction associated with ongoing
development near the site.
Site LT-1 was located near tlze northwest corner of the project site, along Cent�al
Parkway, 45 feet trom the centerline. This location was selected to quantify t]Ze
daily trend in noise levels along the roadway near the western portion of the site.
The prinlai y noise sources during the nleasurement were local traffic and
constrtiction dLri-ing tlle day, and 11igh�vay traffic at nig]Zt Hourly average noise
levels typically ranged fronl 59 to 64 c�BA Le� during the day, from 56 to 61 dBA
L�,� during tlle evening, and from 52 to 57 dBA L� at night. The 24-11our average
CN�L at this location ranged from 63 to 64 dBA �NEL. Residences to the nortlz
would be located farther froill the roadway than the measureinent location and
would be exposed to lower noise levels. Ambient noise levels at the nearest noise
sensitive receivers were calculated to b� 3 dB lower than LT-1 noise levels,
restillting in a range of 60 to 61 dBA CNEL.
Two short-term 1loise rneasurenlents were made in conjunction tivith tlle long-
terin ineastrremellts on May 29, 2015 in order to quantify the variation in noise
levels at locations further from local traffic and construction noise sources. Site
ST-1 �vas located near the southwest corner of the project site, 430 feet south of
the intersection of Central Parkway and Sunset View Drive. The 10-minute
average noise level measured on May 29, 2015 bet�veen 1:40 pm and 1:50 pm was
52 dBA L��. A coinparison of these data to the daily trend in noise levels
measured at LT-1 was made to estimate the CNEL at Site ST-1, �vhich was 55
ciBA CNEL.
Site ST-2 �-vas located near the southeast corner of the project site, 440 feet south
of the center of Central Park�vay. The 10-ininute average noise level measured on
May 29, 2015 bettiveen 1:10 pm and 1:20 pm was 52 dBA Le�, and betv��een 1:20
pzn and 1:30 pm the ineasured noise level was 53 dBA Le�. A comparison of these
data to the daily trend in noise levels zneasured at Site LT-1 �vas made to estimate
City of Dublin Page 79
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
the CNEL a.t Site ST-2, which vvas 55 dBA CNEL. Table 5 summarizes the results
of these short-term measurements.
Table 5. Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurements (dBA)
Noise Mea��surement Date CNEL
Location Time Le L,,,aX L lo L so L 90 �
ST-1: 430 feet south of 5/29/2015 52 63 54 50 48 55
Central Parl;way, near 1:10-1:20 m
southwest corner of
site. 1:20-1:30 pm 53 64 55 51 48 55
ST-2: 440 feet south of
Central Par�:way, near 5/29/2015 52 65 55 48 45 55
southeast carner of 1:40-1:50 pm
site.
* CNEL levels �vere estimated based on noise levels measured at LT-1 during
correspondi:ng intervals.
Regulatorv set�
The Noise E]�ement of the Dublin General Plan identifies the following primary sources
of noise in D�ublin: traffic noise froin freeways and major roadways within the
community <�nd noise generated by the BART line adjacent to the I-580 free�vay.
The Noise Eleinent identifies the following inaxiinuin noise exposure levels by land use
type.
Table 6. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels)
Land Use Normally Conditionally Normally Clearl
Acce table Acce table Unacce table Unacce table
Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75+
Lod in Facilities 60-70 70-80 80+
Schools, churd�es, 60-70 70-80 80+
nursin hoines --
Neighborhood 60 or less 60-65 65-70 70+
arks
Office/Retail 70 or less 70-75 75-80 80+
Industrial 70 or less 70-75 75+
Source:Dublin General Pl�n Noise Element, Table 9-1
The City of Dublin also enforces an interior noise standard of 45 decibels for residential
dwellings.
City of Dublin
Initiai Study/Eastern Dublin Properties Page 80
August 2015
Previot�s CEQA clocuznents
Ectste���l Dtil�li�1 EIR. T11e Eastern Dublin EIR coi�tains a ilumber of lniti�ation zneasuies
to redL�ce anticipated noise impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These
iilclude:
• Nlitigation Meastues 3.10/1.0 would reduce impacts related to exposure of
proposed housing to future road�vay noise (IM 3.10/A) to a less-than-significant
level. This mitigation measure requires that all future development projects have
an acoustic analysis prepared to ensure that future dwelling units zneet City
noise exposure levels.
• Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 would reduce impacts related to
construction noise (IM 10/E) to a less-than-significant leveL These mitigation
measures require developers to subinit construction noise management plans
and to limit hours of construction operations.
2002 SEIR (Jo��rlrtii Rrr�1cJ�). The 2002 Supplein�nt contains two supplenlental initigation
measures dealing �vith noise impacts, as follows:
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-1 requires a noise insulation plan
for general commercial and industrial land uses for specific developnlent
projects located �vithin a 70 decibel noise contour.
• Suppleinental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-2limits heavy truck traffic to
designated arterial roads and truck routes in the Fallon Village area.
The 2002 S�IR found that exposure of proposed and existing IZOUSing to noise levels in
excess of City standards established in the Noise Element was a sigiuficant and
unavoidable ilnpact.
2005 SEIR (Jordrz�i Pr���zclt). The SEIR prepared in 2005 contlins the following
suppleinental noise mitigation nleasures:
• Suppleinental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-1 requires that residents of
residential developments in the Fallon Village area receive writteil notification of
aircraft overflights froin Liverinore Airport
• Suppleinental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-2 requires an acoustical study
must be prepared for future residential projects in the Fallon Village area.
The proposed project�vill be required to comply tvith applicable noise rnitigation
ineasures contained in the previous EIRs.
City of Dublin Page 81
Initiai Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Pro�ect Im�acts
a,c) Would' the���oject expose�erso�is o��ge�ze�-c�tioli of�2oise levels i�1 excess of sta�idrzrds
establi:slled by tlze GeTaerc�l Plr��z or otlzer a�plicable sta�zdctrd a�id resitlt i�a c� substc��Ttir�l
irtcrec�ses ia� perf�za�ie�it i�i �r�ibie�zf noise levels? No New Impact. The land use
comp��tibility guidelines applicable to this project are designed to provide
guida�lce in determining �vhen special sound insulation treatments may be
necessary in order to adequately control the intrusion of environmental noise. In
this case, 70 dBA CNEL is the acceptable exterior noise limit for schools. The
Califo�rnia Building Code noise threshold is 65 CNEL. The noise exposure at the
site is less than 65 dBA CNEL and is compatible with the proposed land use. For
the most intensive proposed use associated with the project, the combination
elementary and middle school located on the south side of Central Parkway and
at the i.ntersection of Central Parkway and Sunset View Drive, a detailed noise
analysis was completed by the firm of Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Their analysis
is as fo�llows.
Traffic noise im�acts. Typically, a significant permanent noise increase
would �xcur if the project would increase noise levels at noise sensitive
receptors by 3 dBA CNEL or greater where ambient noise levels exceed the
normally acceptable noise level standard. Where ambient noise levels are at
or below the norrnally acceptable noise level standard, noise level increases
of 5 dBA CNEL or greater�vould be considered significant. Ambient noise
levels at the nearest receptors are above 60 dBA CNEL at times, and �vould
exceed u0 dBA CNEL with the project; therefore, the 3 dBA CNEL or greater
significance threshold would apply.
Vehicle traffic associated with the project was evaluated to determine
whet11e1-or not the project would result in a substantial perinanent increase
in noise levels existing without the project. Traffic data provided by Fe1ir F�
Peers were reviewed to calculate traffic noise level increases expected as a
result of the project. These data included turning movement counts at six
intersections for existing conditions and projections for cumulative
conditions with school traffic, and cumulative conditions without school
traffic L,ink volumes under the project scenario were compared to existing
link volumes to calculate the noise increase attributable to the project.
Traffic noise levels along Central Parkway and Sunset View Drive were
projected to increase by 3 dBA CNEL during the AM peak hours. This noise
increase would be noticeable during the AM peak hours. However, project-
generated traffic would not cause a substantial increase in daily average
noise levels. On a 24-hour average basis, the CNEL is calculated to increase
by less than 1 dBA assuming a 3 dBA Le9 increase in existing firaffic noise
levels du�ring the AM peak hours. The largest relative traffic noise increases
are expected in areas with relatively low existing traffic volumes.
Additior�.ally, receivers in the site's viciiuty are new construction and would
have no baseline noise exposure from which to compare noise increases in
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties Page 82
August 2015
the eilviro�z�nent. The fraffic noise incre�se resultilzg froin the project�vould
not be substantial or result in a sigi-�ificant iinpact.
Parkiz�g lot noise. There is potential for a surface parking Iot to be located oi�
a portion of the site adjacent to residences. The major noise sources
attributed to parking lot activities are the sounds of vehicles as they drive
by, noise generated �vhen vehicles start their engines, door slams, and the
occasional sound of car alarms or horns. Illi�i�vortla F� Rodkiti, Ijic. has
calculated noise generated by a similar parlcing lot in close proximity to
residences. Maxilnum and average noise levels resulting from activities in
the proposed parking lot�vere assessed at residential receptors 150 feet
froin the project site, either across Central Parkway to the north or along
Central Park«�ay to the east. These residences are likely to be nearest the
school's parlcing lot. Predicted parlcing lot noise levels were then compared
to existing ambient noise.
Maximum instantaneous noise levels at 150 feet from parlcing lot activities
�vould range from about 47 to 57 dBA L as a result of typical activities
t,,,.
and could reach 67 dBA Ln,aa w11en car alarnls are sounded. Noise levels
from typical activities are lower than measured hourly L�� noise levels
conditions duiing the day. When car alarnls are sounded, noise levels could
exceed ineasured houily average conditions by 3 to 8 dBA during the day.
Howevei, maxinluin noise levels under current conditions are typically
within the 65 to 80 dBA L,,,a�range during the daytiine. While maxiinum
installtaneous noise levels resulting froin a parking lot�vould be audible
and nlay be considered inhusive, the quantitative noise iilcrease would not
be substantial and the impact would be less t11an sigiuficailt.
The hourly average noise level resulting from noise-generating activities in
th� proposeci parking lot would reach 37 dBA L�� at a distance of 150 feet
tronl the acoustical center of a hypothetical parlcing area (sensitive rece�tors
would not be any closer) and would fall below typical hourly average noise
levels during the day. Similarly, CNEL iloise levels resulting from the
operation of t11e parlcing lot�vould reach 44 dBA CNEL at the nearest
residential receivers, but would be below existing ambient conditions. On
an hourly average or daily average basis, the operation of the proposed
parking lot would not substailtially increase anlbient noise Ievels above
levels existing without the project.
Noise from outdoor activities. Schools typically include play/P.E. areas for
students. The acoustical center of play areas are not expected to be closer
than 250 feet froin the nearest residential outdoor use area to the north or
east. Noise fronl children playing is dependent on play tiines, total number
of students outside at one time, and the number of hours per school day
where children would be outside at recess or participating in a physical
education c]ass.
City of Dublin Page 83
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Illingv�orth & Rodlcin, Inc. has measured noise generated by outdoor
activities at schools at several locations in the Bay Area. Average noise
levels from outdoor activities at schools typically range from 72 to 74 dBA
L�� at a distance of 25 feet�vith 20 to 30 children at play. However, since the
distance between play area and residential outdoor use area would increase
by 225 feet, those adjusted average noise levels would decrease by 10 dBA.
Overall, average noise levels from outdoor activities are calculated to be 62
to 64 dBA Len at a distance of 250 feet. Maximum noise levels typically result
from whistles and voices, and can reach 81 dBA Lma�at a distance of 25 feet,
�vhich is calculated to be 71 dBA L at 250 feet. Average noise levels at the
max
nearest residential outdoor use areas are calculated to reach 62 dBA Le�,
which would fall within the range of typical daytime noise levels (currently
froin 58 to 66 dBA Le�).
Based on the above calculations, use of the outdoor activity areas could
generate a noise level as high as 57 dBA CNEL at a distance of 250 feet.
When 1:he new noise source is added to the existing noise levels at
residences (i.e., 61 dBA Ld„ during weekdays), day-night average noise
levels would remain at 61 dBA CNEL and would not be significanf based o
City General Plan iloise standards.
Noise from mechanical ec�ui�ment. Proposed structures on site �NOUId
include� ventilation systems that would be expected to generate relatively
low noise levels. Such ventilation systems would be designed with
standard Building Code requirements and would not be expected to
generate high noise levels either within or outside of the project area.
Future:noise levels due to mechanical equipment operation is not expected
to be noticeable above existing traffic noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive
uses and this iinpact is would not be significant.
Future park uses on Subarea 3 and tlie Wallis Ranch Subareas would be subject
to applicable mitigation measures contained in previous CEQA documents to
ensure that no significant noise impacts �vould result.
There would be no new or substantially more severe noise impacts with respect to
generat:ion of noise in excess of City standards than have been analyzed in
previous CEQA documents.
b) Exposr.�re of people to excessive groi«idborT�ze vib��atior2 or groii�idbor�te �zoise levels? No
New Iinpact. According to the project applicant, normal construction methods
would Le used to build the proposed project so there would be limited and less-
than-significant generation of groundborne noise or vibration. There would
therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect
to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents.
d) Sz.�bsta�ltial te»i�o��ary or periodic ilicrease i�i a»ibie�it �zoise levels i�1 tlte project vici�iit�
r�bove levels witlzout tlie project? No New Impact. Future individual projects
City of Dublin Page 84
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
constructed on each of the Subareas �vill be required to adhere to construction
noise mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to minimize the
impacts of construction noise, including Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure
3.10/4.0 and Mitigation Measure 3.10/5.0, to reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level. No ne�v or more substantially severe impacts with respect to
construction noise have been identified in this Initial Study than have been
previously analyzed in other CEQA documents for the project Subareas.
e, f) For a project located witllin ari airport land use plan, would the project expose people to
excessive noise levels? No New Impact. Subarea 3 is located within the height
referral area of the Livermore Airport. The noise analysis prepared for the project
did not identify significant aircraft noise from Livermore Municipal Airport on this
site. No new or more severe significant impacts would occur than previously
analyzed.
-- -- ----__------ _ — -
City of Dublin Page 85
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
,-� � >� _a�;,,. ��,r �, �y��� -
�;.� i,� ��" �� ��{ �� � �. ;�� �: �
�ti, ���a �I �� �,;,,, �
r .
� � ��µ
� � � I M' �'�=�� � ��..
.'
.�; -�-- -��,�-�' �;�
� �F
� i �r t
`�
,
. �
. .
.
� _. . ,
,. .
. . . �'�` ;',g
�'s, � {� .M ,£J o ��t� �' �
� �¢' �`
,
.. � ,�. �. . •. -. �" c __ ....z` .� .
,. - �_.�,-� _<,_ � ,��� �r,. /
� � .
a ��
��I.i� .� �.
'L 4gii7 � �: I�� ,�' �
� �k, x"I I�i .:� �� � .
,���:�� 'I II�,�.. ��
I I
i
�
,
� �i �
� � � �;
�
�.�� � � ' .����� r}�
�+:T �, �,�„ ,,.
:�y. � �p����'°'�.." ' `°
"� ,r., ..
�, s�9
�
� m,. d��
��
�� - ��, ,.ro
� , .:��. �
� Proiect Site
°�.
�. 'i ;� � ��
�� :.
��
I '
lo
�w
�i.r � �
. � :
I
�
� ���, . _
! EXHIBIT 9 �
� '
; JORDAN RANCH
"°q T" � GPA & SPA
NTS
i
����a No1sE �zEASU�MENT LocATtoNS �
,�`�"� '� ���, JCfLY"2015 �
1�. �'�j�ulat�c�ai and I�a��si��a
Envirann�ental Settii��
T11e p�oject Subareas are aIl currently vacaz�t aild contain no d�vellings.
Project Iin�acts
a) I�rduce sTr��sfr��rti��l �opl�ilrrtioli grou�th i�1 �az area, eiflier directly or i�ir�irectly? No Ne�v
Inlpact. T11e tl-�ree Subareas have been plaiuled tor a mix of residential and
coTnmercial land uses, parks, opeil spaces and other land uses since adoption of
the Eastern Dublin General Pla�z Ameizdment and Specific Plan in 1993. The
Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed the gro�vth inducing inlpact (Iinpact 3.5/T) related to
providing ���ater service to the Eastern Dublin area. The configuration of uses on
the site and surrounding areas 11ave been slightly Inodified for all three Subareas
over the past tew ��ears as identified in the Project Description section of this Initia]
Study.
On the Jordan Panch Subarea, the current proposal could result in consti-uction of
an increase of up to 40 d�vellings above tlzat includ�d in the 2014 City land use
lpproval. This ��ould result by relocating �he approved School site to the south
and replacing this portion ot the Jordan Ranch�vith Medium Density Pesidential
d�vellii�gs. The increased residential developineizt potential �vould still be belo�v
the maxiznu7�� residential buildout analyzed for t11��Jorc�al� Ranch in t11e 2005 SEIR,
��vhich is 1,064 d�vellii�bs.
The proposed project would have the effect of reducing one d�velling from the
Suvarea 3 portion of tl�e project This would be due to the proposed re-designation
of tl�e "Rural Residential/Agricultural (RRA)" portion of the site to "Park." T11e
current RRA designatioil �vould allo�v one dwelling unit�vithin Subarea 3,
��,�hereas none �vould be allo�ved under the proposed "Park" 1a11d use designation.
No residences would be affected on the Wallis Ranch Sub�rea as part of this
project.
Based on the above discussion that the potential increase in the nuinber of
dwelling units at build-out�vould be small arzd consistent with previous CEQA
documents, there �ti�ould therefore be no new or substantially more severe
significant iinpacts with respect to this inlpact than has been previously analyzed
in previous CEQA docuinents.
b,c) Wo�.tld tlie project d�isplr�ce sl�bstrr�ltiallii�»2bers of existi�zg l�ro��si�ig ���liits or�eo�le? No
Neih� Impact. None of the Subareas contain existing d�velling units and no impact
would result�vit�1 regard to displacement of d�vellings or population on the site.
There �vould be no ne�v or substantially more severe significant impacts wit11
respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the previous CEQA
documents.
City of Dublin Page 87
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
14. Public Services
Environmental Settin�
The following provide essential services to the Project Site:
• Fire Protection. Fire protection services are provided by the Alameda County
Fire Department. The Department provides fire suppression, emergency
medical response, fire prevention, education, building inspection services and
hazardous material control.
� Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by the Dublin
Police Services Department headquartered at the Dublin Civic Center, 100
Civic Plaza just east of do�vntown Dublin.
• Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides K-12 educational
services for properties in the Eastern Dublin area.
� Librarv Services: Alameda County Library service.
• Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and otller governmental facilities
are the responsibility of the City of Dublin.
Previous CE�2A documents
Applicable mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR addressing fire and
police protection include:
• M�.tigation Measure 3.4/7.0: Establish appropriate funding mechanisms to
cover up-front costs of capital fire improvements.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0: Incorporate Fire Department recommendations
on project design relating to access, water pressure, fire safety and prevention
int:o the requirements of development approval.
• Mi.tigation Measure 3.4/10.0: Ensure, as a requirement of project approval,
that an assessment district, homeowners association or other mechanism is in
pl��ce that will provide regular long-term maintenance of the urban/open
space interface.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0: The City shall work with the Fire Department
and qualified biologists to prepare a wildfire management plan for the project
area.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/1.0: Provide additional personnel and facilities and
revise beats as necessary in order to establish and maintain City standards for
police protection service in Eastern Dublin.
City of Dublin Page 88
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
• I�1�tigrttic�n h�leasure 3.�/3.0-5.0: Itzcorparate il�to t��e requireiilents of proj�ct
appro�ral Police Departrnent recoznnlendations c�n project clesign that aftect
trattic safety ancl crii�ze prevention.
�'o significant impacts to pu��lic services �vere identitied in other pre��ious CEQA
documents affecting the thi-ee Subareas.
Tut�ire developinent on all three Subareas����ill be required to ac�llere to Eastern Dublin
nlitigatioil ineasures.
Pro�ect Im�acts
a) Fi��e ���otectio�l? I�TO Ne�v Inlpact. Approval and implementation of the proposed
project�vould slightly� increase the �ZUinber of fire and enlergency inedical calls for
service that ���ould need to be responded to by the Alameda County Fire
Departinent, the Ci�y of Dublin's contract fire deparhllent. Tlus is due to a sinall
increase in the maximtun number of d�ti�ellings that�vould be allo�tired on the
Jordalz Ranc11 Subarea than currently 111o���ed (up to 35 d�lrellin�s). Future
de��elopznent on all of the Subareas will be required to adhere to mitigation
nleasures, includil�g payment of public facility iinpact fees to assist in funding nei�v
fire stations (Eastern Dublin EIR I��itigation Measure 3.4/7.0), so that impacts to
the Alameda County Fire Department related to approval and construction of t11e
proposed Project �vould be less-tl�an-significant. Consisteilt�n�ith Eastern Dttblin
EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0, proposed developments on t11e Subareas�vill be
conditioned to meet Fire Deprzrtment requirenzents including but not liinited to
maintainiilg miniznuln �vater pressure and fire flo�v, providing adequate site
access and using fire retardant building materials. Proposed development�vill also
be conditioned to be consistent�vith the City's adopted Wildfire I�2anagement Plan
(Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0).
Based on discussions with Alameda County Fire Department staff, tllere would be
no ne��v or substantially nlore severe significant impacts �vith respect to fire service
beyond that ailalyzed in previous CEQA documents (source: Bonnie Terra,
Alaineda County Fire Department, 5/15/15).
b) Police protectio�l? No Ne�v Impact. Sinlilar to fire protection, there would be no netiv
impact�vith regard �o police protection, based on the follo��ving mitigation
ineasures included in the Eastern Dublul EIR. These Mitigation Measures include
paying City of Dublin public facility impact fees to assist in funding new police
facilities (I��Iitigation ��Teasure 3.4/1.0) incorporating Police Department safety and
security requirements into the proposed Project, including but not limited to
adequate locicing devices, lighting a11d ensuring adequate surveillance for
structures and parl<ing areas (I�litigation Measures 3.4/3.0-5.0).
The proposed project ivould be a ininor increase in residential developinent on tl�e
Jordan Ra�zch compared to the 2012 Addendum but less de�relopnlent than
assumed in the 2005 SEIR Thus tlle project is not a substantial change from the
City of Dublin Page 89
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
analyse� and conclusions in prior CEQA documents. There �tiTould therefore be no
new or substantially more severe significant impacts ��Jith respect to police
protection than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents.
Based on discussions �vith Dublin Police Services Department staff, tllere would be
no new or substantially more severe impacts with respect to police service beyond
that analyzed in previous CEQA documents (source: Captain Dennis
Houghtelling, Dublin Police Services, 5/21/15).
c) Schools?' No New Impact. There �vould be no new impacts to school service should
the proposed project be approved since payment of mandated statutory impact
fees at the time of issuance of building permits will provide initigation of
educational impacts of the proposed project pursuant to CEQA.
Approval of the proposed project would also result in the relocation of an existing
School site on a portion of the Jordan Ranch to a site south and �vest of the current
site. The proposed school �vould be developed and operated by the Dublin Unified
School District (DUSD). The proposed school would provide K-8 educational
services with an estimated maximum enrollment of bet�veen 900 and 950 students.
The approved development plan for the Jordan Ranch included future
constr-uction of a 500-student elementary school.
The Cit�� of Dublin and Dublin Unified School District recently entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to facilitate development of the school.
There �vould therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts
�vith respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA
documents.
d) Other goverrirner2tql service, i��cluding »tainfena�ice of public facilities? No New Impact.
Maintenance of public facilities �vould continue to be provided by the City of
Dublin with no new impacts in regard to this topic. New public facilities will be
required to be designed to meet City of Dublin standards. There would therefore
be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this
impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents.
e) Solid waste ge�zeration? No New Impact. See item 17 "f" and "g," below.
15. Recreation
Environmental Settin�
No neighborhood or community parks and/or recreation services or facilities are
currently located on the project site. The Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan designate a number of future park sites on the overall Jordan Ranch
Subarea 3 and Wallis Ranch properties. These include:
City of Dubiin Page 90
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
� J�rdan Rand1: � 5.8-�cre nei�hborhood par�:, a ?.:-ac�-e z�eigl2borhood sqt2are
and an 11.1-acre c���unLUlity �arkis ct�rrently planlle�.
• Subar�a 3: � 2.7-acre i�ei�hborhood Square is ap�roved �vithin Subarea 3.
• Wallis Ranch: T���o �ublic neighborhood parks �u�d a private park totaling 12.4
acres are approved on tlus propert��.
The City of Dublin otfers a range of park, recreation and cultural s�rti�ices.
Re�io11a1 park facilities are provided byr t11e East Bay Regional Park District, �vl�iclz
inaintains a large number ot regional parks, trails and similar recreation facil.ities i11
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
Previous CEQA documents
ERSte���z Dl�blirz EIR. T11e Eastern Dublin EIR identified a rlumber of mitigation ineasures
related to parks and recreatioi�al facilities, as follo�vs.
• Mitigation Measures 3.4/20.0-28.0 calls for the acquisition and developnlent of
ne�ti� parks and other ou�door facilities in �astern Dublin, iequiring land
dedication and/or park in-lieu fees for ne��� subdivisions and siinilar techniques
to provide for additional park and recreational features. Implementation of all of
tlze mitigation nzeasures identitied in the Eastern Dublin EIR lvould result in a
ratio of 6.7 acres ot parkland per 1000 population in Eastern Dublin.
• Mitigation Meastxies 3.4/29.0-31.0 requires that each new developmeYlt in
Eastenz Dublin provide a fair share of parks and open space facilities.
Developnlent of a parks in�plementation plan�vas also called for, to identify and
piioritize parlcland in Easterll Dublin. Finally, adoption of a park in-lieu fee
prograin was required as a nlitigation measure to reduce tlus impact to a level of
insignificance. Consistent�vith these niitigatioils, the City requires residential
project developers to dedicate parkland at the time of subdivision approval and
pay Public Facility Fees (�ti�hich includes park in-lieu fees) to fund both the
developznent of neigl-�borhood and comnlunity park facilities as ��ell as other
conlmtulity facilities.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/32.0 requires the establislunent of a trail system�vith
connections to planned regional and subregional trails, which �vould reduce this
impact to an insignificant level.
• Mitigation Measures 3.4/33.0-36.0 call for use of natural stream corridors and
nlajor ridgelines to create a conlprehei�sive, integrated trail systenl that allo�vs
safe and convenient pedestrian access, and required developers to dedicate
public access along ridgetops and stream corridors to accominodate trail and
staging areas.
City of Dublin Page 91
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
2002 SEIR (Jo��drz�t Ra�acli �a�o��erf�). The 2002 SEIR described a proposed action of that
project to detach the Project area from the Livermore Area Recreation and Parks District
(LARI'D) as part of the larger reorganization that also included annexation of the
Project area �to the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District. Under the
reorganization proposal, the City of Dublin would provide parks and recreation
facilities and services to Project area residents as part of the larger spectrum of
municipal services. The reorganization�-vas approved by the Alameda County Local
Agency Forrnation Commission in 2002 and the site no�v receives park and recreation
facilities and services from the City of Dublin.
2004 Dubli�2 .Ranc12 West SEIR (Wr�llis Ra�icli �roperty). This SEIR contained Supplemental
Impact Park--1, which found a potentially significant impact with respect to an
inconsistenc.y bet�veen the proposed development plan and the City's Park and
Recreation Master Plan. This was reduce to a less-than-significant level by requiring the
project deve:�oper to amend the Development Plan to add an additional 1.04 net acre of
Neighborhood Park and a 1.9-acre Neighborhood Park within the project site.
No park impacts or mitigation rneasures �vere contained in the Subarea 3 Addendum.
The project developer�vill be required to comply with all applicable mitigation
ineasures co:ntained in previous CEQA documents.
Project Im�acts
a) Would tlie project i�tcrease tlie use of existi�ig neiglitiorliood or regio�ial parks? No New
Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed project would increase the use
of nearby City and regional recreational facilities, since it would include increasing
the on-site permanent population on the Jordan Ranch by 35 dwellings. However,
a joint school and park is proposed on this property, which would provide a City
recreational area. The Jordan Ranch project applicant is required to comply �vith
Eastern Dublin EIR initigation measures, including payment of City public
facilities fees to assist the City to purchase and/or improve parks throughout the
community that could be used by Project residents. The proposed project would
increase parkland on Subarea 3 and the Wallis Ranch Subarea.
City staff has determined that the proposed project would not result in a
significant impact with respect to use of neighborhood or commercial parks
(source: Paul McCreary, Dublin Director of Parks and Community Services,
6/1/15i
There v�Tould therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts
with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA
documents.
b) Does tl�e project include recreatioi2al facilities or require tlze co�istruction of recreational
facilities? No New Impact. See item "a," above. The proposed project would
include slightly decreasing the amount of public parkland on the Jordan Ranch
project but would increase parkland on Subarea 3 and the Wallis Ranch property.
City of Dublin Page 92
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Th�re�-��ou�d t1ler�fo�-e t�e 12o ne��- ��r su�-�stantiallv nlore s���ere si�x�ific�i�t iuzpacts
;vith respect to this inzpact �han 1z�s 1�een previousl�- aiYal�rzed in t�1e preti�ious
CEQ� doctuz�ents.
16. Transporfation/Traf€ic
En�r;ronmental �Settin�
Existin� road�vay svstenl. The Jordan Railch 1»d Subarea 3 Subareas are se1•ved b�� tl�e
follo��ti�ing road�vays.
Fr�llo�t Ror�d is a nort��-south arterial roadway t�zat connects I-580 to Tassajara
Road. It currently provides t���o t�avel lanes in each direction, �vit11 the
exception of the segment that�rovides three lanes in each direction between
Central Park�vay aild Gleason Drive. Betvveen I-580 and Central Parkway,
tlus segznent is ultimately planned to provide three lanes i11 each direction.
This road�va5� is being upgraded as developznent occurs on parcels fronting
the road�vay, and �vill ultimately provide side�valks and bicycle facilities
alon� its length. Fallol� Road is a designated route ot regional significance.
Ce�tt�rr�l P�z��ku�ai�is an east-�vest road�vay that extends tronl Arnold Road to
east ot Fallon Road. Bet��-een Arnold Road and Tassajara Drive, and east of
Fallon Road, it is a desigilated collectar roadway. Bet�,veen Tassajara Road
and Fallon Road, it is a designated arterial roadway. It geilerally provides
one travel lane in each direction with a landscaped nledian, bicycle lanes ancl
side�valks along portions of the roadway that have fronting development.
On-street parlcing is allo�ved on son�e portions of the road�vay.
Positatio Pr�rku�ati/is an east-�vest roadway that extends from Fa11on Road to
Croak Road. It is a t�-vo-lane arterial with a landscaped nledian, side�valks,
and bike lanes. On-street parlcing is not allo�nred on this facility.
Dub1i�7 Bolilevrrrd is an east-west designated arterial roadway in the City of
Dl��li�i Ge�lercrl Pla�i that extends fronl west of San Ranlon Road to its current
terininus at Fallon Road. It is generalIy a four to six lane facility with a
landscaped median. No on-street parking is permitted on this facility. Dublin
Boulevard is a designated ioute of regional significance. Bicycle 1a71es and
sidetivalks are provided on portions of Dublin Boulevard.
Lockltn��t Street is a north-soutll collector roadvvay that extends from Dublin
Boulevard to Gleason Drive. Tl1is facility is complete with a landscaped
median and bike lanes. Sidewalks are present�nrhere there is adjacent
developinent—side��alk infill would occur as the adjacent lands become
developed. On-str�et parking is not allo�ved on this facility.
City of Dublin Page 93
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Si�llset Viezv D��ive is a local residential roadway that spans north from
Central l?arkway inside the project area. It is a hvo-lane facility �vith on-
street parking and side�valks.
Pa�2oral�z��z Drive is a north-south local residential facility inside the project
area that:parallels Sunset Vie�v Drive to d1e east. It is also a t��o-lane facility
with on-street parking and side�valks.
In additioi� t�� dze above roadways, the Wallis Ranch Subarea is served by Tassajai�c�
Road, an arterial road�vay that connects Santa Rita Road in Pleasanton to the soutll�tirith
Contra Costa County to the north. Tassajara Road generally has four lanes of travel, t���o
in each direction, and is planned to have six lanes at buildout.
Pedestrian facilities. Pedestrian facilities include side�valks, path�vays, cross�valks,
and pedestrian signals. Sidewalks are provided along most roadways in the
iminediate st�xdy area, although there are portions of Central Parkway and
Fallon Road where the road�vay has not yet been constructed to its ultimate
�vidth and sidewalks have not yet been constructed.
Sidewalks have also been constructed along portions of Tassajara Road.
Bicvcle facilifies. Class II A bicycle lanes are provided on Dublin Boulevard, Fallon
Road and Central Parkway. A series of Class I paths are also provided throughout the
eastern Dublin area.
Transit servi�ce. Transit service in the area is provided by Wheels, Bay Area Rapid
Transit (BAR:T), and Altamont Commuter Express (ACE).
Existing traffic o�erations. Existing operations were evaluated for the weekday
AM, afternoon and PM peak hours at the study intersections, Uased on the
volumes and lane configurations shown on Table 3 of the attached traffic
analysis (Attachment 2). Observed peak hour factorsz were used at all
intersections for the existing analysis. Where the observed PHF was less than
0.75, a minimum value of 0.75 was used. Truck, pedestrian and bicycle activity
�Nas factored into the analysis.
As shown, study intersections operate at overall acceptable service levels in
accordance v��ith benchmarks set by the City of Dublin during the morning,
afternoon and evening peak hours. Detailed intersection LOS calculation
worksheets �re presented in Appendix B of the full traffic analysis.
Vehicle c�ueu.ing. Field observations confirmed the calculated levels of service
along with t�te extent of existing vehicle queues, which are contained �vithin the
�The relationsl�ip between the peak 15-minute flow rate and the full hourly volume is given by the peak-hour factor(PHF)based o�the
following equation:PHF=Hourly volumei(4*volume during the peak 1�minutes of Flow). The analysis of leve]of service is based on peak
rates of flow occurring within the peak hour because substantial shoR-term fluctuations typically occur during an hour.
City of Dublin Page 94
initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
existii�g ��ehicle stora�e. BetaiI�d intersection queuin� calculation�r-orksheets ��e
��1so t�rese��ted in��ppendix B of the ft.11 t�aftic analy�ie.
Previous CEQA doculnents
Easter�t DI��UIi�i EIR. The Easteril DuLlin EIR includes the fo1lo��ti�in�miti�ation nle�isures
� ��litigation �Vleasures 3.3/1.0 and 3.3/4.01 ��vere ado�ted �-�rlvch reduced inlpacts
on I-580 bet�veen Tassajara Road and Fallon Poad and on I-680 north of I-5�0 to a
level of iizsi�nific�uzce.
• I�1iti�ation '��Zeasures 3.3/2.0, 2.1, 3.0 and 5.0���ere adopted to reduce iinpacts on
the renlaining I-5u0 free�vay seginents and the I-580/680 interchange. Even�vitll
nlitibations, ho�vever, significant cuniulative inlpacts remained on I-580 free�vay
segments bet�veen I-6�0 and Dougherty Road and, at the build-out scenario of
2010, on other seginents of I-580.
• Mitigation I�-Zeasures 3.3/6.0— 8.0, 10.0 and 12.0 ���ere adopted to reduce inlpacts
to the Dougherty Poad/Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive�I-5S0 Eastbowld
Tree�vay IZatnps, Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Free�vay Ranlps, Air��vay
Boulevard/Dublin Boulevard intersections and long El Charro Road to a level of
insignificance. Th�se mi�tigations include construction of additional lailes at
intersections, coordination with Caltrans and the neighboring cities of Pleasanton
and Livermore to resnipe, �viden or modity on-ramps and off-ranlps and
interchange intersectioi�s, and coordination�vith Caltrans to inodify certain
interchanges. Development projects within the Eastern Dublin project area aie
also required to coi�tribute a proportionate sllare to the multi-jurisdictional
improvements tllrough the Eastern Dublin traffic impact fee progranl and the
Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee prograin.
• Mitibation Measures 3.3/13.0 and 14.0 were adopted to reduce iznpacts oi1
identified intersections �vith Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road.
• Mitigation Measures 3.3/15.0 — 15.3 and 16.0— 16.1 generally require
coordination with transit providers to extend transit services and coincide
pedestrian aild bicycle paths �vith signals at major street crossings.
2002 SEIR (JordrrTt Rr��icli S��br�rer�). The following initigation measures were included in
the 2002 SEIR.
• Suppleznental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIGI requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of�videning
the I-580/Hacienda Drive eastbound ramp to include an additional left turn
lane.
• Suppleznental Mitigation Measure SM-TIZAFFIC-2 requires individual
developers in t11e Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of�videning
City of Dublin Page 95
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
the northbound Hacienda Drive overcrossing from 3 to 4lanes as well as
modifying the �vestbound loop on-ramp to meet Caltrans design standards.
• Suppleinental I��litigation Meastire SM-TRAFFIC-3 requires individual
devel��pers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of converting
the east bound I-580/Santa Rita to a shared left-turn/through lane.
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-4 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to install a signal at the Dublin
Boulevard/Street D intersection.
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-5 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of installing a
traffic signal at the Fallon Road/Project Road intersection.
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-6 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of
recon:Eiguring the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection.
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-7 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to construct an additional through lane on
northbound Fallon Road, an additional left-turn lane and an additional through
lane c�n southbound Fallon Road.
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-8 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to fund a feasibility study for possibly
relocating the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection further north and
adding a new signalized intersection south of the relocated Fallon Road/Dublin
Boulevard intersection.
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-9 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village to fund widening Fallon Road between the I-580
free`vay and Dublin Boulevard to eight lanes, for widening Fallon Road between
Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway to six lanes and for widening Fallon
Road between Central Parkway and Project Road to four lanes. The Fallon
Road/I-580 overcrossing shall also be widened to six lanes.
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIGIO requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to widen Central Parkway between
Tassajara Road and Fallon Road to four lanes.
2005 SEIR (Jordari Rancl� Si.�barea). The 2005 SEIR contained the following traffic and
transportation mitigation measures:
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-1 requires individual project
developers in the Fallon Village area to advance construction of the Dougherty
Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection improvements or, if the City's Traffic
City of Dublin Page 96
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Inlpact Fee Probrazn is updated in tl�e fut�,�ze to funcl these i�nproz�e�lz.ei�ts, use ��t
f�aftic iees ��vould �niti�ate this ctunulative in�pact.
� Su�pleinental Mitigation'��easure SM-TRA-2 requires all project developers ii2
the Fallon�%illa�e area to fuzld the�videning of the I-580 eastbound off ramp at
Santa Rita Road to accor�2nledate additional peak hour cunuilative t�-atfic.
• Suppleznental Mitigation Measure S1�1-TRA-3 requires project decelopers in tlie
Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of ftu-�ding to titi�iden the Cenh•al
Park�vay/Hacienda Dri�e intersection to accoznmodate anticipa�ed cumul ative
traffic. All znitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin
S�ecific Plan EIR, the 2002 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR shall apply to tlle proposed
Project.
2005 SEIR (Iti'r�llis Rrr�icli S�tbarea). This CEQA document identified the tollo��ving
si�nificallt sttpplemental iinpacts and mitigation measures:
• Supplelnent�l �Zitigation I�leasure TRA-1 reduced tlle iinpact of
additional traff�ic along Tassajara Road segments near tl�e project site to a
less-than-sigiuficant level by requiring the developer to �viden Tassajara
Road to four travel lanes bet�veen North Dublin Ranch Drive to the
northern project access road.
• Supplen1e11ta1 IVlitigatioll Measure TRA-2 reduced the inlpact of potential
tr-affic safety impacts to a less-than-sigiuficant level by requiring
installation of traffic signals at the two project entrances, provide an east-
bound right-turn lane, provide i�orthl�ound left-turn capacity from
Tassajara Road onto project access drives, provide a nortllbound left-turn
lane fi-om Tassajara Road onto tlze soutl�ern access drive and provide a
southbound right-turn pocket���ith a taper on Tassajara Road at both
access roadways.
The proposed project will be required to conlply with all of the above
transportation and circulation mitigation measures.
Soine of the required transportation improvements have already been completed, sozne
ar� under�vay and sonle are planned for the future�vith funding provided through the
Eastern Dublin TIF Program
Pro�ect Tm�acts
a) Cai�se a�z il�icrerrse i�1 trnffr'c zvhidz is sirtistr�r�tinl to ez:isti�ig �rrzffie load crlid sfireet capacit��?
No I\Te�v Iinpact. To assess the potential traffic and transportation impact of tlle
proposed 950-student elernentary and middle school, the firm of Fe11r & Peers
coi��pleted a comprehensive traffic analysis of this portion of the project. Other
portions of the proposed project would generally involve future park developinent
in tl�e Subareas �nrhich �vas not deemed to geilerate a significant amount of traffic.
The Fehr & Peers report is included as Attachment 1 as well as a supplemental
City of Dublin Page 97
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
meinorandum documenting that future development of a 950-student elementary
and nliddle school �vould result in the same or less uztensive traffic impacts than
the 900-student elementary school analyzed in the base traffic analysis.
Background traffic model information is not contained in this Initial Study, but is
availab]I.e at the City of Dublin Community Development Department during
norinal business hours.
A summary of the traffic analysis is as follows:
Project tri� �eneration. For this project, several sources of trip generation
data were revie`ved, including Fehr & Peers trip generation surveys at
several elementary schools in the Tri-Valley Area. This data was compared
to trip �;eneration rates presented in the Institute of Transportation
EngineE�rs (ITE) Trip Generatiori Manual, (9th Edition) with the resulting trip
generation estimates shown in Table 5 of the full traffic analysis (see
Attachrnent 1). Also see Table 1 in the Addendum Report found in
Attachment 1.
Elementary School sites surveyed in the Tri Valley Area were typically
neighborhood schools with soine students observed walking/bilcing to
school, but with the majority of students being driven to school. The
surveyed rates reflect about 13 percent of the student population walking to
school. Given the number of housing units within the immediate vicinity of
the school, the walk percentage �vas increased to 25 percent, or 225 students.
The res�alting vehicle trip rate per student, accounting for a 25 percent walk
share, is higher than the maximum trip rate per student noted in the ITE
T1�ip GeTte��atiol�a Ma�zual.
For this assessment, Table 1 notes that construction of the proposed
elementary and middle schools would result in a total of 911 trips during
the a.m, peak, 468 trips in the afternoon peak (end of a school day) and 305
trips in the p.m. peak hour.
Project trip distribution and assignment. Project trip distribution refers to
the directions of approach and departure that vehicles would take to access
and leave the site. Estimates of regional project trip distribution were
developed based on existing travel patterns in the area, a select zone
analysis using the City of Dublin travel demand model, and prior analysis
prepared for the site. General trip distribution estimates are presented in
Table 7 of the traffic analysis (see Attachment 1).
Many school trips are part of the parent/guardian trip chain that typically
involves dropping off a child at school on the way to work or other daily
errands, and while it represents a new trip within the immediate project
area, it does not represent new trips to the regional roadway system. This
interaction was accounted for in the assignment of trips to study area
City of Dublin Page 98
Initiai Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
tnter��ctions. 1 roject tr-ips Fti�ere assigned to t1�e rca�'����a�� net�vork based on
the gei:e�,��l directions ot a��proach and departure �11o�,vn in T�ble 7 b�rt tlle
route that people take to the site could��ar��. Se�arate trip assigninellts are
sho��vn for existing and ruhzre conditions as the t�zll coiulection ot Croak
Road to Dublin Boulevard �ti-ould atfect ho�v vehicles arrive to/depart the
area, especially the school site. Table 7, belo�l-, suinmarized tri� generatic?n.
by land use t����e:
Table 7. Project Trip Distribution
Roadway Pro'ect Tri Assi nment
Residential Use School Use
Fa11on Road North 20% 20��
Fa11on Poad South 60% 10`,"0
Central Pkwy. East 5% 10 jo
Central Pk�ti� �. West 10% 30%
Positano Pkwy. East 5O7o 30%
Total 100% 100�
Source: City of Dublin FaHon Village Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report,
August 2005, Jordan Ranch Stage I!Submittal-Site Development Review, Apri120, 207 i,
and Fehr & Peers, 2015
Existing traffic�vith Pro�ect conditions. The project-only traffic volumes
�vere added to the existing peak hour traffic volumes to estimate the
Existing �vith Project peak hot�r intersection turning movement volumes, as
sho�ti�n on Table 8 of the full traffic analysis. For this sceilario it was
assuined that Ceiltral Parkivay �vould connect to Croak Road, connecting to
Dublin Boulevard, in the eastbound direction only. No changes to the lane
configuration or traffic control �vere assumed at any of the study
intersectioils. Traffic signal tinlings, peak hour factors, heavy vehicle
percentages, and pedestrian and bicycle activity at the study iiltersections
�vere left unch�nged froin existing conditions for the initial analysis.
Txistillg �vith Project coilditions �vere evaluated using tlze same methods
described in C1lapter 1 of the traffic ailalysis (see Attac11n1ent 1). The
analysis results are presented in Error! Reference source not found., based
on the traffic volunzes and lane configurations. Table 8 also includes �he
operations results for the Existing without Project conditions for
conlparison purposes.
With the addition of trips related to the build-out of the remaining portions
of Jordan Ranch, intersections in the study area �vould degrade, but�vould
continue to operate witl-iin the City's established level of service for
intersection operations over the peak hour.
i�Tear-ternl conditions. The results of tlle level of service calculations under
near-term conditions �vithout and �vith the project is described in this
City of Dublin Page 99
Initial Study!Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
section. Traffic volumes for Near-Term without Project conditions comprise
existing; volumes plus traffic generated by approved but not yet constructed
and occupied developinents in the area. Near-Term with Project conditions
are defined as Near-Term i-vithout Project conditions plus net new traffic
generated by the proposed project.
Traffic volumes for the Near-Term conditions �rere developed through the
use of the updated City ot Dublin Travel demand model considering
buildout of a portion of the Dublin Kaiser project, which is proposed on
Dublin Boulevard at Keegan Street. The forecasts represent likely traffic
conditions in the area over the next ten years. Near-Term �vithout Project
traffic volumes are shown on Figure 7 of the full traffic analysis. The
forecasts include the vehicle trip generation of the entitled land uses as
presented previously in Table 9 of the full traffic analysis. The net-ne�v trip
generation associated with the project was added to the without project
forecasi:s, with the resulting forecast presented on Figure 8 of the full traffic
analysis.
The cor.npletion of the Central Park�vay connection to Croak Road, which
connect:s to Dublin Boulevard, was assumed to be completed as a one lane,
bi-directional roadway. No modifications to the study intersection lane
geometries were assumed. Pedestrian and bicycle activity at the study
intersections were left unchanged from existing conditions except for the
with project condition where additional pedestrian activity was assumed at
the intersections that provide primary access to the school site. Heavy
vehicle percentages �vere adjusted to a uniform two percent of traffic.
Traffic signal timings were optimized at some intersections to reflect shifts
in travel patterns as the City of Dublin routinely adjusts traffic signal
timings to ensure optimal travel flow through the City.
Levels of service calculations were conducted to evaluate intersection
operations under Near-Term conditions both without and with the project.
The LOS results are summarized in Error! Reference source not found.
In the Near-Term condition prior to the land uses changes associated with
the project, the study intersections would operate at an acceptable service
level. With the net-change in trips related to the build-out of the remaining
portions of Jordan Ranch, study intersection operations would degrade, but
would continue to operate within the City's established level of service for
intersection operations over the peak hour.
Cumulative traffic conditions. Cumulative traffic forecasts were developed
using tl-�e updated City of Dublin travel demand model, representing
existing traffic, plus traffic from approved and pending developments, as
well as development that could occur under the current General Plan. The
traffic forecasts also reflect traffic shifts that could occur with construction
of new regional roadway facilities, including the El Charro Road extension
City of Dublin Page 100
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
tr��In Stolzerid�e Drive �o �tanlev Boulevard and the exten�ion of Dt�blin
�ot.levard east �c� Nortli Can��o��s Park���a5�. Other regi�nal road���ay
inlpr���renlei�ts ii�clt�de tl�e plaiuled��=idez�ing of Sfanley Boulev�rd to
provide three lanes in each direction fron� east of Isabel AventXe.
The resultizl� forecasts and intei sectioi�lazze configurations are presented on
Error! Reference �ource not tound. for the��vitl�out project conclition, ���hich
�-eflects build-out of Jordan Ranch�vith the currentl�� entitled uses. The net-
new t�-ip generation from t11e proposed project �vas added to the
Cunnilative �titithotxt Project hatfic voluines �o estinlate the Cunlula�ive witll
Project trattic volunles, as sho�vn on Tigure 10 of the tull traffic anal��sia.
Modifications to the intersection of Central Park�vay at Falloil Road were
asstuned in the analysis of Cuznulative conditions. Pedestrian and bicycle
activity at the study intersections were left unchanged from existing
conditions except for tl�e with project condition��vhere additional pedestrian
activity was assumed at t11e intersections tliat provide priinary access to the
sclzool site. Heavy vehicle percentages were �djusted to a uiufornl t�vo
perce�lt of traitic. Tratfic signal tiznings �vere optinlized to better
acconunodate shifts in travel patterns �s the City of Dublin routinely adjusts
traffic sig�nal tii�liTlgs to enstlre optiinal travel flo��� through t11e City.
Levels ot service calculations �vere conducted to evaluate intersection
op�rations under Cuznulative conditions both without and �vit11 the Project.
"The LOS results are suii�nlarized in Table 10 of the full traffic analysis. The
corresponding LOS and queue calculation sheets are included in Appendix
B of the fUl] traffic ailalysis.
'1�11e results of tlle LOS calculations indicate that�vit}1 planned developmellt
in Dublin and adjacent jurisdictions in the Cuinulative conditions, the
intersections in tlze vicinity of Jordan Rancll are projected to operate at
acceptable service levels in the Cumulative conditions and the net-change in
vehicle trip generation frc�m the proposed project�vould not clegrade peak
hour operations beyond the establislled LOS thresholds.
Based on the foregoing, there would be no ne�v or substantially more severe
significant iinpacts �vith respect to existing, near-term and cumulative traffic
operations than have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents.
b) E�-ceed, eitlier i�idividur�lly or c1�»rT�rlatively, a LOS starzdard estrtblislied by tlie
Co��t�lty C111A for desig�lr�ted ��orrc�s)? No New Impact. An analysis of regional
road�ti�ays has been prepared to conlply ti�vith requireinents of the Alameda
County Transportation Comznission (Alanleda CTC). The Alalneda CTC
requires the analysis of project inlpacts to �Zetropolitan Transportation
System (I�ZTS) roadways identified in the congestion managenlent plan
(CMP) for developinent projects that�vould generate nlore than 100 PM
City of Dublin Page 101
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
peak hour trips. As noted in subsection "a, "above, the proposed project
could generate inore than 100 PM peak hour trips.
This an,alysis completed by Fel-tr & Peers considers the impact of the project
on free�vays, major arterials, and other major roadways as designated by
Alameda CTC. Main items of discussion include the geographic scope of
the Ala�neda CTC roadway analysis, the analysis method, and the results
for 202�� and 2040.
Free�n�a;y and surface street segments in Dublin were included in this
analysis:
• Ini:erstate 580 (2 segments)
• Dublin Boulevard (2 segments)
• Fallon Road (3 segments)
Operations of the MTS freeway and surface street segments were assessed
based on voluine-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. For freeway segments, a per-lane
capacitv of 2,000 vehicles per hour was used. For surface streets, a per-lane
capacitv of 800 vehicles per hour was used. These capacities do not reflect
additio�zal capacity provided at intersections through turn pockets.
Road�vay segments with a V/C ratio greater than 1.0 are assigned LOS F.
In terms of significance criteria, the addition of project traffic could cause a
significant impact on an MTS road�vay segment if:
• The addition of project traffic causes a seginent's operation to degrade
to LOS F.
• The addition of project trips causes the V/C ratio to increase by more
than 0.02 on a segment that already operates at LOS F �vithout the
pr�ject traffic.
The MT'S PM Peak Hour road�vay segment analysis under 2025 and 2040
conditions are provided in Table 11 of the full traffic analysis for the 2025
condition and Table 12 for the 2040 condition. The analysis results show
that the addition of project traffic would not result in LOS F conditions nor
increase the volume-to-capacity ratio by more than 0.02 on a segment
projected to operate deficiently prior to the consideration of the project.
Therefore, the project impact to MTS roadway segments is considered less-
than-significant.
Based on the foregoing, there would be no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts with respect to existing, near-term and cumulative traffic
operations than have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents.
City of Dublin Page 102
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
ci CT��7n�e in �ir� ft�R;flc�rr'rte7��is? 1_`�To 1_�T�titi-Iinp�ct. Tl�e praposed pzoject��1rould ha�Te �-�o
inipact on air traffic p�tte�-ns, since it invol��es a a tuture scllool, residei-�tial
developzl�ent, City parks and related land �xses. There �vould be no ne�v ar
substaz�tiall�� inore severe si�n�ficant impacts wit11 respect to �11is in2pact than has
been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents.
cl) Sl�Z�str�ntirrlll� iTicrerzse lirrzm-c�s dTte to a clesi�Ti fer�t7�re or r��l i7TCO�n�atil�le l��se?
Les�-than-Signific�zt�n�ith Mitigation. Intersections that provide primary�
access to tlle school site are projected to operate acceptably �,vith the project
in all scenarios over the cours� of the peak hour. Ho�vever, arotznd school
bell times, there may be periodic congestion as studellts are dropped-off or
picked-up witl�in the sarr�e time frame. Operations of the intersections of the
Central Park�vay �vith Falloit Road, Sunset Vie�v Drive/School Entry and
Panorama Drive intersections t��ere also evaluat�d for tlze peak 15-minutes
around bell tinles for the morning and after7loon peak hours to assist in the
sizing of intersections to better acconlmodate school traffic flo���s. This
analysis was conducted t�zrough the use of a 0.50 peak hour factor for
inovements th�t���ould have a 1-iigh proportion ot school related traffic
arotu�d bell tinles, inclirding n�oveinents to/fronl Central Boulevard at
Fallon Road and Strnset Vie�v Drive.
Around bell times, operations of the Fallon Road/Ce�ltral Parkway and
Stiuzset Vie�v Drive/Central Park�vay are projected to degrade to LOS E or F
tor brief periods of tiine. Fuith�r�videi�ing of the Fallon Road at Central
Park�vay intersectioil is not recommended, but improvements to the school
acc�ss roadway are recomme�lded to maiiltain traffic flo�v o�1 Ceiltral
Park���ay, �s discussed belo�v.
T11e 95th percentile vehicle queues for the major inovenlents that serve the
scllool site �ti-Ere calculated for the Cuinulative conditions for the nlorning
and afternoon peak period wlleil scllool traffic �vould be most coilcentrated.
Velucle queues are projected to extend beyond the available stc�rage length
tor the southbound left-turil inovement on Fallon Boulevard to Central
Parkway ���it11 the addition of project traffic, and the vehicle queues could
be excessive around bell tinles (1 to 3 traffic signal eycles).
Based on the above information, there ���ould be a potentially significant
vehicular impact with construction of the proposed eleinentary and middle
school. Adherence to Mitigation Measure TRA-1 will reduce this to a less-
than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure TRA-1. The follo�ving features shall be included in
the final design for the elementary and zniddle school:
a) Extend the southbound left-tunl pocket on Fallon Road at
Central Park�vay approximately 200 feet. Signal timings at this
intersection should be nloiutored by the City aild additional
City of Dublin Page 103
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
green tilne provided tor the southbound left-turn inovement
around bell times to minimize potential for vehicle queue
spillback to block the thorough lane.
b) Construct an eastbound right-turn only lane on Central
Parkway at the Sunset Vie�v Drive intersection serving the
school site.
c) The existing Class IIa bicycle lane shall be converted to a right-
turn only lane in conjunction with the construction of a raised
curb along the length of the turn pocket and improvements
made to the Class I facility along the south side of Central
Parkway. The final design shall be coordinated with the City of
Dublin Transportation and Operations Manager.
d) Traffic signal operations at the Fallon Road and Sunset View
Drive intersections with Central Parkway shall be monitored by
the City of Dublin staff to establish time of day traffic signal
timing to best accominodate peak school traffic.
e) A school drop-off zone shall be established on the south side of
Central Parkway along the proposed school frontage between
Sunset Vie�v Drive and Panoraina Drive.
f) The northbound approach to Central Parkway at Sunset View
Drive (the proposed school driveway) to provide a northbound
left-turn lane in addition to a through-right shared lane.
g) Consider providing off-set bell times for different grade levels
to reduce peak period traffic volumes.
h) The final site plan for the proposed school shall be reviewed to
ensure that drop-off/pick-up zone is designed to accommodate
peak activities and that sufficient parking is provided to
accommodate parking demands and occasional peak demands,
such as back to school night.
Pedestrian access to the school would be provided by a network of
sidewalks, signalized pedestr-ian crossings, and unsignalized pedestrian
crossings. Sidewalks are expected to be constructed as part of the school
development to provide access to the campus from Central Parkway. There
could be potentially significant pedestrian access impacts with respect to the
school. 'There may also be relatively high levels of pedestrian activity at
�vhich could result in a potentially significant impact. Adherence to the
follo�ving measure will reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level.
City of Dublin Page 104
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
�'I�tigaticsn Me�s��re �`I�AF-2. The fin�1 school design sha1l inelucte
tI1� toll�;vin�:
a) Existin� school related signs and street markin�s s11a11 be
renloved and ne�1� school crossin�s and signs shall L�e installed
��Tithin the ne�tir school zone.
b) Pedestri�sl crossings should be discouraged across dze south
and vvest legs of the Centr�l Park�vay at Sunset Vie�v Drive
intersection to turther minimize pedestrian�ve11ic1e conflicts.
Pedestrian crossings should also be disc�uraged across tl�e
south and �vest legs of the Ceiltral Parkway/Sunset Vie�v Di�ive
intersection.
c) A crossing guard or installation ot a traftic sigilal shall be
considered at tlie Central Park���ay/Sunset Vie�v Drive
intersection to pro��ide safe pedestrian access across Cent�al
Parkway to th� ca111pus.
d) A raised barri�r (fence) s11a11 be installed a]ong the median of
Central Park���ay trom near the intersection of Fallon Road at
Central Park�-vav to near the intersection ot Pa�lorama Drive at
Central Park�vay to discourage mid-block pedestrian crossings.
The final location of tlle tence should be coordinated ���ith the
City of Dublin Transportation and Operations 1��Ianager based
on a field visit.
Class IIa bicycle lanes are provided on Central Park�vay along t}Ze future
fron�age of the school. Th�re could be significant impacts coTUlecting tl�e
existing trail to the future school aild ensuring that adequat�bicycle
parking is provided on the campus. Adherence to the following measure
�vill mitigate tllis imp�ct to a less-than-sigilificant level.
Mitigation Measure TRAF-3. The final design of the proposed
school on the Jordan Subarea shall include the following feature a
connectiozl from Central Park�vay to the school site shall be
provided to facilitate bicycle travel to the campus. Bicyele parlcing
shall also be provided on cainpus as detern�ined by t11e Dublin
Unified School District.
e) Resl�lt i�i i�iader�l.tRte c�nerge�ic�r�ccess? No New Impact. The proposed project would
provide multiple points of entry from eacll ot th.e Subareas. No new or
significantly more severe impaets are t�lerefore anticipated with respect to tllis
topic than have been previously anal��zed in Project CEQA documents.
f) Hrrz�rds o�� barriers fo��pedest��irz�is or� bicyclis�s? Less-than-significant�vith initigation.
The traffic report notes that no transit presently exist on Central Park�vay east of
City of Dublin Page 105
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Fallon Road. Lack of transit�vould be a significant impact and would be reduced
to a less-than-significant level by adherence to the following measure.
Mitigation Measure TRAF-4. The Dublin Unified School District
shall coordinate �vith LAVTA to determine is a bus stop should be
constructed on Central Park�vay in front of the proposed school.
Also see the discussion in subsection "d," above regarding potential impacts to
bicycle facilities. Reference Mitigation Measures TRA-2 and TRA-3 to reduce this
impact to a less-than-significant level.
17. Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Settin�
The Project area is served by the following service providers:
• Domestic and recycled water supply: Dublin San Ramon Services District
(DSR��D).
• Sewage collection and treatment; recycled water: DSRSD.
• Storm drainage: City of Dublin and Zone 7.
• Solid waste service: Amador Valley Industries
• Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
• Comn�lunications: A T & T.
Previous EIr:s
Easterti DifblTSi EIR. In terms of water resources, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified
overdraft of groundwater resources (Impact 3.5/P) as a potentially significant impact
Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0 and 25.0 would reduce this impact to a level
of insignifica.nt. These measures require the City of Dublin to coordinate with DSRSD to
develop recycled water resources and otherwise carefully use water resources and that
all new development in the Eastern Dublin project area to connect to the DSRSD water
system. Impact 3.5/Q identified an increase in water demand as a potentially significant
impact, but this impact could be mitigated to an insignificant level based on
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0-31.0. These mitigation measures
require impl�mentation of water conservation measures in individual development
projects and construction of new system-wide water improvements which are funded
by developm.ent impact fees. Another related impact identified in the Eastern Dublin
EIR is the need for additional water treatment plant capacity (Impact 3.5/R). This
impact�vas i�entified as being reduced to a level of insignificance through the
City of Dublin Page 106
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
in-Ep1er,:�el�tatiolz of 1���ti�atiozt '�1�asures �."/31.0-�2.0, ����l�ich requires inl�ro��enle�-�t to
f h� Z�ne %�;Ta�er �vstez�l, tc� t-�e iui�decl b�� ir�di�%idL�a1 d�velo�in�rtt in-�pact fees.
Impact 3.5/S (lack of a �vater distribution sy��tein) F�-as identified as a potentialiy
signiticant ii�lpact in t�1e Eastern Dublin EIR, but this impact has been ieduced to an
insi�nificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/34.0-38.0. These
znitigations require upgrades to t�ze project area �vater s��stenl and provision ot a "tvill
serve" Ietter prior to issuance of a brading perinit. Inlpact 3.5/T identified a potentially
signiticant inzpact related to induceinent of sul�stantial growth and c�ncentration ot
population in the project area. The Eastern Duhlin EIR fc�und that tl�is i�as a sigiufic�uzt
�nd unavoidable inlpact.
Regardin� se�ti�er service, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified Iilzpac�3.5/B (lack ot a
i��aste��-ater collection systenl) as a potentially significant iinpact that could be mitigated
through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/1.0-5.0. These measures require DSRSD
to pre�are an area-titiride �vaste���ater collectioil system znast�r plan, requires all ne�v
development to be coni�ected to DSRSD's public se�n�er systenl, discourages oi1-site
���aste�vater treahnent, requires a "will-serve" letter from DSRSD and requires that all
se���-er facilities be const�-ucted to DSRSD engineering standards. Inl�act 3.5/C noted �n
inlpact���ith regard to extension of a se�ver trtulk line with capacity to serve new
dev�lopnlent, but could be reduced to an illsignificant level since the proposed Easterll
Dublin Specific Plan se�ver system has been sized to accoinmodate il�creased sewer
clenland trom the Specific Plan project. Impac�3.5/G found that lack of tivaste�vater
disposal ca�acity as a significallt impact. An upgraded���aste�vater disposal facility 1s
presently being constructed by the Liv�rmore A�nador Valley Water Management
Agency. Impact 3.5/E identified lack of wastewater treatment plant capacity as a
potentially significailt i�npact, �vl�ich could be redticed to an insignificant level through
adllerence to Mitigation Measure 3.5/8.0, �vhiclz requires that�vastewater treatrnent and
disposal be �i�ade av�ilable to ineet anticipated developnlent in Eastern Dublin.
2002 SEIR (Jordr��i Rr�j�di p��o�erty). The 2002 SEIR identified two supple�nental ilnpacts
related to utilities and service systeins. Supplenlental IYnpact UTS-1 identified an
uncertain energy supply within this por�ion of PG & E's service territory. Mitigation
��Ieasures SM-U'1S-1 required City discretionary revie�v prior to installation of any on-
site power generators aild SM-UTS-2 requires that applicants for Site Development
Reviev�� approvals obt�in will serve letters from PG & E prior to approval of such
applications.
Supplemental Iinpact SN1-2 identitied a supplemental impact�vith regard to constraiilts
of PG & E's local distribution system. This impact�vould be mitigated by adherence to
Supplelnental Mitigation Measures UTS-1 and 2.
i�TO other impacts related to utilities or services systems �ti�ere included in previoLls
CEQA docume�zts for Subarea 3 or the �Nallis Ranch property.
All �zzitigation measures contained in t11e Eastern Dublin EIR and 2002 SEIR (Jordan
Ranch) �vill apply to the proposed project.
City of Dublin Page 107
Initiai Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Project Im�acts
a) Exceed�:��aste�c�ater treat»ae�it rer��tire��ie�its of the RWQCB? No New In2pact. All project
Subareas are located �vithin the service area of DSRSD. Applicable mitigation
measur�es contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR will apply to this project to ensure
that adequate funding is supplied to DSRSD so that water and wastewater
facilities are consistent with �vasteivater discharge requirements mandated by the
Region.al Water Quality Control Board. No ne�v or substantially more severe
supplelnental iinpacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been
analyzed in previous CEQA documents.
b) Require �iew water o��wastewcrter treatme�it fr�cilifies or expa�isiof2 of existilig facilities?
No Ne�v Impact. The EDSP and Eastern Dublin EIR require developers of each
individual project in the Eastern Dublin area to fund their fair share contribution
to construct major, backbone infrastructure systems as well as to either fund or
consfiruct local �vater and �nTaste�vater facilities shown in the EDSP. Therefore,
altllough new water and wastewater facilities could be needed to serve future
proposed development on three Subareas, these facilities have been identified in
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. As part of project review by the City of Dublin,
DSRSD and Zone 7 staffs, future individual project developer(s) within the three
Subareas �vill either be required to future development projects or pay
development impact fees to assist in the construction of regional water and
wastewater facilities.
DSRSD staff have indicated that there is adequate long-term wastewater collection
and treatment capacity exists to serve future development that could be
constructed under the amended General Plan and Specific Plan (source: Stan
Kolodzie, DSRSD, 5/27/15) There would therefore be no ne�v or substantially
more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been
previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents.
c) Require new stor�n drai�iage facilities? No New Impact. Future development on he
three Subareas would require ne�v drainage facilities to support proposed
development. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan identifies storm drain facilities to
be constructed in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area to ensure that adequate
drainage is provided. Future project developers within each of the Subareas will be
required to either construct these facilities or pay development impact fees to assist
in the construction of regional drainage facilities. There would therefore be no new
or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than
has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents.
d) Are suff�cient water supplies avr�ilable? No New Impact. Fufiure development that
would be allowed on the three Subareas would incrementally increase the need for
potable water in Eastern Dublin. Future park areas would be connected to
DSRSD's recycled water line for irrigation of plantings (source: M. Porto, Dublin
Community Department, 7/13/15). DSRSD staff have confirmed that the District
has master planned future growth in the District Urban Water Management Plan
City of Dublin Page 108
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
and an adequat� �u�7��Iv ot�v��tei���ill be available. Di�trict staff also notes that the
supply ot �r-atcr co�zld l�� lizr�ited to alI tksers in the tuture duri�lg peric�d of ���ater
�hortages (source: Staz�Koi��dzie, DSRSD, 5/27/15).
No ne�v or i�lore se��ere si�iuticat�t iinpacts���ith respect to a loi-��-ternl i���ater
sup��I�� have been identified in previous CEQA dacuinents.
e) _�c�e��i�tr�te z��rrste���r�ter crrpr�citi� �o ser��e fl,e �roposecz �roject? No Ne�ti� Impact. See
res�onse to "a," avo��e.
t) So11c� z��nste dis�osr�l? No I�e�v Iznpact. T11e project area is vvithin tlle franchise area of
Ainador Valley Industries, a compaily that provides residential and conlinercial
solid �vaste pick-up and recycling services. Iinpacts related to solid waste disposal
���ere analyzed in the Eastenl Dublin EIR and since development under the
proposed project�vould generally be consistent�ti�ith previous extent ai�d nahzre of
Iand use approvals t11at�vere analyzed in the prior CEQA docuiilents, no ne�v ��r
substantially more severe iinpacts are anticipated than have been previously
anal��zed in prior CEQA revie�vs.
g) Co�n��ll� zt�itlr federal, str�te r�tic� local strrtl��tes rr�lcl refizllr�tiorrs relr�ted to solid zur�ste? No
Nei-v Iin��act. The existitlg eervice provider�vill eizsure adherence to federal, state
and local solid waste regulations should the project be ap�roved. There �vould
tlzeretore be no ne�v or substantially znore severe significant impacts with respect
to this ir�ipact than has been pi,eviously analyzed in the prior CEQA documents
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Docs t1�e�1�oject lir���e tlre�oterltir�l to deg��ade t]�e r�l�trrlity of tlie e��viro�il�icfzt, sril�sta�itially
r�dl�ce fhe l�abitrrt of r�fis)r or u�ildlife s�ecies, a�ltise r� fis1� or wildlife }?opztlrrtioli to d��op
��elozv sel f-srtistrri�zilr� lez�els, tlirc�rtelr to eli>>lirinte n plq�it or alii»zr�l co�rimli�zify, redi�ce tl�e
rn�»lber of or restl•ict tlie ra��2ge of r� rr�re or e�lda�igered�la�7t o1�n�limal or elil»i>»te
iTrTportr��it e,xcr�nples of tlie major periods of C�lifora�ia history or prehistoa•y? No New
Ilnpact. Potential impacts related to substantial reduction of fish or��vildlife species
or their respective species, reduce the range or number of endangered plant or
animal species or eliminate examples of nlajor period of Califorriia history or
prehistory in the eastern Dublin area 11ave been analyzed and mitigated in the 1993
Eastern Dublin EIR, Suppleinental EIRs and other prior CEQA documents. As
identified in the above Initial Stud��, the proposed project would cause no nev�r or
substantially nlore sigiuficant impaets on biological or cultural resources beyond
tllose identified in previous CEQA documents.
b) Does the�roject lTaz�e inl�r�cts fhrrt rzre i�idividr.�r�lly limited, but c����irilr�tively co�isiderable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable�vhen vie�tired in connection tivith the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). I�To
I�Tew Imp�ct. Significant and una�roidable impacts have been identified �vith
City of Dublin Page 109
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
regard to cumulative biological, air quality and transportation issues for the
overall Eastern Dublin project, of�vhich the three Subareas are a component. The
proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
cumulative iinpacts than have been previously analyzed in previous CEQA
documents by the City.
c) Does the p��oject have envi��o�urzentr�l effects u�hicli will caT�se substaiTtial adverse effects on
Itumr�n beings, either directly or i�idTrectly? No New Impact. No such impacts have
been discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study. There would
therefor.e be no neiv or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect
to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous EIRs.
Initial Stu�iy Preparers
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager
Kathrin Tellez, Fehr & Peers, traffic and transportation
Michael Thill, Illingworth & Rodkin, acoustics
Jorda�l Roberts, Illingworth & Rodlcin, acoustics
Josh, c�armen, Illing�vorth & Rodkin, air quality
Amar�da Karchefski, MacKay & Soinps, exhibits
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The follo�ving agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial
Study:
City of Dublifi
Luke Sims, AICP, Community Developinent Director
Jeff Baker, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director
Michael Porto, Planning Consultant/Project Manager
Andrew Russell, City Engineer
Jaysan Imai, Senior Civil Engineer
Obaid Khan, Senior Transportation Engineer
Kathleen "Kit" Faubion, AICP, Assistant City Attorney
Bonnie Terra, Alameda County Fire Department
Derulis Houghtelling, Dublin Police Services
Paul McCreary, Director, Dublin Parks and Community Services
Dublin Sqn Ramor2 Services District (DSRSD)
Stan Kolodzie, engineer
California Departmefit of Toxic Substances Co�it��ol (DTSC)
Website
Appli�cayit Representatives
Kevirt Fryer, Michael Snoberger, Chris Davenport
City of Dublin Page 110
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
�e��r�nc�s
Calitornia Enviroruz�ent�l Qualit�� �ct ��r Qual_it�f Guidelil�es, Ba�� Area Air
Qualit�� ?���a�lagenlent District, 2011
Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated tlu ougll 11/18�14
Dublin Panch�1'est Pro�ect, Su�lenlental Environmental Im��act Re�ort, Citv ot
Dublin, No��ember 2014
Eastern Dublin S�ecific Plan and Geileral Plan Enviroilmental Im�act Re�ort,
Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1994, Updated through 10/7/14
Eastern Dublii� ProUerties Sta�;e 1 Develo�ment Plan and Annexation, Draft
Su�lemental EIR, City of Dublin, January 2002
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Stand�rds David Gates &
Associates, 1996
Fallon Villa�e Pro�ect, Draft Sup�lemental EIR, City of Dublin August 2005
Livern�ore MuniciU�l Air�ort, Air�oit Land Use Com�atibilitv Plan, ESA
Associates, August 2012
City of Dublin Page 111
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
Attachment 1
Jordan Subarea Traffic Analysis &
Supplemental Memorandum
City of Dubiin Page 112
Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015
East�rn Dublin Specific Plan Atnendment
Transportation Assessment
Prepared for:
City of Dublin
July 2015
WC15-3236
FEHR �i� PEERS
Eastem Dubtin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment
� July 2015
Table of Contents
1.0 INTROGUCTION................................................................................................................................1
StudyPurpose.......................................................................................................................................................................1
ReportOrganization...........................................................................................................................................................1
Stuciy Locations and Analysis Scenarios.............................................................................................................5
Scenarios.................................................................................................................................................................................5
AnalysisMethods.................................................................................................................................................................6
SignalizedIntersections............................................................................................................................................6
UnsignalizedIntersections.......................................................................................................................................7
SignificanceCriteria............................................................................................................................................................8
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS..................................................................................................................10
RoadwaySystem...............................................................................................................................................................10
Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities.................................................................................................................11
PedestrianFacilities.................................................................................................................................................11
Bicy��le Facilities.........................................................................................................................................................11
ExistingTransit Service...................................................................................................................................................12
ExistingTraffic Counts....................................................................................................................................................13
ExistingOperations..........................................................................................................................................................15
IntersectionOperations.........................................................................................................................................15
VehicleQueuing........................................................................................................................................................16
3.0 PROJEC'T CHARACTERISTICS.........................................................................................................17
ProjectDescription...........................................................................................................................................................17
ProjectTrip Generation..................................................................................................................................................18
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment...............................................................................................................21
4.0 EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS......................................................................................25
Existing �rvith Project Traffic Volumes and Roadway Improvements............................................................25
Analysis of Existing with Project Conditions..........................................................................................................25
5.0 NEAR-TERM CONDITIONS..................................................................••••.......................................28
�� i
��
Eastern Dub(in Specific Plan Amendment Transportaiion Assessment
� Ju(y 2015
i�ear-Te:m ?ntersection Voi�;mes and ��ear-Term Roadway?m�ro��e!?�ents............................................28
Anaiysisof fJear-Term Conditions.............................................................................................................................31
6.0 Cl1f�lIULATIVE CONDITIQNS..........e................................................................................................33
Cu«�ula±ive Intersection Volumes and Road����ay Impro�4�emen*s...................................................................33
Ar�alysis of Cumulative Conditiors._...................................................................._...................................................36
7.0 ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RQADWAY ANALYSIS......................38
Alameda CTC Roadway Analysis Study Area.........................................................................................................38
TrafficForecasts.................................................................................................................................................................38
AnalysisMethod................................................................................................................................................................39
SignificanceCriteria........................................................................................................................................................39
Analysis Resu!ts.............. ...............39
..............................................................................................................................
8.0 SCHOOL SITE ACCESS CONSIDERATIONS....................................................................................44
Vehicular Site Access and Circulation.......................................................................................................................44
Pedestrian Access and Circulation.............................................................................................................................47
Bicycle Access and Circulation.....................................................................................................................................47
Transit Access and Circulation.....................................................................................................................................48
o ii
Eastern Dub(in Specifc P(an Amendment Transportation Assessment
. July 2015 ,
Appendices (under separate cover)
Appendix A:Traffic Count Data
Appendix B: Peak Hour Level of Service and Queue Analysis Worksheets
Appendix C: Peak Bell Time Level of Service and Queue Analysis Worksheets
r� ���
ry
Eastern Dub!in Specific Pfan Arnendment Trcnspo.rtation Assessmer-�t
Ju(y 2015
L�s� af Figur�s
Figure 1 Project Site Vicini+y and Study Int�rsectirr Locatior�s................................................._..............................2
Figure2 Project Site Plans.........................................................................................................................................................3
F�gure 3 Existing Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Lane Configurati�n and Traffic
Cortrcl..........................................................................................................................................................................14
Figure 4 Existing Conditions Pro;ect Trip Assignment................................................................................................23
Figure 5 Future Conditions Project Trip Assignment...................................................................................................24
Figure 6 Existing �vith Project Build-out Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.....................................................................26
Figure 7 Near-Term without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes............................................................................29
Figure 8 Near-Term with Peak Hour Traffic Volumes..................................................................................................30
Figure 9 Cumulative��vithout Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes...........................................................................34
Figure 10 Cumulative with Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes..................................................................................35
List of Tables
Tabie 1 Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria.....................................................................................................................7
Table 2 Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria................................................................................................................8
Table 3 Ex.isting Conditions Peak How�Intersection Levels of Service................................................................15
Table 4 Project Development Summary..........................................................................................................................18
Table 5 900-Student Elementary Schooi Trip generation Estimates....................................................................19
Table 6 Jordan Ranch Trip Generation.............................................................................................................................20
Table7 Project Trip Distribution.........................................................................................................................................22
Table 8 Existing with project Condition Peak Hour Intersection Leveis of Service........................................27
Table 9 Near-Term Condition Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service...........................................................31
Table 10 Cumulative Condition Peak Hour Intersection Leveis of Service...........................................................36
Table 11 2025 PM Peak Hour CMP Roadway Segment Analysis.............................................................................40
Table 12 2040 PM Peak Hour CMP Road�ti�ay Segment Analysis.............................................................................42
Table 13 Peak Bell Time Assessment Intersection Levels of Service.......................................................................45
Table 14 Cumulative Condition Vehicle Queue Summary..........................................................................................45
,. iv
Enstern Dub(in Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment
� Ju1y2015
a.a �r�-r�.�a�s��-�e��
This report presents the analysis and findings of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) Amendment
transportation irnpact assessment (TIA). This chapter discusses the TIA purpose, analysis methods, criteria
used to identify significant impacts, and report organization.
The study's purpose is to evaluate the transportation impacts of the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
amendment. The approximately 10-acre site is within the lordan Ranch development—located east of
Fallon Road, south of Positano Parkway, and traversed by Central Parkway, as shown on Figure 1. The
Specific Plan Amendment would change the land use designation on a portion of the site from
parks/public recreation to park/public recreation/school to accommodate a proposed elementary school.
A conceptual project site plan is shown on Figure 2a for the 2012 approved project, and on Figure 2b for
the current proposal.
This study addresses the project's impacts on the local roadway system under existing, near-term, and
cumulative scenarios and discusses potential impacts to the adjacent bicycle, pedestrian, and transit
network. Potential transportation-related conditions with development in the Jordan Ranch area of the
EDSP area were documented in the Fa(lon Village Project Environmenta(Impact Report (EIR), August 2005.
At the time the 2005 EIR was prepared, a detailed site plan had not yet been developed. In 2010 and 2012,
Fehr & Peers prepared transportation conditions to the results and conclusions of the EIR analysis.
Generaily, changes in 2010 and 2012 to the Jordan Ranch project did not change the overall conclusions
of the transportation and circulation section of the EIR.
This report is divided into eight chapters as described below:
• Chapter 1 –Introduction discusses the purpose and organization of this report.
• Chapter 2–Existing Conditions describes the transportation system in the project vicinity,
includinq the surrounding roadway network, peak period intersection turning movement volumes,
existing bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities, and intersection operations.
• Chapter 3–Project Characteristics presents the project description and trip generation,
distribution, and assignment.
r� 1
,�r
,_� � - - 1 �..
� �
� _ � � ,
� �a _i � � �j a a s� ' �
y''� , ",; �` �s-�:�s� ,��"� �� i '<a� �i �
�.
` �° 's!'a� 1 � x i �
,�, �-,�; r, ' i� .�
- � I r—; oa �,��.ur �
/ '`• � �-1- ' - -� _j-` �
% � �V � � �x ;� P� =1i����� •U
�y �� r
_�" , � °da,, Ci�e,'U` ��, ti �
� � � �., �q �--�../
� � `J i �� �_
Li , � r �.� �
na�o��� �� � ° �, �=� v)
. �� aq��� , " ° Q . (�
� �o� � V
___��'"'"._-, ; �� � QJ
� � � ' - �
�
��e� J � �
I �� ;c � ------ �
� - _
L. � ._ _ -- . _��... <
--� .��....
i 'r;�o��a55�,v r
, � �
� °o � � ,
G — ^,� I
J c (
� = ° F � - '
� g )
Fa��iooa � '' � �
�: �
��
� � � � ° I
" a
�_ . _ . - - - - � xL -^ - v ` t-
I �� ��„� � � � � �
-o c � _.__
rv
, `p ��.�, � . ` � . � �� .�\ ..
��f_ :. � o� , rT�c�.
- . ,. �.. J r- � ... � � . � � � �,��
�� ��—� �� P8�Iro�� � � .
� � N �
--� -4- '",r� 4e�o,ed � .
/ � � �����,\ ` . � .. � .. � _
1--r���/ / � � � �S
(///�/' ��-�z� � � , -�;
. 1 I� V �- \ya . . . ..
���Y--LI I ��GPl/5� � ��Otlk�C� 'y,
�d
. . �� . 's tnx
� ��
� �Y
�
Q� ix° E'
oc �� - . 3'.� ;� r .
l � � = ���� � E, ��
, �
�. �s�,Fy�;a� ; , o � �� ' ;
�na�oi,�j� � �. � � o ��° -
� � ` = �' �� �
3 ��_„'t �' 'm '�,,'r
>,
_ . o _ � o �Qaulquelle� � `�� K �
�. .c o_ � � , c �: -''�, '�.
C _ � O
Q � C
, � O -I Jnn I�l�d . T �AV��.III'IN i, �
�
���-/y �.JQ/�dUC�aQ '0 u 1 t y V
�lHillUfV. u J 101-"��1 i{ T:� �
(youn��,,..1 >.- „ Go�fst�ean St {
���_ 3 c ` ^.�, . 'y � v� ... �
0 0 3
. I .�L�Cy 9 z�3� ��, �
t �
��I ' � . /,eM u 6 uue:8 z, i0 UoJ�l�o g � - C� . . � -o
-� � ,,.r.,,f--�- . `ba� Eileiie�r. �
r
G o
� Londonderry Ur�� � ,_ - � ��� � in
. pd e�alussel �o � � F. Ot�y?. . ��`� ..
. . f��J ��� �
0
'rl�llbr�ok PI' �fb` ��
Bamei Ave ;.... � .� `' " �.,,_'-- .�.,. .,� - ..
anyouo�oyy ._Qe�'
r ha,,,.. � - Q'`o
� � � . ��a�� ' a o��� '� � ,"'J7.ylnowRaM nt�R�Caad �
� � ,,, r �r , �� � , � f— � <��' �
� � ��. .. Pnlg�aweg -� .-. �� ` � o Ye 7� �� , :l � •�°'� e
o � Sr
o � rc
�� . - �E'/1h�IM.P,�{� � � �9 � �J��.� �
..�C '� �y 3' � O
. -'� . _ " ��oad�" �Oaj��f�y„ ��R � � � Z. �,�,E ���¢:
. � a `�e�� �- �r �
o n �
� " o �' �Uoo G✓"'nf"' .,: „ " �:,.� Z
. . '}'�i"�y.u..�{'GiH ,� �sod ,.+ �
� AS"L'_..L-IN�. : !� ' ' i �O t.(.. . . \ � J
'���,li: �. .!' ,� .� - � -
��/ _i_ "ti•.., A Yr ^Y' I YR.::7'
1
.�� .._ �� ,�'� r .^-� /,n _ . � ,
p��_-?+caY- _�� , _ ''_ -/ y _ 1-_ "_ 1�, r a
� V_ , _ ' " s -j;-�—,'��� '�' � ��1 �-�-�-�---�°��`'�.. \
� ��...i-� � , � -��y��=� �'��,�.�,.., � ��..�.�� _� .
�
: �
9 N y .� �..�.-- :.'._,
� ~_ �-- ,a
�,Y _. �� " r'„r � -���° � j�� i=-C �f���.J jp� 'ri
����� � � �a "1 i ' i "�«I �I i 1 � �� ���1. �
�
>
�r s, .[?� � � � 1.l t�° • � -L 1 ir`,y'� - '` � •
'�i r � w��cv �� ��_•_. � !,,
_ �etr _ ..��A` H
.p-�._�/.�� �`. F�� , u f�� „1.:� ����_- �•,• - "- w��H�. .` .�",l
\ � °��Y��f k�' H i,/�.-�._ 1_ y y».-µFU/Y'
T S��f ' � ' o . w�yq yL�' ���;� / . f '�
( �,'I /Aiy
B +.� �� ; __ _ _ �l\�y ` `/ �
! !� '
�. , �.
� tl �., �,�1 � f �R � -� , {i �,�
.�,r, p� � � ,t�}-�{, °' .�`,1R ;':,,� > � ri
A -`- ' �� f��( �. nEI;;NBr,Kn;h'iC � �i�� �r��
�� �^�"+ '� w � '� -�l�t '� � f � H<kK � � � ���/��,
' t' \ I e
� � �' °�as �� �w�� � nJ � � ��� I '�� �� � � ��� �� t�
�� '�1'�'�y� (`�i�i I�����.I � �' 1 s�t,� \ y��,,.f��. • ,.�a, ,t I � � j �I '
�: _�_- - - -=..�-1�_I.�'�"�� �,, A y�:=,,,�/� �y� �' ,l t t'
�� �� �`--`'-�---- / � .- , ��-�,. ,,/� '��t i` ,�,
� °, � (�j' ? � 1�inj Tjn�.,�L�-;b � !:�-� �%, �,v�' .,�',« YV�I�,,��`,,,;i
'�y��� ����-��: � ��: �� , , ,;� ��
1 -� - `# ' ti_ -T-�;, ,, ,t!{'',i
tl� u 1 N �1 �� e�.sl�T�� ' �/ CPE4�rirACEJ n�'�„ , ~� y a`'u _�--��'1�` 1� ;��
I � F��T- � s ��v 4 �1� � I
� i� , �m7�-J-,-„ ,TT�;- f, ��' �,>' T`„'�- �>.� � �H�-=- �-.,������
. � !` � i, �� w � ,, . ;� � V�y'� n - -�- L
i t� __ _ / � v "`�"� "��� ��'.� � �j�
�� I /�.� __.dS.W /W9 V%K N a� a �..� � f �
� " i /�, '� ��� "� % Designated for �',1 '(?,�
/ - �� " n �/
'� .J + 1 � �r:'i'"' - - ' 1 � � ,
�� '� f-� � �:� - �:� � „�' school or ''�� ', � �; .
, � .,�
, n �
�� �;
�
I ,
, �'� � ;��� �, „ „ re en ia � '�� -�_.� ���
, � � , � ,. � �. ' � � � � d ��t tf --� I {'' �
� // Y
! �) I 'U2CE4.QE0�'1NE3 . � �� r � �ar y y j. . � I'I 57iCX'l;11F ,
S� �
1 � F Ii�' fi7,�1'M�<..�h_; j'' , /� a J�y_f�a• I�-yI i`'�� ��t�L�i.
� ((``'' Y �+ �
� � yf � >� �
j � � jl < I . ��� .`� � ��° y , �f �`-^�.---
1 1 �� \. ; '� / � �n �'Nj�p r �
J\ r -� � . n
;, ( � . .
�� L�a � ���?( / �a�' ,
� � ..�..� 1\=.' ��r +,:in4'r " r�-I .'° � r--". f 1 . , a a M
------1� �t-_ -�- — "'`��'�-"`_.rs� �:� � �=�._ —_ � 11 ��" �-
�! , -- �� _ ' + �, ,oa���`Would be designated for �„��+� �lK �1 b� i+
� ' ��� �l}�L^—�'� , e� '- �. ' �, park/recreation/school �� „�„i:'�I T---t-���v ���� �
. � � ". �, a:_�- i .��_'�`_��� :�y��1'
�� u ���r���,�� �� ---�� �.�'� �����l—_i s�rr� , w t
��4 j !�ly�`', �, ��� '''*M> �..�;c_ , �° '� �'�� "
- � ���...5.?��. %� f t� � -�-�,._.� � ------._ ��
i '
, � � ;'
�. �` '� :' o-"e�sNa�.:E . "; �/ �� - -- — �
{ ' / �/ J ' ..�' `'�� -r_._7 -- ,-�,
, � �, _ .._ --rocnBVBaao - =— �^`
� /( cau�r�vrrr P�r� � �� �
�``t \,` ,.. . . /� ./ � y, `+aUAeE
, \\.\ � / Y i i -_ — - - — �
j, �l�� `\ _ � �\� � ��
' '�'-��'�+�,', ti , _-____=—��_. ' ___ � � �. �i
� �� .1, 5 , �- -�-\ - - _ '
` ,.T._
, �, ��i� � . � . , _� -._�•._-�._.-- � ' -_ --� /.
ti ��� ) � • . . . _.i
. ��� .�. �'� i ti, ' ' � � �
2012 Conceptual Project Site Plan
�
�
_..t:' _ . � ( Y"* K.C L: 9� . �n §� #�. ^
� HI 4 � M� i z*rNF '4 "ID '�a Y t r} i LL
�tv ` < ��, n��� �•��� c,�� �� � �
s �
, '_ �,� g �� a.�
����;�� �� � � � � � �
: , �' � ':�R���k 4..s�.`4�" ;�� „ � •—
�'. {
�6.�. �m�yS f �s ..� b -c-s c &l�.t�`�t� 'I�+t e a � k `�. . � Cn
�'� 2 e s _,�, "s, ro c� YSE r��*``�'�`�:�. +�f'��,��.�,. +4L`ua '$t s
44`�'+�j ' ,�' t.`.���`�t"�..` u E�#�� '; '3t � .d'�' �a ,� ��q g� l�.J
��,,��y.��� c� y�.�(��} p� ,�j w� ��¢} ��y�q
��'�l.' +i i�th�i LR'�1 x �����x�1A�'��y-.C!'s��I�..=. �m�.��6� � �.T'�4-'"i� '�
�rT ��
. � ¢ai, � ��a�� 4 � ���� � � �
yJ .� r�F�`��.. � ^ � �
� � � �'���.. ��: r� '� � t r
� ��y�c,�`���fi, �.! ��� �,#�b��/�p�-lr �� �� +� z
.�^ �� J{y'^ t� k��°rr[r1�E a �� �''� � � � °�` � . ��: �6
�� �� , _
f�"'4'�`�, '�c�,�� ��.'� $�s r�� '�,�"w���<ca�;� � ����� �
T
� �'`'� ��t '�� [4�i,����L,'0� �`"r� y� y�P. °" �° � :A-:� � . +�-+
�,. e
-r'��� � f�� � � ��e��i�µ����,�•�4+E; �S���f ��` <��;f��Jt���t
�° ��< �, ���� ��.� �
,��� � � $°� �� ����`�� . � �� f� � , ,�t't �, � .,� �
�tw"3} t � ��✓�� �.. ����!„� ':v'k. � . `�w���j��A,i � O
} � ... %%i�. �y 1��� P 4 � e y,�( �[��t����� 4 �;t `Wl�f� V
xg �� p ��k -'�' �w, >'�u�"� ��dk� ��� ��,��,i�j. �14��.f.111'°'Sr�^'v��.a�S d�jI�te. �
. �� . '� ` _ �.
L:7 `h°r �' .:^ 5 � «., ` �,� b`�. ��'.,"k"F �� r� ..�yT ,9� L S i , t—�
o- g
� .� {�4� � �,�e r OO ,+ �'� �+�, /� ���4��.'����q e���'fitT•ah M��'`t ..t� O
*.�� <.� �...s.�
�- x � � z � � � �#�� � � ��� �' "<, «�� �
s� a �� „� ����F s� �� ,` , u i c�,� ���.��'t:�K� ��Wr,�° � '.� " �' �
Q d ts' �g y,!
�" ��'� 3�'�`�, Z d "�' ��i , �r,�v� �1��.i . � .. �,�"k 4�* a�_ � ' .
k: �"�� CJ 'a �' -�� �,�t a. ,, � q � 4��! 4� �� �� �`:
'�r� 1 * k ,� ; + °�
1 .�SF�k�r ;, �{;� Z -ra. ,. �l.��'�Q�*..,`. ����� ':f;��5�-....�<,.�, Z p ...;_.�_ .
$�� � ?T � Lt"s+i� � �. ' :: � �� � ���'R�, �'`' �� A�!qFl� �O • • �
� '�r �� � s _ r'� f �. ^� A ,i j.; U
•�`-` �� � �� � '^��. -a�: �� �,� �,� � � �� . ! , ��n
"�, � 8. # ]�r-..�'� ,K k r-y_ x f �
.* t , U
4.�� �} � '���.3'� 7� ��'''��' tiw�'.� _ �� u.�
s � � � � .. w.� � ...
C � � ,�t � ,�.�1` '.;�5 ' ,{s � Z .�e
� �� � '�'�' �'4 .t.s, "� - �`� � y
��'���� � 1 4 � .� ,. � . '� '�e,,,��1 i,�'�i�"* f•
F} � x x � #� µ s..,. ,�R� '�k-m:�. *�-; ��. #� ; �v� �'s. A, L �^`"'�.. ` .
r ���� �����+i(„f� �-'��$��;;� ...�� �„�� } �'r � W :��qtf .
� �.�w... ��-x�. '"> - .,� r,. c�f ` s, t:� U �y: i "'. ,
� ; � :�� '�+�.,r`;� � ;,£ i�` � �,�x �� ��':+ °'v5 �'�'� ���# _': �.�� '�� �.��#
�s � a j,,, ���i��� � `�� �'� �� ��� a'�-��,,� _'��� : �� �,��,,4
, �i ,•�� � ,� ' � � � ��� ,� W ���,� � � �'" �,
� ��� ~'' �� �r 9 � s��� � �� a r � �, Y��
, �'
� ��.�� u, - � �� '
� �°, � d ,� . � k �:�.�v� � � �' � � v �
' s�a ��,�'?y"�,���'' °� '*.�. � � .t�4, �. "�`�`7:��..'�� p�� ���,c" a s�
' � �`#.w^^��s �k�s- �.+.) c -� � � tw� � ,� � V�
��k�t����x, ,���y ; ,.� ' �� s; �� i ��� �¢� �� ��` Z ,
��` ' � �{ � ����.,��,�, �� `� O ���,�
.��"'� �4 2��" � #9b� �����-� ; ,� �`ti m",�-
��� � �.
�,�C,�'.. ' `�.r�G�. �w u+ w'.F-�. .,�, a ��4 s....
`•���w"�� ,��"���>l �u���� �_ ;���1�� i� >�`
- c^` ���, ','� �'��.��.�d-� uf �°"-"''.�� :±i �i i��,�.�„�,.''�"� ...
< : � �
� � �'� �i� �.,.sr�" _, ' . 7 ,-- . . . .
w�..a�-�,.y,µ,_r,"-'^'+�,.'as
� � . . . � . . . .
"§ ,��, '��" � ��� y;.��4��- ,^��� �����;' . .. .
v
�,�rr� , �� i .
�'s -, � �%,n � p!$ "� {� �
.rx- r"'* sT ,� J+'7 �.� ��,$hc_
..y � � .�} `� ..�,� �,•. .
g ,' � �✓'�, , _k`� � '
z
�� m� A�� � ��{^��� '��
,v, s� - =, �
Y����y �..R +'�� ... . . .
� .e y. c.Y.^ i�-� �^' 7���+�F, .
+,� �*'� r::y .�3 4� � *' - �t�
`;:� w ,�, .
�» N z ,,� �' � . .
A � Y. '� t /—~ d Y
r`v�' G -��`, � , ��� gy�•-y,4 �Yi$w�s1S`.
.. �` �~�� �i, �� • -�m �,.a .
.� %�����. ,����� �.: .
'� ' . �, y,S..t� ��5.I�� i p�.� y� ,.
� �'' � n����� f Tn NC J1 � � �#� `t���'�.����,,,''s�"'.
� �,s��. . �`"*� � j�� " �;
r t �i�3«. �`` � �.
'�.��'�� � �-'��R w..*,�,... .� e • � � � � m,�
��
t
''"�.`;s . ��� ���'����f'�"w�,�.a..=r��`�' ` '� � ;"s#4
Eastern Dubfin Specific Pfan Amendment Transportation Assessment ,
� Ju(y 2015
• Chaptei�4—Existing with Project Conditions addresses the existing condition with the project,
and disc:usses vehicular impacts.
• Chapter 5—Near-Term Conditions address the near-term (year 2025) conditions, both without
and with the project, and discusses vehicular impacts.
• Chapter 6—Cumulative Conditions addresses the future (year 2040) conditions, both without
and with the project, and discusses vehicular impacts.
• Chapter7—Alameda County Transportation Commission Metropolitan Transportation System
(MTS) Roadway Analysis presents the impacts of the Project on the MTS roadway system.
• Chapter•8—School Site Access Considerations discusses site access to the elementary school
site for all modes of travel. Recommendations are provided.
STUDY LOCATIONS AND ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
Project impacts on the study area roadway facilities were identified by measuring the effect project traffic
would have on intersections in the site vicinity during the morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM), afternoon (2:00 to
4�00 PM), and evening (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak periods when commute traffic is typically the highest and
the project is expected to generate the most vehicular traffic. The study intersections were selected in
consultation with City staff based on a review of the project location and the amount of traffic that could
be added to the intersections in the site vicinity. These intersections are shown on Figure 1 and listed
below:
1. Fallon Road/Positano Parkway
2. Lockhart: Street/Central Parkway
3. Fallon Road/Central Parkway
4. Sunset View Drive/Central Parkway
5. Panorarria Drive/Central Parkway
Operations of the intersections above were evaluated for the following scenarios using the Transportation
Research Board's (TRB) 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology using Synchro 8 analysis software.
• Existing Conditions—Existing volumes obtained from traffic counts and the existing roadway
system configuration.
• Existing with Project— Existing volumes obtained from traffic counts plus traffic estimated for
the projErct. The roadway system is the same as the Existing Conditions scenario.
�� 5
�y
Eastern Dublin Specific P(an Amendme�7t Transportation Assessment
luly 2015
. h�ear-term w��thout Project Conditions—�xis�ing volu!��es plus trGffic estimates for approved
and pending develo�ments, and/or traTfic increGses due to regional growth. Tnis scer.ario reflects
likely conditions in the next 10 years. Traffic forecasts for this scenano���ere de��eloped us!ng the
rece;tly updated City of Dublin travel demand model, supplemented by manual adjustments of
the forecasts in the Jordan Ranch Grea to better reflect �lanned develcpment pa�terns.
. Near-Term with Project—Traffic vo�umes from ti��e Near-term without Pro;ect Conditions
scenario plus traffic estimated for the Project.
. Far-Term (Cumutative) Without Project Conditions—Projected traffic volumes and the
projected roadway system using the City of Dublin travel demand model, supplemented by
manual adjustments of the forecasts in the Jordan Ranch area to better reflect planned
development patterns.The traffic forecasts include Approved and Pending projects from the
Near-Term without Project Conditions, in addition to build out of land uses consistent�vith the
General Plan.
. Far-Term (Cumu(ative) Project Conditions—Traffic volumes from the cumulative v��ithout
project scenario plus traffic estimated for the project at build-out.
The operations of roadway facilities are described with the tenn "level of service" (LOS). LOS is a
qualitative desa�iption of traffic fiow based on factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to
maneuver. Six levels of service are defined ranging from LOS A (free flow conditions) to LOS F (over
capacity conditions). LOS E corresponds to operations °at capacity." When volumes exceed capacity, stop-
and-go conditions result and operations are designated as LOS F. The City of Dublin generally strives to
maintain LOS D or better for peak hour intersection operations. However, the City may permit LOS E or F
for vehides if improvements to accommodate vehicle travel are contrary to other goals and policies of the
City, such as the Complete Streets policy.
Different methods are used to assess signalized and unsianalized (stop-controlled) intersections.
Sianalized Intersections
Operations of signalized intersections were evaluated using the method from Chapter 16 of the
Transportation Research Board's 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, which uses various intersection
characteristics (such as traffic volumes, lane geometry, and signal phasing)to estimate the average control
delay experienced by motorists traveling through an intersection. Control delay incorporates delay
associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue. Table 1 summarizes the
relationship between average delay per vehicle and LOS for signalized intersections. This method
6
•
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment
. luly 20.�5
evaluates e��ch intersection in isolation and the effects of vehicle queue spillback are not considered in the
analysis results.
TABLE 1
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS CRITERIA
Levetof.�._ ,_ � � ' � � � �
� ` �� �,�°��-�����,, � ,� � k
Service � � ,�� Descrip#�Q» ��� �� � - Deta �n
�,� , , � X
� �`�� � `' Seconds
v... ,. �. . �������,���w � x.,=.�� .�� � '
�'� � ' r" `
A Progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. f
Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. � 10.0
g Progression is good, cycle lengths are short,or both. More vehicles stop than with > 10.0 to
LOS A,causing higher levels of average delay.
20.0
Higher congestion may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both.
� Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level,though many still pass ' 20.0 to
through the intersection without stopping. 35.0
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result
p irom some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high > 35.0 to
volume to capacity(V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop,and the proportion of vehicles
not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. 55.0
This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These
E high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths,and high ' S5.0 to
V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. 80.0
This level is considered unacceptable with oversaturation,which is when arrival flow
F rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. This level may also oceur at high V/C
ritios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycie ' 80.0
lengths may a�so be contributing factors to such delay levels.
Source:2000 High�vay Capocity Manua(.
Unsipnalized Intersections
Operations at unsignalized intersections were evaluated using the method from Chapter 17 of the 2000
Highway Copacity Manual. With this method, operations are defined by the average control delay per
vehicle (measured in seconds) for each movement that must yield the right-of-way. At two-way or side
street-controlled intersections, the control delay (and LOS) is calculated for each controlled movement,
the left-turn movement from the major street, and the entire intersection. For controlled approaches
composed of a single lane, the control delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane.
The delays for the entire intersection and for the movement or approach with the highest delay are
reported. Table 2 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections.
��
�� �
Eastern Dubl;n Specific P(an A;nenament Transportction Assessment
J��ly 2015
T/�BLE 2
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTd�N LOS CRITE�tIA
Level of Service Description Delay in Seconds
A Little or no delays < 10.0
B Short traffic delays > 10.0 to i5.0
C Average traffic delays > 15.0 to�5.0
D Long traffic delays > 25.0 to 35.0
E Very long traffic delays > 35.0 to 50.0
Exireme traffic delays with
F intersection capacity exceeded > 50.0
Source:2000 Nigh���-oy Capacit}�Manual.
Although the Transportation Research Board has published the 2010 Highwoy Capacity Manual (HCM),
delay for vehides was calculated using the 2000 HighU✓ay Capacity Manual method as implemented by
the Synchro 8 software. The delay calculations for vehicles have not appreciably changed between the
2000 and 2010 HCM methods, and the City of Dublin has not yet adopted use of the 2010 methods.
Additionally, some non-standard phasing types and some shared lane situations cannot be analyzed using
the 2010 HCM methcd. All impacts were assessed using the 2000 HCM method.
The determination of significance for project impacts is based on applicable policies, regulations, goals,
and guidelines defined by the City of Dublin.
The impacts of the project were evaluated by comparing the results of the level of service calculations
under Existing with Project, Near-term with Project, and Cumulative with Project conditions to the results
under Existing, Near-term without Project, and Cumulative without Project conditions, respectively. As the
project is a general plan amendment and a specific site plan has not been developed for the school, the
revievd focuses on potential impacts to local intersection operations. General guidance for the provision
of transportation infrzstructure to support development of the school site is also provided.
Off-site intersection impacts could be corsidered if the Project would results in any of the following:
• 8
K*
Ecstem Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment
. Ju(y 2015 $,
• The project would conflict with an applicabie plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the
circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. A significant impact coutd be identified:
o If a signalized intersection is projected to operate within delay ranges associated with less-
than-capacity conditions (i.e., LOS D or better with an average control delay of equal to or
less than 55 seconds per vehicle)without the project and the project is expected to cause the
facility to operate at a LOS E or F;
o If the intersection is already unacceptable operations (i.e., LOS E or LOS F) under no project
conditions, the project adds 50 or more peak hour trips;
o If the operations of an unsignalized study intersection is projected to decline with the
addition of project traffic, and if the installation of a traffic signal based on the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Peak Hour Signal Warrant(Warrant 3)would be
warranted.
o If the addition of project traffic at a study intersection would result in the 95th percentile
vehicle queue exceeding the available storage or would increase 95th percentile queue by
more than two vehicles where the queue already exceeds the available storage space;
• The project would conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not
limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established
by the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) and/or Tri-Valley
Transportation Council (TVTC) for designated roads and highways:
o Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the Alameda CTC
and/or TVTC for designated roads or highways;
o For a roadway segment of the Alameda CTC Congestion Management Program (CMP)
Netevork,the project would cause (a)the LOS to degrade from LOS E or better to LOS F or(b)
the`✓/C ratio to increase 0.02 or more for a roadway segment that would operate at LOS F
without the project; or
o Cause congestion of regional significance on a roadway segment on the Metropolitan
Transportation System (MTS) evaluated per the requirements of the Land Use Analysis
Proqram of the CMP1.
` The Alameda Cou�ty Transportation Commission (ACTC) requires the assessment of development-driven impacts to regional
roadways of projects that generate more than 100"net new"PM peak-hour trips.
�� 9
�y
fastern Dublin Specific F!an A�r,endment Transportation Assessment
Ju(y 2015
�.� �i������� ����������
This chapter describes the existing transportation conditions in the study area, including the roadv�,�ay
netv�ork and pedestrian, bicyc!e, ar�d �ransit facilities in the 4�icinity of the project area.
The project area is located east of Fallon Road, south of Positano Parkway, and traversed by Central
Parkway. Roadways in the study area are described below:
Fa((on Road is a north-south arterial roadv�,�ay that connects I-580 to Tassajara Road. It currently provides
two travel lanes in each direction, �vith the ex.ception of the segment that provides three lanes in each
direction betv,�een Central Parkway and Gleason Drive. Eetween I-580 and Central Parkway, this segment is
ultimately planned to provide three lanes in each direction. This roadway is being upgraded as
development occurs on parcels fronting the roadway, and wili ultimately provide sidewalks and bicycle
facilities along its length. Fallon Road is a designated route of regional significance.
Central Parkway is an east-west roadway that extends from Arnold Road to east of Fallon Road.
Between Arnold Road and Tassajara Drive, and east of Fallon Road, it is a designated collector roadway.
Between Tassajara Road and Failon Road, it is a designated arterial roadway. It generally provides one
travei lane in each direction with a landscaped median, bicycle lanes and sidewalks along portions of the
roadway that have fronting development. On-street parking is allowed on some portions of the road�vay.
Positano Parkway is an east-west roadway that extends from Fallon Road to Croak Road. It is a two-lane
arterial with a landscaped median, sideevalks, and bike lanes. On-street parking is not allowed on this
facility.
Dub(in eoulevard is an east-�vest designated arterial road�vay in the City of Dub(in Genera( P(an that
extends from west of San Ramon Road to its current terminus at Fallon Road. It is generally a four to six
lane facility with a landscaped median. No on-street parking is permitted on this facility. Dublin Boulevard
is a designated route of regional significance. Bicycle lanes and sidewalks are provided on portions of
Dublin Boulevard.
Lockhart Sfreet is a north-south collector roadway that extends from Dublin Boulevard to Gieason Drive.
This facility is complete �vith a landscaped median and bike lanes. Sidewaiks are present where there is
� 10
Eastern Dublin Specific Ptan Amendment Transportation Assessment
. July 2015
adjacent development—sidewalk infill �vould occur as the adjacent lands become developed. On-street
parking is not allowed on this facility.
Sunset View Dr�ive is a local residential roadway that spans north from Central Parkway inside the project
area. It is a two-lane facility with on-street parking and sidewalks.
Panorama Driv�e is a north-south local residential facility inside the project area that parallels Sunset
View Drive to the east. It is also a two-lane facility with on-street parking and sidewalks.
PEDESTRIAN 1=ACILTTIES
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, pathways, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. Sidewalks are
provided along most roadways in the immediate study area, although there are portions of Central
Parkway and Fallon Road where the roadway has not yet been constructed to its ultimate width and
sidewalks have not yet been constructed.
6ICYCLE FACILITIES
Bicyde focilities in Dubiin include the following general types:
• Class I: Shared Use Path - These facilities provide a completely separate right-of-way and are
designa?:ed for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with vehicle cross-flow minimized.
• Class II A: Bicycle Lane - Bicycle lanes provide a restricted right-of-way and are designated for the
use of bicycles for one-way travel with a striped lane on a street or highway. Bicycle lanes are
generally a minimum of five feet wide.Vehicle parking and vehicle/pedestrian cross-flow are
permitted.
• Class II Es: Buffered Bicycle Lane - Buffered bicycle lanes are conventional bicycle lanes that
provide a restricted right-of-way with an added buffer space separating the bike lane from the
adjacent vehicle lane and/or parking lane. The buffered area provides greater distance between
bicyc�ists, and parked cars and moving traffic and allows for bicyclists to pass one another within
the bicyr_le lane without entering the vehicle lane. Buffered bicycle lanes are generally made up of
a six foot wide bicycle lane and a two-foot wide buffer.The buffer is striped with two solid white
lines with diagonal hatching or chevron markings within the buffer zone.
• Class III,4: Bicycle Route with Sharrows -These bikeways provide right-of-way designated by
signs or pavement markings for shared use with motor vehicles. These include sharrows or
"shared-lane markings"to highlight the presence of bicyclists.
(� 11
,y
Eastern Dc�b[in Specific P(an Amendmer,t Transportation Assessment
Ju(y z015
�Nithin the study area, Cla�s it a k; cyde !ares are provided on Dublin 5ou!evard, Falloi� R,�ad and Cer��ral
Parkway. A series of Cla�s I pa�hs ar2 Giso provided throuyhout the eastern Du;�lin area.
Transit service in the area is provided by Wheels, 6ay Arza Rapid Transit (BART), and Altamont Commuter
Express (ACE).
Wheels, v✓hich is operated by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA), provides fixed-
route and paratransit service throughout the Cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore, and provides
connections to other transit service providers. Wheels buses connect major destinations within the Cities
of Dubiin, Pleasanton and Livermore, including Do�vntown areas, employment centers and transit hubs,
including BART and ACE stations. Wheels bus schedules are also coordinated with ACE and BART trains
during peak commute hours. The Project Area is currently served directly by Routes 2 and 501/502.
Additional service is provided at Dublin 6nulevard/Fallon Road on Routes 12 and R�ute 30 (R). The buses
used on the routes below have a seating capacity of approximately 40 passengers, with standing room
available for an additional 20 passengers.
Route 2 connects eastern Dublin to the East Dublin/Pieasanton BART station via Tassajara Road, Falion
Road, Positano Parkway and Central Park�vay. It operates on hour headway during the morning (6:30 to
8:30 AM) and evening (3:30 to 6:30 PM) peak periods.
Routes 501 and 502 provide service to area schools with stops in eastern Dublin that are timed for
morning and afternoon school bell schedules.
Route 12 connects the Downtown Livermore ACE station to the east Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station via
Las Positas College and Dublin Boulevard, with service every 30-minutes during peak periods and hourly
service at other times. It operates seven days a week.
Route 30 (or R) service connects the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station to the East Dublin/Pleasanton
BART station, as well as the Downtown Livermore Transit Center and Lawrence Livermore Labs. It has a
designated stop on Dublin Boulevard at Keegan Street. Service is provided on 15 minutes headways on
weekdays between 5:00 AM and 8:00 PM. No weekend service is provided on this route. It provides skip-
stop (some bus stops that are served by other lines are not served by this route in order to keep up
speed).
. 12
Eastern Dublin Speci fic Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment
� Ju y 2015
Bay Area Rapid' Transit (BART) provides regional transportation connections to much of the Bay Area
and the Dublin/Pieasanton line provides direct access to San Francisco, with several stops in Oakland
where connections may be made to other lines. The closest BART station is the East Dublin/Pleasanton
Station located approximately 3.5 miles west of the Project. The West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station is
also located approximately 5.5miles from the Project site. BART train frequency ranges between 15-20
minutes from approximately 5:00 AM to 12:00 AM. Based on 2013 data from BART, approximately 6,800
passengers per ciay enter/exit the BART system at the East Dublin/Pleasanton station, and approximately
3,200 passengers enter/exit the BART system at the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station.
The Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) operates weekday train service between Stockton and San Jose
with Tri-Valley stops in Downtown Pleasanton and Livermore. During the morning commute period
westbound only service from the Central Valley to San Jose is provided, while eastbound only service is
provided in the afternoon/evening commute period. There are four morning trains through Pleasanton
between 5:33 A�� and 8:18 AM, and four evening trains between 4:28 PM and 7:31 PM. Travel time from
Stockton to Pleasanton is approximately one hour and fifteen minutes, while travel time from the Tri-
Valley to San Jos,e is approximately one hour. Wheeis provides shuttle services between the ACE stations
and major employment/residential areas in Pleasanton and Livermore. ACE trains carry approximately
4,000 passenger�s on a typical weekday, with approximately 600 passengers boarding the ACE system at
the downtown Pleasanton Station on a typical weekday.
Weekday morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM), afternoon (2:00 to 4:00 PM) and evening (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak
period intersection turning movement counts were conducted at the study intersections in May 2015,
including separate counts of trucks, pedestrians, and bicyclists. For the study intersections, the single
hour with the highest traffic volumes during the count periods was identified. The AM peak hour in the
study area is generally from 7:45 to 8:45 AM, the afternoon peak hour is generally from 3:00 to 4:00 PM,
and the PM peak: hour is generally from 5:00 to 6:00 PM. The peak hour volumes are presented on Figure
3 along with the existing lane configuration and traffic control. Traffic count worksheets are provided in
Appendix A.
(� �3
1�
�� i —�
' i c� � � � �
i 3 i �?.`�'`-_M � I •� �
t ,
d cr�� ��!'�ii16)IE I �
� `°°l i-�--[gl.��i',.g9:i"oZt'I W U
U I,— � 411�� �i�i�t;._r)'., � 4--
'�J
� j (Tj
� ♦
t��L�_�
�E���L�'G�-� �i� I f
O ';^�g, --� .^
t4691 9LF�i v:�
;�� �6Z]�09)Z6L-� � �� � �
�;� c1 ���� �
� � �
� � �� �„
�
T ^'_'no � 3i � i .�
Y `^V I -Y I C O C I �
�- �h� [s](r?s � o 0 0 � [o](o)o �
�o `��` �I�--[sz1(s51�s `6 000 �—[o](c)o
� �1� � ��B��9�� � �� �o��o�o �
U y
� U��,,,_� p _ �,:,�, � �
� � z O
� �sa��z�za �T�` � �o��o�o ��' ,� U
� [ss](ob)��t-"-. ��o m `° [oi(o)o� o o s � �
Y �
o ILL��CEJ'vL� ""m �C �O]�O)O O O O �
� wN� m �
— � -�-�-- a 3 0 0 o i � (6
N t ��� �7 � ��I i —�
°;� �'� �
� �
�V � ~ 3 �
�
3 �_� 'r CO �
Y oJN a CuM�O / r
.N i. ��.�l��Q � � O
�i �u�'i ��89Z](LB£)98 � °cn° � ! � u
@ i ��� �--[rt�el(est)o�e U �;� •r-E�l o)o I v �
[t](o)�
e� V
� � ., � �w�,:,.,.� � I � �
R
� ��
c�(rt�l(io4)�oa�`, > [t](t)� �� � �-
o `�' �
��[orhl Case)sae� �, [ol io)� � N��,
� faal(oa)sz =o �
�L� � �M`
�� (A r �..��� �
� N� •`�'-J
`r � V^,
_—_ C y/
� �
�
I .. . L ' __ __' " __ . ... � I p v
'y-'� . ' � in �
F�--�
� � �
� c , � �
�� � �� F , �a O
__,--- a � '` 2
-- - -� �1 � � � ��� � �
0
r� oy�eo�� � (�
\ ' v�
oF ! � �
- � o °�.,���d v d
d i �
`/( � �' �,s � � � � I -�
Y^- / / / � � \ �! I N
y s _ J
�' �I / •� I .,� ., C
d�` 1 �
�`� .H{ / . Croak Rd � -.�? vi
� �J�d�1- . �.;r,�,
� � �
�; . . .. Y .. 'h
2 ti�
0 3, t
f 4x :i - C� .y�d�4a+
c 11 �
�. ..� � '� ��: G �� s ^
1SJ�eUB�o ti — ��I - �'r �
�
� PN uo��ej T \ � � - � �.�� ya*�a g s p
_��s' � v - � p � �� j��
S ry i y , _ V
�
Q aull.e11�8 � .; � �°
� �� . � �
��. . . - I i _ = . -ca `
. .4 ���1�. y-J V �. � �1y . G �
. . O �f.. ipm�wd :. T�G3n��;�eNj C
- ;�-Jy � �Q Rauena� � � � �'� tt t �11� � � Z
Ho�nd,�;,ID`.iY � ` � � 37�{,-��� � v
o �GuIBI eam St .� � y
Y'G ���--�� z�-� � `�
- � 3 C a
`i � �
��� r � �
R z . Rehque6iuueig c` ��.uo:��oig . �'T. �, Q� .
. �� „-n .X^�y . � ��. ,h�� Eden � N
Londonder Dr
. . p8 eielessel. ° LYI'r ���yJ y6� �_ w Y
j'�-�'�� `�'J� � =''� y�� / � x
Eastern Dublin Specific Ptan Amendment Transportation Assessment
� July 2015
iNTERSECTIC?(�l CPERATIONS
Existing operations were evaluated using the method described in Chapter 1 for the weekday AM,
afternoon and PM peak hours at the study intersections, based on the volumes and lane configurations
shown on Figure� 3. The results are summarized in Table 3. Observed peak hour factors2 were used at all
intersections for the existing analysis. Where the observed PHF was less than 0.75, a minimum value of
0.75 was used. T�ruck, pedestrian and bicycle activity was factored into the analysis.
TABLE 3
EXISTING CONDITIONS
PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Existing Conditions
Intersection Controll Peak Hour
Delay�'3 L053
AM 15 B
l.Fallon Road/Positano Parkway Signal AFT 11 B
PM 11 B
AM 18 B
2.Lockhart Street/Central Parkway Signal AFT 21 C
PM 38 D
AM 15 B
3.Falion Road/Ce�ntral Parkway Signal AFT 18 B
PM 12 B
AM 8 A
4.Sunset View Drive/Central Parkway Signal AFT 9 A
PM 12 B
AM 0(0) A(A)
5.Panorama Drive/Central Parkway SSSC AFT 0(0) A(A)
PM 0(0) A(A)
Notes:
1. SSSC=side-street stop controlled intersection;Signal=signalized intersedion.
2. Average int:ersection delay calculated for signalized intersections using the 2000 HCM method.
3. For SSSC intersections,average delay or LOS is listed first followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses.
Source:Fehr&Peers,2015.
�The relationship between the peak 15-minute flow rate and the full hourly volume is given by the peak-hour factor(PHF) based on the
following equation: PI-iF=Hourly volume/(4*volume during the peak 15 minutes of flow). The analysis of level of service is based on peak
rates of flow occurrinq within the peak hour because substantial short-term fluctuations typicaily occur during an hour.
rA 15
,/
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment T;ansportation Assessment
1 uly 20i S
As sho����n, study intersections aperate at over�il acceptable service levels in accordance �vith benchmarks
set by the City of Dublin during the morning, afternoon and evening peak F�ours. Detailed intersec+.ion
LOS calculation worksheets are presented in Appendix B.
�,iENI�.LE Q��U�r`.IG
Field observations confirmed the calculated levels of service along with the extent of existing vehicle
queues, which are contained within the existing vehicie storage. Detailed intersection queuing calculation
�vorksheets are also presented in Appendix B.
e
16
Eastem Dub(in Specifc Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment
� Ju(y 2015 �:
3.0 �RO��CT �HARACTE�I5TIC5
This chapter provides an overview of the proposed project components and addresses the proposed
project trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment characteristics, allowing for an evaluation of
project impacts on the surrounding roadway network. The amount of traffic associated with the project
was estimated u�sing a three-step process:
1. Trip Generation—The amount of vehicle traffic entering/exiting the campus was estimated.
2. Trip Distribution—The direction trips would use to approach and depart the area was projected.
3. Trip Ass�ignment—Trips were then assigned to specific roadway segments and intersection
turning movements.
The proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (project) would change the land use designation
of an approximately 10-acre parcel within the Jordan Ranch development of the EDSP from parks/public
recreation to parks/public recreation/school. Other site elements have also been refined from prior plans.
Jordan Ranch is located in eastern Dublin, east of Fallon Road, south of Positano Parkway, and traversed
by Central Parkway.
Table 4 presents a comparison of the 2005 EIR Project, 2010 Approved Project, 2012 Approved Project
with school site, and the current proposal. In 2012 there was a site within the Jordan Ranch development
that was reserved for a school but has the dual designation of residential and school; the current
entitlements allew construction of either school or residential uses.
Since 2012, portions of the project have been constructed, including a 253-unit single-family
neighborhood southeast of Positano Parkway (1 home remains under construction). Portions of the site
in the vicinity of the proposed school site are currently under construction, with approximately 37
completed homes. Vehicle trips generated by constructed and occupied units were captured in the data
collection effort (see chapter 2), and vehicle trips generated by uses not yet constructed and occupied
were estimated and added to the existing traffic volumes to evaluate transportation conditions with the
land use designation changes.
r� 1�
��
Eastern Dubli,n Specific Plan A.mer,dment Transportation Assessment
�'u(y 2015
TQBLE 4
PROJECT DEVELORR�[EI�IT SUM[ViRRY
2005 2Q1Q Approved 2012 Approved Current
Land Use EIR Pro}ect Project Project Proposai Current Status
Approximately 289
Single Fan�ily 426 d�velling i homes constructed
453 du 513 du 664 du
Homes units(du) &248 units under
construction
Multi-Family 638 du 327 du 238 du 235 du Under
Homes Construction
Mixed-Use area 8'�,000 square 9 982 sf retail 35,000 sf retail -- N/A
feet(sfl
Office -- 5,100 SF -- -- N/A
Assisting Living
Units
— - 61 du — N/A
Elementary 10 acres 550 students 550 studentsl 900 Students Not Constructed
School
Notes:
1. A portion of the site in 2012 was designated either for residentiai or a school site. With a school,513 single family units
would be constructed. Without a school,up to 61.3 single family units would be constructed. An assumption of 550
enrolled students was made for the purposes of the 2012 analysis.
Source: City of Dublin,?011 and updated In 2015.
Trip generation refers to the process of estimating the amount of activity a project might add to the local
roadway net�vork. In addition to estimates of daily traffic, estimates are also created for the peak one-
hour period during the morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and evening (4:00 to 6:00 PM) commute hours, when
traffic volumes on adjacent streets are ty�pically at their highest. For school projects, estimates are also
generated for the peak periods around bell times (7:00 to 9:00 AM and 2:00 to 4:00 PM).
For this project, several sources of trip generation data were reviewed, including Fehr & Peers trip
generation surveys at several elementary schools in the Tri-Valiey Area. This data was compared to trip
generation rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, (9th
Edition)with the resulting trip generation estimates shown in Table 5.
Elementary School sites surveyed in the Tri Valley Area were typically neighborhood schools with some
students observed walking/biking to school, but with the majority of students being driven to school. The
�� 18
Eastern Dublin Speci fic Ptan Amendment Transportation Assessment
� July 2015
F
surveyed rates rF>flect about 13 percent of the student population walking to school. Given the number of
housing units within the immediate vicinity of the school, the walk percentage was increased to 25
percent, or 225 students. The resulting vehicle trip rate per student, accounting for a 25 percent walk
share, is higher than the maximum trip rate per student noted in the ITE Trip Generation Manua(.
For this assessment, Fehr& Peers used the observed trip generation rate from similar schools in the area
with an additional walk adjustment, which results in a 900-student elementary school generating
approximately 940 vehicle trips during the morning peak hour, 510 vehicle trips in the afternoon peak
hour and 380 vehicle trips in the typical evening commute hour.
TABLE 5
fl00-STUDENT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES
� � , � ,: �€��`� Weekda� �, { � }
� `�` �.��c �� a,� '� t:e �s s. �yu�,,. ..�t.a.;d� �:a�2t.«r.n:�u�..Sec9YZ'ta...lfe.�,..un.ifr ..a.r '�'„ks�$ :. -S�e. it
�`4T�Y�f�y$.�°/3,�"�� � s �r s .� *�t.r �`5�':�'�,�#.r. #S���a r-� fi��''���'-�`.�k�-,�.� �9"s ". s'''�:' . 5 ,� '�2 '_
Data 5'ouk e � � ��� AM�ea�ur x'� ��.�� fternoon�eakHour s � �� PM Pe k��Fis��r�`��°��
. 3zri'',����`����'r��id�� E-- �.�� �� ^'�. .�.�a`�,���- �a't� ' p �r�'Fo- � �� _ �u��'. »*��'�".
� s �a. ��. � 3�i�„ J�t''��,tt'� `+�'"�"�ST��.•'§�bs�m�'� r Fi = -��� a'°•'�t- �' � `�"'�'49'�''� t'� "�'- �
',:r�� P'�+fi�ts .:�'c�'"�s�"'zz.::'*z "W� � :�=�Il, �;`�Ut�"`i{�tTO��`. a'"a`II�};'a�,t �4t #x�OtO� '� 71� � QU�`_.�: TO�f ��.
Elementary
School—Tri 2,500 496 440 936 229 280 509 184 192 376
Valley Studyi
Elementary
School—ITE 1,160 223 182 405 113 139 252 66 69 135
Averagez
Elementary
School—ITE Max 2,210 455 373 828 203 248 451 163 170 333
Rate3
1. Based on data collected in November 2012 at Twin Creeks and Sycamore Valley Elementary schools as part of an evaluation for
the TRAFFIX scF�ool bus program. Only AM peak period data was collected. Afternoon and PM peak hour trip qeneration
estimated based ratio of the ITE Max rate during the morning peak hour to the observed data. Rate was reduced to account for
a 25 percent walk mode share to this campus,as compared to the 13 percent observed at the data collection sites.
AM Peak Hour.T=1.04(X);Enter= 53%;Exit=47%
2. Based on ITE Land use 520,Elementary School,Average Rate:
Daily:(T)= 1.29(X)
AM Peak Fiour.T=0.45(X);Enter=55%;Exit=45%
Afternoon Peak Hour: T=0.28(X);Enter=45°/o;Exit=55%
PM Peak Hour:T=0.15(X);Enter=49%;Exit= 51%
3. Based on ITE Land use 520,Elementary School,Maximum Rate:
Daily:(�=2.45(�
AM Peak Hour.T=0.92(X);Enter= 55%;Exit=45%
Afternoon Peak Hour. T=0.5(X);Enter=45%;Exit=55%
PM Peak I-lour.T=0.37(X);Enter=49%;Exit=51%
Source:Trip Generotion Manua((9`h Edition),ITE,2012;Fehr&Peers,May 2015.
r� 19
��
Eastern Dublin Specific Pian Amendment Transportation Assessment
� July 2015
f��ost school trips are pa�� of paren��guardian trip chain that typically invol��es drepping or`f a child at
school on th� �vay to ��✓ork or cther daily er�ands, and while it represents a new trip �vithin the im�l�ediate
proje�t area, it does net represert ne�v ±rips to the regional roadway system. Additicnally, the level of
afternoon and evening t�ip generation depends on the potential !eve! of after-school activities and if
before/aftAr school care is provided on-campus.
Trip generation of Jordan Rancli as currentiy envisioned was estimated using ITE Trip Generation rates,
similar to the 2012 assessment. The results are presented in Table 6 for the non-school elements in
combination with the school and compared to the total trip generation from the 2012 assessment. This
comparison shows that vel�icle trip generation is slightly higher for the proposed project, but mostly due
to increased school enroliment.
To estimate afternoon peak hour trip generation for the non-school uses, the difference bet�veen existing
afternocn peak per;od and evening peak period travel through the study intersections �,vas reviewed.
Afternoon peak period traffic volumes were approximately 12 percent lower than the evening peak period
volumes. The PM peak hour trip generation as shown in Table 6 was reduced by 10 percei�t to develop
afternoon peak hour trip generation estimates for the project.
TABLE 6
JORDAN RANCH TRIP GENERATION
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Project Component Size Daily
In Out Total In Out Total
Proposed Project
Single Family Homesl 664 DU 6,320 125 373 498 418 246 664
Medium-High Density
Residential? 238 DU 1,580 39 118 157 106 77 183
Elementary School'' St d oits 2,500 496 440 936 184 192 376
Total Trip Generation 10,400 660 931 1,591 708 515 1,223
Less constructed homes 289 units (2,750) (54) (163) (217) (182) (107) (289)
Net New Project Trip Generation (A) 7,650 606 768 I,374 526 408 934
„ 20
Eastern Dub(in Specific P(an Amendment Transportation Assessment
� July 2015 �
TABLE 6
JORDAN RANCH TRIP GENERATION
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Project Comp�onent Size Daily
In Out Total In Out Total
2012 Project
Trip Generation from 2012 Assessment 9,520 427 630 1,057 534 360 894
Less constructed homes 289 (2,750) (54) (163) (217) (182) (107) (289)
units
2012 Project Net'Trip Generation(8) 6,770 373 467 840 352 253 605
Net Difference between Proposed
Project and 2012 Approved Project(A) 880 233 301 534 174 155 329
—(BJ
N o tes:
1. Trip generation based on ITE rates for Singie Family Home(Land Use 210):
Daily Rate:T =9.52(D)
AM Peak Hour Rate:T=0.75(D)(inbound =25%,outbound=75%)
PM Peak Hour Rate:T= 1.00(D)(inbound= 63%,outbound=37%)
Where:T=tr�,p ends,and D= Dwelling Units
2. Trip generation based on ITE rates for Low Rise Townhouse(Land Use 231):
Daily Rate:T==6.72
AM Peak Hour Rate:T=0.67(D)(inbound= 25%,outbound=75%)
PM Peak Hour Rate T=0.78(D)(inbound= 58%,outbound=42%)
Where:T=trip ends,and D= Dweiling Units
3. From Table 2
Source: [TE Trip Genc�rotion,9th Edition,and Fehr&Peers,2015.
Project trip distribution refers to the directions of approach and departure that vehicles would take to
access and leave the site. Estimates of regional project trip distribution were developed based on existing
travel patterns in the area, a select zone analysis using the City of Dublin travel demand model, and prior
analysis preparecl for the site. General trip distribution estimates are presented in Table 7.
As mentioned previously, many school trips are part of the parent/guardian trip chain that typically
involves droppiny off a child at school on the way to work or other daily errands, and while it represents a
new trip within the immediate project area, it does not represent new trips to the regional roadway
system. This interaction was accounted for in the assignment of trips to study area intersections. Project
trips were assigned to the roadway network based on the general directions of approach and departure
rA 21
��
Easterr rJub(in Speci fic Pion Ame.ndmer�t Trar,sportation Assessm,ent
July 2015
shown in ?able 7 but ,,h.e route �hat people take te the site could vary. Separate trip as�ignments are
shown for exis±ing and future conditicr�s as the full connection of Croak Road to Dublin Bouievard would
af�ect h��.v vehicles arrive te/depa�t the area, especially*he school site.
The resulting project trip assigr,rnent is shovv�n on Figure 4 for the existing condition and Figure 5 for the
future conditions (near-ten�� ar�d cumula+,ive). The volumes shov��n on Figure 5 represent the net-change
from the entitled project.
TABLE 7
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Project Trip Assignment
Roadway
Residential School
Fallon Road North 20% 20%
Fallon Road South 60% 10%
Central Parkway East 5% 10%
Central Parkway West 10°o 30%
Positano Parkway East 5% 30%
Total 100% 100°0
Source: City of Dubfin Fa(fon Vi((age Draft Supplemental Environmental lmpact Report,August 2005,Jordan Ranch Stage
ll Submitto(—Site Deve(opment Review,April 2Q 20I1, and Fehr&Peers,2015.
�s 22
� � +-�
� � � �
��_. �
� m^ _ r
�N +J �
d co�m ��ZLZ](4LZ)t'lL �
� �°vo�� '—'I:L1(8l)9 W �
� ,lj�, .�
�
U N
� ,nw��� Q
� �19L��Z9L)£LZ� �� Q
s [s](9)a—. ��3 'i.
ii �r I--
�. ,
ri �="- +�
- c`ci U
�g ` �
0
i i
>. � �' ° � �
3 M Y � �
a �" '�-[b](v)� � �
m r�"' m m
r a
� I� � I �IbZI(9Z)L4 �
U y +
v
A �a s �` - " d m
� � � �
L I � �I� �
�
p " c I£8](Z6)046� �'��' �
"� { i� d m�i m
N d p...� �
§ '� � � E ���
� N
� � P u
O� � � N�,
a
a � � ,�[s�l(as)as � �� ,�[as)(az)as� °—
� `° '—[esl(as)cs� � °'o •—[za](s�)e� v
m � v �� '�I�zal(Ge�)asz �
N �
O �` C
� a n a +a.•�.n�+�"rs
3 '�
� We � �Tr �
o [mtl(so�)tz�—� � `^
[s](t>ov---. �m�
� u�i �C91�6L)601� °�,�, � .
� c
� � co m�n
� ��
� P �.��.
� ���
M(D V
V
C
�
ilt
L . i
{ — _— � c y l. � O
�.&. tN.. �l�g,s�� . V1
.. � �-. x 4 ""Y� s�#���
U o
� ' �...N 1 � ,� . . l��Pa .
_ J`� � �`� i ��L�� c
7 0
o ,i P2iheoi��k , s ,we � : a�i
h £ ✓ �
P `��F e
"'�Y'�l Y r� K 1.E
5k� � d Y
�e�oue a� � a �, t
� �H�f �"h�-+�,��r�� �� ;� F �� �a
. �o '�„���, �� , y�`�.. �r � .
T3 7 �; ��ms��f �� � - �� :�'s �� �io .
� � ,N-�"�a�e,�s . ,"�",p� ���..s�,4 y Croak.Rd h i. s3�. ��� t Z � 3^y�� � .
° -+a�y °d il�r g �'�, � � e
�?'� �.'�.t�4 . 4= ��'��,'�€ �, �. a'�A t� .
� $ Qa � � �� � �, � � �<� ��� �
� � � . � ,. � : � .� �.
'"�' �*`, �c v " z �§ 3�` v
P : ` "`��� *+A �'� :. *��k x k) �: � � � � in .
,� .. r . � ' -���r_ k� ±c a � � E �
"°�`�;�4�.,,,,�..,e�., 57�ey��o� _ � � ! y;����� #'� e � .
E '��Py��°�;Pd �'�,�'^ . �."a �: — a r� 'o, _o,, p "
� 3 m _ .�. o � O
�'£ � 3', �" ,.� ;`,�, n , � •D �. "� .,,�,5� v_; ' �. �
; o� .o Q � .'3 ip au,(lue���gt � m �'' : -a�
�; �z���' � -"�� «° t:* ,4.y �
�-Q t e� V �r,�. � ��-a e t'�.✓# -�' y �i
5r �
„��� ._u,..o � � � '' P �r Y ip o�i�wid. ^�:, any uiuey�; �
`�r,� �i46auenap � ., � �} o ��p � ''� L; � �
� �
gound HJI D� ,.�'d`1� � : d . �� e..,, . '' a 2
�O Gulfstream St :�:..�y 3�¢ �a Z Y
s 5�" ,.3�o �a .= . �� �--c6 ° y o.� � _ � �
} z. � �?c "'�Y�� .r# �, ' .: � ,, a. _ t m : x z � r�- °.'°r�.:, Q a.
s�r �--� ',Se ue6wuei ` 3 ;�. r � p ��" � Qi. �,.,
.. ' r� »,�Z. M ta�ars99a�" rr .rn` Zo` iOuol�l�0�8 . mQ . N
, �� �� rrfl.:17"��y ^.s3. � ;�.. � � � � o. � � Eilen� IV
Londonderr Dr 'i q,� �,�. � � �� * �o,
t; � ` � _ -A ' - ; O
� '� p8 e�efessel � ;a "s .94* "� , ,� �. � ,�,��/4��.� yoa� - w
� �.ai,".�.+��,. ,_,_..:. .. �P �.��� .? �� . _ . �"� ���.yJ�.. .�.;�o ,��.�� ,.,� � w X
' J X
� � � � �
� � �a � ��, �
i '�� �y� i � �
i �' �� i ;
i�� ^;�° �,Zi(l�)s ; � � � �
��I ro I<—i��-i!�:-��r! _ _ C� C'il
�,
�I� � � '
�I y�� ' � � � ��{
�(.`,A�,—r� � 3 J �l
I =1 z � �
� � � . �
� [a9](st)����, �I � ,� � Q
ol i!�-;�e�-i�--. �N � � —
I `�� =� � � i f--
i�! �� � v N
jri� - " � � ._ � V
I `� ` I �i � •�
i �� z �.
T �' � ;qx.,� I I
3 Y � aa° ;i
� �� a " ��
0. �� �[�lc�io �'
� `° � .—[�-;`(o)�
m c� v
I� � �,LLI(Zl)9Z
a�i i U � I �
U c
�� �,�N� .�� e m
� T � �T� �
@ �
Y �
V � O �E-��L-)Z-� �m� O
J � � �4l l']�L-)r8l- �.v m
N�
N __—'_ ` ' � v�' �
� � m r
� _ ; N
T SI � m� li
3 `J „I a ;� o
a� � � ,�[se](es)�� ro �`� �(ss](�ai n��
o� � '—[LZ](L8)t9 � �� ,�--�z�](91�?86 v
m � � �� I '�[saal(es�)e•ra
:N + v
o p =
a - — �a, .,,.. >,
�(� ,,,_ � `�T� �
�
� �9�1 i9e?oq—. �� [s](t z'�4�� N i�� �
I N I [21.1(L)9Z
�i 3 N�:�m �
I � v��
C� i �hN
o ' �
-- C
Ul
in
�'_ _ � _ .I � I a
� . . . II � - . � I o
� �� �� �
( �/ .. , � II . . ���
� tl ,,� �
� �,,, /� �i i �i ra
.. _ . . . . il . y + J/. r�io .
,; �. .. .I I . ` . / . .�� ��� � �
— - -�� o
�o l i�a'�eo,� � . v
``[o II i v
� p e,oued .. ,
!� � �
�� ����s � �� � � �
�,5� � , v
�.. � . II ' J �
iy� �
<� �� . .. .: � . o�
V .o4F; J 1I Croak Rd . N
rd 1-
) T �Y �
n �
� D
Q
1 � �� -� �� `�
� ro � �
���` �
' 1S L�yx�O ��� � �
��- PYuolled � � � '' ' _�. :�. � � ° ',.�
3 _ ,r >
.�C � . .. C �' ,�� � j, U
r
c �'' � c _ b ��o �Qau%�ue��ey c` ( „p ° _ '�6 w
,J � � c u _y � _ � � �v . _,..�', a �o
� � � ` - f � ��
4 v
1(]O�i�W d �, ���U 1��� —
' �.�«y ...�Q ria�enap� I _� ��� ..p .�. °' _ �Z
� H�I D�^ './ . '^` o`� 4� c
0.ound ,�� �, �Gulfs[ream St Y
3 � �
� - � �� iZ�� " ¢ a
� � ^ _ �
� � �I � � �
� �� �.�r�¢ . . � � 6e/y�ue6 uuei6 0` �p.uo:h�oi�.� ''�-- ,. -�—�Q�� ,.
z z N
�'j��c_ � � onilo�a�enY Dr . ..� �o `!� Eileri � N
^—.-...y."°`°°" � �G r �.. �. ��j �i � Z Y
Pye,efesse,Lrr�w'' Q�,}-� t'���� ��z W }
��_.._�1?"'�.. —� ��!-.! L . .. . .. ....� .. ���� W X
Eastern Dublin Specific Ptan Amendment Transportation Assessment
� Juty 2015
�.a E�tIS°t��� WI�`�4 �RO�JECT C�I�DITIC3t�5
This chapter eva'uates potential traffic impacts under Existing with Project conditions.
The Project-oniy traffic volumes (Figure 4) were added to the existing peak hour traffic volumes (Figure 3)
to estimate the Existing with Project peak hour intersection turning movement volumes, as shown on
Figure 6. For this scenario it was assumed that Central Parkway would connect to Croak Road,
connecting to Dublin Boulevard, in the eastbound direction only. No changes to the lane configuration or
traffic control were assumed at any of the study intersections. Traffic signal timings, peak hour factors,
heavy vehicle percentages, and pedestrian and bicycle activity at the study intersections were left
unchanged from existing conditions for the initial analysis.
Existing with Project conditions were evaluated using the same methods described in Chapter 1. The
analysis results �ire presented in Table 8, based on the traffic volumes and lane configurations presented
on Figure 6. Table 8 also includes the operations results for the Existing without Project conditions for
comparison purposes.
With the addition of trips related to the buildout of the remaining portions of Jordan Ranch, intersections
in the study area would degrade, but would continue to operate within the City's established level of
service for intersection operations over the peak hour.
The addition of project traffic would result in the 95th percentile vehicle queue exceeding the available
storage for the southbound left-turn movement at the Central Parkway at Fallon Road intersection, as well
as for several movements at the Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive/School Access intersection. These
increases are considered significant. Vehicle queues at the Central Parkway at Fallon Road intersection in
the existing plus project condition can be maintained within the existing vehicle storage through signal
timing adjustments as traffic patterns change in the area. Measures to consider at the Sunset View
Drive/School Acc:ess intersection are discussed in Chapter 8.
�� 25
e�
i � � ' j t�+-'.� O
-- � �
�P� .� +�
�-�`� � ��, ��tQCc;�,'._ C;i I � O
I w �� t_
�a m (�^s;iyz� ,�rl �- V
� �i+L�, �:eri(�r; � � v
��I ,; i �� �
I� �5��1',i�L)C,��-�f{'�' R'�R�*� I L
C �
I o I££9��L09�'cZ8—.I c>o N I � �
�m c-=�
� [6Zi(09i�6L-��i � �„� � — -�
� � ���� � tn C
.I ^��� � �X (B
�, � W �
m
�V I O
Y ��� I a( O N O � �V
a `N�' [sl(e)ot o�-o [o;(o)o
� ��� �-[szl(ss)zs �° o�o ;fol(o)o �
c �I� '�[el(s)� � �� [5z](9z)tt �
U i U r � � `�—
� ,,�r.�,:.�� p` -.w�_�. c �
� �� � � � 0
♦ ca � —
% [�%1(sz)�a� �i�' � [o]lo)0 1 i � V
� �
� [�s](or)����. ��� o [oi(o>o� m�o � �
�o [t.](e�)rt� =�.�� c [se](�s)or� � � ° C
J �-�S N a # ��'M �
N I � µ _ `O I� �
h-.� � � �-�L�
!
I J V �� � �
—'__-- __ — ^,
uJ
O � 6) �
�,I �� 3 "
Y ^ �
3 �� a �,�;:�
Y m ch – C
� r rn � � o�`� �E£��Z'o)89l � 0
p. N rn f—�L£E]�946)EZL �-:�o � � \
� ._ c .-cv� •�--�£�]�9l)9l
�' [serl(oss)bsv � �'
�o I ���� � � 1 iy [�za]tsGt)rez � U
�
�y
0 0 � �
� _ ,,.'( > � � —.�,.�[�i 1(�)� � �� � �
c�[..�1 �o� �oz—, [e](�)or-�'+ �o o `^ I—
�,�I�vSI!.ELi!9t�9 y u�i 9LL]�lf,)Z£i�� ^�N Q �
�I C �� �
� ,i �o`
a - y`�`° V
�nrnv
`r Q�
C �
`� L
� �
. . 1_.'-.-,. ' __ ' _' � .. � C]- �
I '_ � . . .. � � � � vl �
�f _ -__- .� � �
� � , �,� o
, _�_ W � � r,c =
. ._._.__ . J T / I ��� o
1-� 1 i� , �
� ua�e�,� �� �
'-1 ° v
� � \\ ���, � � � � � N
� O� °E�ou�d � Q.
�` �� 1 � � �
\ �
�� �
,Y�� � ( - f : � �
1� ' l .,� � � � � `_ �
�L ��ep � . Goak Rd � vi
�. �sOd� �1_. . _
� �� ��� �
1 �
� � ( �Qa �„ '�
� �` �� 3�
�� i - � �
� �
� t I � �- �
asa,ey�;o, i �� � �
Na��„E��., ' ' 3 - �- .��•"�3 o ro � �� ._>
� � � ga � � V
~� vG. c � - Q = �41ul7uellef7 .�� � �` .,�„_ � �
�
� T L
� J ` "�G ` �Q o��wi� . ��..`Jiu��eWi � �
� �.JQAJt1fA:?Q • ��'J � .� � O
Ro�u�oN�110�� ,-Gulfstream5t �� ���Q� �� � �Z
� �� �y � � � �
� ,` ;, � _ � —�6 Z�3� � . Q a
�° ` "� � o�
�. �dcc� .� 6ehn.ie6 uueig c .�.u`o3�'�a6 � ,''�'l Q
`� ,nti�,.("�- Z O o.. �, Eilen N
` Q N
_ �Z-_._���T Londonderry Dr � � o-� �.
�� �N Z Y
.. Pde�n�eis��, �,.__" �a� /���i ��� w Y
� -_ 1-"^-�� . f'�J �'?r .� w x
. . .�,\ � , q J X
6astern Dub(in Speci�c P(an Amendment Transportation Assessment
� July 2015
TABLE 8
EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITION
PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Intersection Controll Peak
Existing Conditions Existing with Project
Hour DelayZ'3 L053 Delayz'3 L053
1.Fallon Road/Positano AM 15 B 17 B
Parkway Signal AFT 11 B 12 g
P M 11 B 12 B
2.Lockhart Streeti/Central AM 18 B 20 g
Parkway Signal AFT 21 C 21 C
PM 38 D 21 C
AM 15 B 32 C
3.Fallon Road/CE�ntral Parkway Signal AFT 18 B 27 C
PM 12 B 26 C
4.Sunset View Drive/Central AM 8 A ll B
Parkway Signal AFT 9 A 14 B
PM 12 B 12 B
5.Panorama Drive/Central AM 0(0) A(A) 5 (15) A(B)
Parkway SSSC AFT 0(0) A(A) 6(14) A(B)
PM 0(0) A(A) 6(15) A(B)
Notes:
1. SSSC=side-street stop controlled intersection;Signal =signalized intersection.
2. Average intersection delay calculated for signalized intersections using the 2000 HCM method.
3. For SSSC intersections,average delay or LOS is listed first followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses.
Source:Fehr&Peers,2015.
r� 2�
��
Eastern Dub(in Specific P(an Arrendn,ent Transpor-tation Assessment
� Ju(y 2015
�<€� �����W-�'����'� ������`�����
This chapter pres�rts the resu!ts of the le�.el of service ca,culaiions under near-term conditions �vitheut
and �vith the project Tra`fic volu«�es for Near-Term wi±hout Project cenditions comprise e>:isting volumes
plus traffic generated by approved but not yet constructed and occupied develepments in the area.
Near-Terr1� with Project COf1G�ItIOf1S are defined as Near-Term 4vithout Project conditions plus net new
traffic generated by the proposed project.
Traffic volumes for the Near-Term conditions v��ere developed through the use of the updated City of
Dublin Travel demand model considering buildout of a portion of the Dublin Kaiser project, which is
proposed on Dubiin Boulevard at Keegan Street. The forecasts represent likely traffic conditions in the
area over the next ten years. Near-Term without Project traffic volumes are shown on Figure 7. The
forecasts shown on Figure 7 include the vehide trip generation of the entitled land uses as presented
previously in Table 6. The net-new trip generation associated with the project was added to the without
project forecasts, with the resulting forecast presented on Figure 8.
The completior� of the Central Parkway connection to Croak Road, which connects to Dublin Boulevard,
was assui�ed to be completed as a t�vo lane, bi-directional roadway. No modifications to the study
intersection lane geometries were assumed. Pedestrian and bicyde activity at the study intersections were
left unchanged from existing conditions except for the with project condition where additional pedestrian
activity was assumed at the intersections that provide prirnary access to the school site. Heavy vehicle
percentages were adjusted to a uniform t�vo percent of traffic. Traffic signal timings were optimized at
sorne intersections to reflect shifts in travel patterns as the City of Dublin routinely adjusts traffic signal
timings to ensure optimal travel flow through the City.
r� 28
o °o � Q
� L i
>, --`°o � '�''
3 °�no� �I �
a �o` �[o�z1(os�)oo� � v
� ���, .—[o�s](oee`�;009�
� ���� �[oa](os)os � V
U �r w,� z �
� ��� �
= 0£L]�O6)09L� L
� OS9]1019)04C1—�+ o 0 0 ~
� IOEI�OS)OEZ� "�`;°�' �
Voo �
� o< m
�o° �
- o�
8 m (/�
o �
o I �
°�o >. o
>` o: 3 .� � ��'
s �°nvvo a o 0 0 �
�- o o� �OL��OL)OL o--o �0]�0)0
� `O ni° '�'�OS1(06)Oh � o°o ��91(0)OL �
� �1� 'r[ozlco�)o� � 1� [e�lcs�>oe � �
� ��,�, p a Ewe.,�ed + � �
�s� m � �
m �os�cos>06 �T�' � �o�co�o ��' � U
� [oo�](os)o�z�' o 0 0 `� [sl(s)a� �o s �
J [oe�l(os)o�z�' �'",`� o (oszl(os�)svs� N,�u o �
s_o m �s
�°� a s � ca
N a� �� d �v v �
°�,o ui � - ��� �--�
U o in
� `� c°JV N
00 0 �
o u j' � �
.3 °o� a `.�° � � �..
� oo � � �oo I01(0)0 � Q �
o �,� �[oos](osc)o�z � �,M o •�(ol(o)o
� ��� ._to,:e](oes)oos � �� [ol to)a ° �
N
v V
Q. L n i � �Grna�nwvur.� C µ
1 �
� o We � ; f91(9)9 �lf� �° CB
e [ot�l(oz�)oez� � �, �
—° [oeel(osv)ots; � [ol(o)o� o�°
LL � I06](OL)0£l "�o � O �
3 � o o p
� �N
`r „ �°n 8 V
M !1�
� VJ
O1 i
� +.. � _ , � , a N
�� � . ..m= o +�
` a. ' �. z��,"^ . in � '.
� r , ;+��
�t' '�`'z� k �' t' '� F .� :.,���'-x-e'� �,»��:�� L �.
��- '�;� 'k �"'.6�'� � '�.."�� � ., A � .
�' '�§+�$�€'�"C�' ;�� } '�+ �� ` . �a Q .
� 3�:� ��w �. �� - C,ra`to'r' � �.
� SMo �""u 5��.}� F.\ C
• � � y � � ��
�."'' � o P!i�eoi�3 5�' z �. � � (Q �
,t N ��,�'k'�� : r �'" +� -'r � ,,� � �� � �
� �,� �
M1� . O F'e�oued L '� :k'x"'�' � ' '�,
� �'a aa �� ��.r,�� r`X �;.'� � � 3 c �
'n3` .u�- , h��� �. � �� w� y : � �'�: ,�`P� � .
' �. T�. . .� ��4 t�' � e<'i-� t ",u'��u"R` ' _
'''� ,f"� � �r�g�. ,� ' ?s r v u�.���; �
v._ ` ` •. �_ ; x. ,..>
o� � "t't � .:
, orel ' �. r :5;=� `� i.,-Croa Rd _y�C. £ oi
�,.r �'''�� ��' � r�.- .��. a'�.�
,�. �t � � , a � � � ; �, � '
{�, ri +.� Q-a ` . ; � ��
i�u a oc y: �'r ' � : 3 .
'i
����� ,� } �. �m '.,���� .�� �` � �,�t [ e�?��r�-- o� .
r
� ..p ;3. ` z;,, ` �, � T "{, �� � c N
�
" . s �*, iSl�ey�8�o� �- -o � � ..�. ;I 1�; �- a�i � � �
s,„,-s t' P�u�ollej �, � ; � m � � ��,'�-° � ° � O
� u
�_ � N
w`�.,y� ?i..� .� � a � ',T b r�,-*�B t.o ' T v
' u as � �., .o : � - � i4 au�(7 nelle8 .�: � � . �`�
� 'H ����� � � � . "� : ` � y i� Y O.. k t . ,.. 'Q (L
. x y��„�+�r�m Y„,�`a;.'�a ?` «� �'t� � S; � y r .t� ,� � T�.� .,:- � `
�}.. o ��. '� � �»` �Q o�i�wid ; � any w�e�,y A
.*5+',c"' �..ip,(auenao � . o��.y"� ,,, �a{{�� '�'s{,si � O .
RoundHJlDr�"'�' � � �# � ��� y. a > o
� }t� o � �GulfstreamSt �'„�ys ''o;�.[i Z, �Y
`�3..o '�"u 7� ' S �S ���� � r°
� '.`a_ '� ;t � �fr� 4 � v' � �.o ` ,z �S � Q a
�y��� � t � ;�� m , �� o
�., p�¢ � � ,� .(eM ue6iuueig.s Zo �4 uoy��oig "S s : Q ��:. N
c
' �� London�deriY��e ;�§c ��''`�� �� 'c`������.�. ,, .. ,�a� E�leri� N
d �
�;�a,.; P21�elesse1 � � a �,�,'��s „_' ��� ��/y�' �ss,� �x =�a+:'.'. W Y
aa� ..,.__ ..,��o `?..:r.+�� �;*. ..�' ...,....ft�.... ��� $ z `a�J+1. x ;,jo_ t.� . r , W X
,._ J X
r—; ----_-- , --
il � �� ; , � o
i i � i
�� �a i •�
�
r' � '._[ i O �
d; --� p
�`� �;� � �F � ` ,`� � V
r` osV`
�� ;',�''`� � . ,_ ;� v
I U
�(—_—_—� '� �
.
I��I[�e�]r5e�)��z� � �•� � � I�
o�leee;izee)zs�i: M:�° �
��I [oe](,e)osz� � � �
i�l , �°O j � �
I I b�r I � �
� �
� �
N I � �
'� ��� � �'� � z �O
Y °�� a) ��� I� cB
a �"�"'� [��](��)o� � �`°o i [ol(c)o `-
� ��� �[os](os)ot `4 0�o '�-(el(c)b �
U �+� �ozi(o�?o� � �iy I [sz](�z)as v �
s `�r=
� �.,,.,, p c �
� „.-., , � �� .,,_.....� � 0
� [osl(os)oe �I� E� [ol(o)o �I � V
�
Y [oo�](oa)o�z�. M�� o [�](r)e� ��� � �
� foei.](o9?ot� --� c [sr�l(or�i�9� ° �
J C�o ('3 I �c�M
N o�o a �' ��o �
—_� _,—__ ui� � �P'I �b; � J
� o� �
..� �.� � _ �;
" (/j
o co i � �
,,� �� � 3 i �_� I� � �
�
o� � ^_ �
Y i o n d i ?..--- c
o °°' '�fEee](ssr�sa� �� ��� i�[esl�bz)r�t ° O
� — � ,N� �. [��, s�l a� � �
�� ��� �-[�sa]<<<o'i�:s4 c� "�� � !saz]!ss�isrz � v
#�o; � �.
���-e---— _ � _ ,,:,..:: � �
. �
� a� i ,�� � (B
c� [o�iJ toz�)ocz� > [sl;5�s � �
o r��S1(9Qb)9L0'� _y � , �6](U 07.�� �n ci `n
�q�`�"�' � �BOL](lE)99l �N,�. �
� � "�" Q �
� �N��
7 = �N N" -F-+
� V
; ° aJ
°i i
�- - — � � �
I . . -' —_ — . � .. � o -F-�
v� � �
� /
,
� - � � ' �
, ��� ' � � �
� �
,Ea �
- . . � I � . ait� � _
. ___ — J � ' C,r �
� �j � ' ///� C � o �
�-�.—�l! J\� Pa�leo�l . .��� .. V Q�
G , N
f
�� p��Le�oued � , , � �
� � I C
��� I �
� s� v
I'-. � � �. r s - —
• J �
� �� yO�o� � �� oi
� . �'l�so,� � Croak Rd . . in
o �S-�
... .. . . � {� TI
,. � �� � ~„a�
. \ . �� 3� �.',
k� �_
�Slit'� .y C� E�' � �
� V�.�o� '_ 3 . � �
�.t�b uo��ej � T , T . .�c �� 4,r� 4 G
) _ i ., x
� ,(�/ c �. � T�
�-{yy/\ :.��. G ��� _ ����II�m � "D�
_.._.����1J ..' .. 4 � G � J� ' '�� � �
y --�-= ya x �._..T._:t � �
�
��� o ,Qo����d a v�u�v�� �
�/ �-,�,�a�e�aa, �-� �.] �) � � °
Fo�od mu o�� ' / „ ��-+� - . ° ��
�.,�/ � �Gulfstream St .� ��a'� ,�
�X�c �� ��� b I �` � Y
o a �
� ' � � z�3 � ¢ a
�
�=} ;:�cQ
. Re�y�uc6u.uEiH o �Quol„�o�g i - .
� ,rtr...I"'4 . . 2 �,� -., . f�j
�-- ,�� � � �ondonaerryDr � - _ t-a fiieri� N
-� � � �� ; �p . . 0 �
.. Pa e,e(essel � ° � �� �v� Sc�. Z y
. . � N �G�� . . � L��j �Y � W }
7S'J J^ � v
__ . .. .�� :C I ��l W X
J X
6astern Dubfin Specif c Pfan Amendment Transportation Assessment
� Jufy 2015
Levels of servic:e caiculations were conducted to evaluate intersection operations under Near-Term
conditions both without and with the project. The LOS results are summarized in Table 9. The
corresponding L.OS and queue calculation sheets are included in Appendix B.
In the Near-Term condition prior to the land uses changes associated with the project, the study
intersections would operate at an acceptable service level. With the net-change in trips related to the
buildout of the remaining portions of Jordan Ranch, study intersection operations would degrade, but
would continue to operate within the City's established level of service for intersection operations over
the peak hour.
TABLE 9
NEAR-TERM CONDITION
PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Intersection Controll Peak
Near-Term without Project Near-Term with Project
Hour DelayZ'3 LOS3 Delay2'3 LOS3
1.Fallon Road/Positano AM 15 B 16 B
Parkway Signal AFT 12 B 12 B
PM 12 B 12 B
2.Lockhart Street/Central AM 27 C 29 C
Parkway Signal AFT 19 B 21 C
PM 19 B 21 C
3.Fallon Road/Central AM 29 C 33 C
Parkway Signal AFT 26 C 31 C
PM 23 C 40 D
4.Sunset View Drive/Central AM 10 A 15 B
Parkway Signal AFT 8 A 15 B
PM 8 A 13 B
5.Panorama Drive/Central AM 10(32) A(D) 5(16) A(C)
Parkway SSSC AFT 8(22) A(C) 6(17) A(C)
PM 7(16) A(C) 6(17) A(C)
Notes:
1. SSSC=side-street stop controlled intersection;Signal=signalized intersection.
2. Average intersection delay calculated for signalized intersections using the�000 HCM method.
3. For SSSC intersections,average delay or LOS is listed first followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses.
Source:Fehr&Peers,2015.
r� 31
,y
Eastern Dublin Specific Piar,Am,enament Trar,sportation Assessment
� Jufy 2015
In the ���itho�:t pro_iect cor��uaition, the westbour�d left-tum movement queue at the Fallon Road at Central
PGrk��,�ay intersection could extend beyond the avaiiable storage, but the uddition of project traffic �a�ould
not increase the vehicle queue by more than 5G feet.
The addition of project traffic �.vould case the southbound left-turn rnovement queue to increase to
approximately 390 feet, exceeding the available storage by approximate!y 150 feet. Queues would be
contained within the available storage prior to the addition of project traffic.
The addition of project traffic would result in the 95th percentile vehicle queue exceeding the available
storage for several movements at the Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive/School Access intersection.
Measures to aileviate poten±ia! queuing issues at the Fallon Road/Central Parkway and Sunset View
Drive/School Access intersection are discussed in Chapter 8.
0 32
Eastern Dub(in Specific P(an Amendment Transportation Assessment
� Ju(y 2015 .
�.a c�n����.�-r�v� co��z-r�arvs
This chapter presents the results of the level of service calculations under Cumulative conditions without
and with the project.
Cumulative forecasts were developed using the updated City of Dublin travel demand model,
representing e�:isting traffic, plus traffic from approved and pending developments, as well as
development that could occur under the current General Plan. The traffic forecasts also reflect traffic
shifts that could occur with construction of new regional roadway facilities, including the EI Charro Road
extension from Stoneridge Drive to Stanley Boulevard and the extension of Dublin Boulevard east to
North Canyons Parkway. Other regional roadway improvements include the planned widening of Stanley
Boulevard to provide three lanes in each direction from east of Isabel Avenue.
The resulting forecasts and intersection lane configurations are presented on Figure 9 for the without
project condition, which reflects buildout of Jordan Ranch with the currently entitled uses. The net-new
trip generation from the proposed project was added to the Cumulative without Project traffic volumes to
estimate the Curnulative with Project traffic volumes, as shown on Figure 10.
Modifications te the intersection of Central Parkway at Fallon Road were assumed in the analysis of
Cumulative conclitions, as shown on Figure 9 and Figure 10. Pedestrian and bicycle activity at the study
intersections were left unchanged from existing conditions except for the with project condition where
additional pedestrian activity was assumed at the intersections that provide primary access to the school
site. Heavy vehicle percentages were adjusted to a uniform two percent of traffic. Traffic signal timings
were optimized to better accommodate shifts in travel patterns as the City of Dublin routinely adjusts
traffic signal timings to ensure optimal travel flow through the City.
�� 33
��
� ° I i � Q
��� I �
Y �C�� I I - '� }'
n- o=o i.-�-io�alios�?co�; +' � � O
� °°m �ioe�'�,](cs�'alo�s� � o �
� !I i,4 �r-[oo�]co;:�?o�z � ._ � V
° � V
� _ `' ,1, v � �
UI��.. _----� T U U 4�-
"� �
�
�-' � R��r � -a >� (B
� 0£ll(05)096-'� � � I I I � `-° I—
(Oi �l?06L't -i o 0 0
� Icr1 io�';ce��, � � i � �
�r> ��O � � U �
�-o; I � .S (B
�I ^ o
m N
I II O
T �=�O >.I o II I I
�
� ��N Y CQ^o � II ([}
p. '--�-•- a �- �� L
0 0-- [ozl(ea)o� - o--o [ol(o)o
� ��° �[o�l(ot�>oti `E o°o ,L-[el to)o; �
c ��� , �[oe](oa)o� � �� � E5�](��)os �
°' U i I r `-�
U ' c C
� �,.�E�,�, p` ,_ �,,.�.� m
(� Q
m �
� oe�](09)o�� �I�' E [ol(o)o �� ;� V
Y [os�l(oa�)ocz-" o o s `� [sl(e)s �o 0
-� ��M o � ��� o a�
o fos�](oo�l orz "-- � foeal(os�)cre �---- �
� i, ��° a � o�° cC
c�i � o N o i!i � �-°° J
���
- o �
_._ �v V1
0 o i o �
�v T °� �
�� 3 N
�i O O a �O �
O
�
n'I O O � m �(J O O �OI�O�O . Q
Q P Q�
��SG���E.r])�CJZi �� f�-������Q V
�° :�� ~ �J�a U .��� 1( � >
[e. o'�o
N v t�
a --�� - ° � `-�=
� �,..�, 3 , ��,�."u, � �,
, .d � (4
� v * y
c foozl(ooa)o�a�' > (s](9)s � �f , �--
-° loa���](ozs)ceb'�� �,- [o](o�o�� o�o �
�� — � [os](o�;o�� ��� � O
�: � __
� <i °°°
�
`� 'a-=�
°° -J V
�
s N
i
�_ ` �� Q �
I � . � . . I 1- . - . . { O �i-'
`Y_ �� �n C
.--.
j _ ii �
� �'� � � �
✓.-� i i E , j(� Qa �
� �i � � / ; rz�.� _
. —._� .� - u / � ��� �
�� - o �
� � I IPN Heoi� ..� � �
�O`PLf'1DUed �'� ' v �
� � �� ( �
-.,_ „
� �'�d � //`" � � �
\ �i �'
,,
rT� ���,y � � � l l � - -� � �
�' o � �. ,� �� �:. � �. a,
V ��� OFLs� � Croak Rd ��t , in
� d .. � . . .:s�a.� �a,,,i;-
-,r
-- . . .. ,��-:Y wx, ,��., �
'�t�3'
� �
Qa .�
\ ( 37 �x
I `�` �+ m
� o �'� v
E� �,."j ,v�
�si,e�„y�o� o 'i � _ � ' ,�� � �
.: pa�.oltej �. � � .:o. _o .p. ❑ .� -�� ., O
��,,� o ���� �, N � � �O .:1�'`i1 �;- T �
T
�-O iQ auRluplle8 ' 'c.; e�.�" -o�
° � �� � - - 'a .
� . o
� = ° `. � --.� :s °o,: , � -p m
.Q .. .7 . - �..' � �
�: � p � � � .. _ ,4 o�,wid ' ���anv w�iej�i� � �
.�c^� . ' � �Q,(�uenaQ ,o` � �� .
Round r1J1 D�; / - � � a 2
��y � � °Gulfstream St � � <� �
���,- .. 5 �° .o c� � r�
� - � L�3 ¢ a
�=�_ � � � � � � - ` d " `
. 0ro
¢ � � ne/f ue6 uueig � o` iQ uol�oi � '. �'—�� �
Z �I 8 p o �. ��`Q� N
�1�7'7" ---� Lo donderrY Dr , � ".; �p. . Ei eri N
�, 0
. . Pa���e(e;s��j. �..'__° ..� ��!�y'_ yeS.� � }
_ �� �
�J
�- 1 0- � J X
`° `° V O
� o � �
�
� rn�� � •� �
�rn� O Q �
d rn�-o ��O4:L]�L7Z)60l i� c L' Q
� NmM �I953'll(EZCZ)658 � .o �- V
�I�� ,�[oozl(ozz)o�a o � �
a�i ` v � .E., U
U >.v �
� o�w��, 3 � '> y_
}� >
� �BBL)(996)LLZy �1'I f � � � � .
B �ZZI'L)Z6L�l—+ "'cSo � � � �'
� ---i co n v^
� [ot](oa)osz-� _, v E •,�, �
co�:o � �
ri o,�� V � �
�
���� � .� � (B
s �'-°
�� � N
.,v �� �
�. �N� �' � il � �O
o� rrt
�
y ��� Y O�O i l �y
a ��� �[�a](vz)o� @ o°o [o](o)o " �
� .-r>� IOLI(046)04 0�`r�i o �Ibl(0)4 �
� ��� "-[oel(oz)a� � �� [sz)(�z)ss
C� V u �
� �ew�i p ,a ew�,��ee — � �
is � � �
� os�]co9)os� �rr E [ol co)o ��' � v
UI0911(OLl)OYZ�' �CJ� � �l](4)E ��� �
o [os�](oo�)ovz �±� � I6hl)(04l)69L� � o �
_I ��N m ymr� �
a ��.�, c6
N - <°o�'-�°o «i � `- o�� —1
n
M
� �� � � N
O(O N �✓
� '� � �� �
�
Y O M Y �M C �
a �
�- o m �( � �o� ([9£1(7Z)7LL � Q .
o V N 1—lE6E�(695�99Z N�n f�-IZZ�(''i��B� � �
� `T A '—��Oi."1��16Ct)l68 C �N a IEZZ]lE9t)66Z �
.N ���. `— U .�� a`, V
do � � �
Pa �,�.�o���� >.
� ����� � j � [S](s)9 �� � �
c �OOZ]�OOZ)OLZ� [6]�L)Oh�' M�n m `� �
� I94t lI(S96)9E9 t� N 8OL1(L6)99L � `"N�
� � �..J.� � �
�7. � ivn r� O
c� ^
�ry
� � r r� •U
� C �
m N
� L
L ' t � r Q �
� x �� ��� '�'��` i�`' in C
� fl � 2t � �' � �,
��:� il Y�° � �� ah���°�' . .. � � .
�,
� .� =11 ° , ' ` _ �,a �
��I f ��� � � " � a``°�� I
-��° �� 1 I r � ' �, �,�L� �" c
',�,.� �Pkl�leoa� .�w. o (/0��
� J� V
� � � '"� j ���� 6 �-� � {Y� v W
,��- . `�4'pJOUPd �.'f§ ,��q. �4 ':u � .-v� �
� � �'�a ��� ��' Ka $. �'� :�. s c .
..� ' 7'!N b� 9 � "�*aX S^"' Y 9.f � � � -�
C/7 : i a���,y p` 'S2 �e�e � i N
� r T�'� Sy�� j"� �" �� f� .a. .,� x :3 2 ����"�°'ti��4� C
t� � .. ,� �
` *"" ��o`Plso �� , i; .�� � X� � Cr a Rd�,, � r `� �� t :�, a�t�'-q`�'°,"r,�., m
d'r.,
�� , � i �"� "°" `� �� s
, � �,„�, s . '�` ��^ �• �
5 � '_ � �
� ` ;
� � �
" , y� �"4 s� �j� � �J'°` _ ' d. :'� � ,��'T`^ t '
�i
$��: ` 4 ; �,o .. ?�' �k � � � ,
� c�.
� �c"° V � �'� .*s r- .. o 0
�^
. #t :�..� ��' ` E
��� `�� �� �S��e; �. � ' ' E� � ...
� k 4��07 � '"�1 ; ' v.� � �
'X�a uoii�'j, - .� -m' � s . v °�: o . p
'� ' ' �� �,o r; � �, �, :_��-,�a ;� �- >
s t'�� � `%; � ;� � Tv
,'`#� �� o � �° . o .. p°��4 au�(luelle8 "�� �_. . '`°o`�
�a�' G -: e , '. �., 5 �o" i e .- � . , � �
'",.'t 2 �� .4 _t,-t7 v p. � �, �'j� s �T�' `n .' a^ � H
? � �� ' ,�" �p o�ijw d � ' s �. any uq ey�- �
r �, �'�iu�o Fauenap �" `� � � p 3��€�'o ��' � S
��'� HJVDr;*� ,�� a e g o.-.k`�„
{tound t� v�,� x, ¢
�GulhiieamSt �Z, ,�Y
.�5 a g C
`'��i,� '� '��,€t�,� � ,��ny 'y t� 'p � N
� _�s .r� � ,.: � . ' �' 'o � � ,�'Z:� F '�`. Q d
z � ' � t c ` m
� � b� ' �(e ue6iuuei �a , °
O� �
:, � � � .� � � M a Zo ,p uo���oi9� �Q '�". �j'
s. �' .n Lor'wndo��i�Y�r 's,�"��s���`�a � �� �o,. . � Eiieri� N
�.ada�"'3��P8?�efessej � n a .�, �`��� � _ ���yy�� � ��m�l �, �� Z >
w
� �` ~ . . . .. . ._, . ���� ,� .*. � #�vJ ,�. �;�i 4� . x '��` v
. . ea.,:e� , r o . _. ''w� . . _ �3r, "-'�^�f "?.d�:o.. . ..,`:iy w X
J X
Eastern Dub(in Specitic Pfan Amendn�ent Transportation Assessmer-�t
� JCl(y�OZS
�2`✓2�5 O{ S2!�;'!CC Cd�CUicti0fl5 l'd2�c' COild'.1Cie� t0 evaivate IIItE'I"52Ct10(1 ON2raTIOf1S UII.�.E'I" Cumulative
condi*ions both �vithout and with tl�e Projec±. The LCS results are summarized in Table 10. The
correspcnding LOS and queue calculation sheets are in�luded in Appendix B.
The results of the LOS calculations indicate that �vith planned development in Dublin and adjacent
jurisdictions in the Cumulative conditions, the intersections in the vicinity of Jordan Ranch are projected to
operate at acceptable service levels in the Cumulative conditions and the net-change in vehicle trip
generation from the proposed project wculd not degrade peak hour operations beyond the established
LOS thresholds.
�"ABLE 10
CUMULATIVE CONDITION
PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVYCE
Intersection Controt
1 Peak Cumulative without Project Cumulative with Project
Hour DelayZ'3 LOS3 Delay2'3 LOS3
l.Fallon Road/Positano AM 18 B lg g
Parkway Signal AFT 12 g 12 g
PM 15 B 15 B
2.Lockhart Street/ �`R� �5 C 36 D
Central Parkway Signal AFT 25 C 27 C
PM 24 C 25 C
3.Fallon Road/Central AM 42 D 52 D
Parkway Signal AFT 29 C 32 C
PM 29 C 39 D
4.Sunset View Drive/ AM 10 A 15 B
Central Parkway Signal AFT 8 A 14 B
PM 9 A 13 B
5.Panorama Drive/ AM 10(32) A(D) 5 (16) A(C)
Central Parkway SSSC AFT 8(22) A(D) 6(17) A(C)
Pfvl 7 (16) A(C) 6(17) A(C)
Notes:
1. SSSC=side-street stop controlled intersection;Signal = signallzed intersection.
2. Average intersection delay calculated for signalized intersections using Che 2000 HCM method.
3. For SSSC intersections,averaae delay or LOS is listed firs;followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses.
Source:Fehr&Peers,2015.
rv 36
Fastern Dublin Speci fic Ptan Amendment Transportation Assessment
� Ju(y 2015
In the without project condition, the westbound left-turn movement queue at the Fallon Road at Central
Parkway intersection could extend beyond the available storage, but the addition of project traffic would
not increase the vehicle queue by more than 50 feet.
The addition oi project traffic would case the southbound left-turn movement queue to increase to
approximately 400 feet, exceeding the availabie storage by more than 200 feet. Queues would be
contained withiri the available storage prior to the addition of project traffic.
The addition of project traffic would result in the 95th percentile vehicle queue exceeding the available
storage for several movements at the Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive/School Access intersection.
Measures to alleviate potential queuing issues at the Fallon Road/Central Parkway and Sunset View
Drive/School Access intersection are discussed in Chapter 8.
�� 37
oy
Eastern Dubtin Specific Ptan Arnend;nent Transportation Assessment
July ZOi 5
�a� �:��.e�"���� �������� ����E��`����t���'� �����'�������
�������� ��������
A separate ana!ysis of regional roadways is !-equired to comply �,n�ith requirements of the Alameda County
Transportation Commissien (Alameda CTCI. The Alameda CTC requires the analysis of project impacts to
Metropolitan Transportation System �MTS) roadways identified in the congestion management plan
(CMP) for development projects that would generate more than 100 PM peak hour trips. As shown in
Table 6, the proposed Project could generate more than 100 PM peak hour trips.
This chapter outlines the roadway analysis, which considers the impact of the Project on freeways, major
arterials, and other major roadways as designated by Alameda CTC. Main items of discussion inciude the
geographic scope of the Alameda CTC rcadway analysis, the analysis method, and the results for 2025
and 2040.
Freeway and surface street segments in Dublin v,�ere included in this analysis:
• Interstate 580 (2 segments)
• Dublin Boulevard (2 segments)
• Fallon Road (3 segments)
Fehr & Peers used the Alameda Countywide Travel Demand Model to forecast 2025 and 2040 traffic
volumes on the MTS roadway system. The forecasts for the MTS system differ from the intersection
forecasts previousiy discussed in the following aspects:
• The land use data sets used for the intersection forecasts and the MTS forecasts are consistent
with Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) popula"tion and employment projections but
may differ from the City of Dublin model within Dublin.
• Regional model may not include some minor streets through the Tri-Valiey, potentialiy
overstating traffic volumes on the roadways included in the model.
�r 38
E'astern Dublin Specific P(an Amendment Transportation Assessmenf
� Juty 2015 4
• The MTS roadway analysis reports the outputs of the Alameda CTC model directly on a roadway
segmerit level and the analysis does not consider the added capacity from turn pockets at
intersec:tions.
The results of the Alameda CTC model were used to forecast the No Project condition for 2025 and 2040.
Project trips for at build-out were distributed to the MTS roadway segments (including both freeways and
surface streets) identified above using the project trip distribution presented in Chapter 3. The
distribution of Froject trips onto the MTS segments results in the With Project volumes for 2025 and 2040,
which reflects the net change in trip generation anticipated with the project.
Operations of the MTS freeway and surface street segments were assessed based on volume-to-capacity
(V/C) ratios. For freeway segments, a per-lane capacity of 2,000 vehicles per hour was used. For surface
streets, a per-lane capacity of 800 vehicles per hour was used. These capacities do not reflect additional
capacity provided at intersections through turn pockets. Roadway segments with a V/C ratio greater than
1.0 are assigned LOS F.
According to the significance criteria presented previously in Chapter 1, the addition of project traffic
could cause a siqnificant impact on an MTS roadway segment if:
• The addition of project traffic causes a segment's operation to degrade to LOS F.
• The addition of project trips causes the V/C ratio to increase by more than 0.02 on a segment that
already operates at LOS F without the project traffic.
The MTS PM Peak Hour roadway segment analysis under 2025 and 2040 conditions are provided in Table
11 for the 2025 condition and Table 12 for the 2040 condition. The analysis results show that the
addition of project traffic would not result in LOS F conditions nor increase the volume-to-capacity ratio
by more than 0.02 on a segment projected to operate deficiently prior to the consideration of the project.
Therefore, the project impact to MTS roadway segments is considered less-than-significant.
�� 39
��
a
m
o � o > , , � � � , ,
"' u •c c
�
y L LL
� � � Y �
O O O O
v �° o � o z z z z � z � z°
.� ..
r
.�.
�, a H
3 •o o :� � m v v v G a
a
�
Z 'o O � � m m v v Q C
a
� �
cn > O � � � � i.�n °i.ri' m o� r�r, v�
� � 3 a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
J
Q
Z � �
� ' .� Z o a � o o� � � o c
W � a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
�
t9 �+ a+
� � �
�
N � a � � � � o � � �
Y `- � c o N N ,-� ,-� �
�
� a � �
� p
�: �
� CG � p o � � � � ° N r� a�
E � a a �
� �
v V
d � �
� = Z �O O � � m o � � � � m
o = . a ��;. o� co �r; �ri ri r-i '�
o Y
a. W .:G! � . .
� a c
o � e�;. ��, �n �n �n m m rn m
�" a *k
� �
� N
� O
C N
N
�
Q
C ,� �
0
ci � � > � -�
� �. � �J � � -O � v -p N O
.� � � �
N
.�.C. O m O (o ci� p tn c9
LZ �.� T � � � � C rp
�
� ...�' U � � @ � 0 � � tB
.,, ,.� 4J
� �� . w Q �i f� � Y ii 7 Y H
O �n ra . o °
¢�i N . �- .. . � a�i
O H
o �' 3
� V � W
�� . J.�':. . d �
W C C '6 � �
. Y'�. ... �. � r�+a Ti 0 �0 � t0
c 01 O o `O � � v r° v Gi v
J.:. 0+ � K � a+ � 3 � ` 3 v
.. H N � � � � � � � 0 �
a w � ° v m �° � m `� �n m o v,
3 0 � s o �o r 'a •� � � .E � �
v
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
� . �L ... v� w .-. Q � Q � f— Y � �i Y
a
�
� c � >- � � � � � �
'� � � _ �
v
d . L :�
� Q � al V1
_W �,+,'Q�� O O O O O O
t � �N � J Z Z Z Z Z Z
V ..,.J� ,,.:��.
� +,
+ss;d V1 •
3' �O�', Q Q Q Q Q m
.J„
, a_; ;-._
:. ��"
°'� O� .� Q ¢ a a a m
�"',.�;�t _
�••i�:'', �r--
�'.; +,.;.V.����.
N V°�O'�,.d ' �n v o � m �n
.. V^a,;,, .,•� ,� � � � � � m
N ��+` 32 b . O O O O O O
>. °� c,,
Q
Z "! �� �
Q �,b, p �..��� � � o � � m
F-
Z �" � � o 0 0 0 0 0
w � ����:� � cs,�, �
� �� �..
�I�1 �
V �.a�'�'��.d k
�' X
N ��' �$�� � o N � � \° o
o �
� e�` y;� �$"^`��r : N .1 M N �'"� N
Q ` x c,- c .
� ~
� E
,� � � ,
W O ++._d+
,,., m �����3„�' r� v �o r� �
� Q � xr �5,p�` ,. � N �n �n � ,�
� a Q �
E � rt �'�,�� � .:
� .�. � �„„��, r� .
H � zx!,.�x:,61 c GI
�(�. = O"�odM.a�Cr� , � O � m O (V
. O .. Q T"'"`.s..�G�t"C� Q .. N N rl I� O� n'1
�a;4 N N W
'i, Z Y, r��
� Y F *+; �,
0
a- w � ayi
� � a ;�c�
o r r ,��� m r� m m r� m �
� � � V
i.� 0. `� "p�'€� � b+ „ p.
R'�c.
E � � �
N
b O ar C
� N � �
� . � �����: � w
Q £� ,:�'�S �
� �p��. .��;a����� : � � rp � � >,
� ���:���� � j � Y � j �
�.:. ����'�� .�1�.�'�''�" )�� a� � � � a c
�.. �+�-��` p � a � 7 �
� � ��a � m a o a ° a
m
�4 :� ��E.� -� � ` '° ` c o v
F � � _ .
� : ���� �� � o � a° � o � a
o M� � ,�, �,����„�; � �o �
t C C
. �� N �L�`����� � O Y �
H � � ��m�� ? .Q � v O
. W � .��z��y�"S �'�" M S "'� Vi
fi ��
� � ��s����� ` O � �, � mz � •`r a`i
. �C✓ � ` Z � � N Sc �O > G �
. -,� �' � � Y �C � Y QJ Q 4f
� � �
. .. � � �v�?.` � � m a � O �- p� m ll
.,� ,�t.. Q � .� � C � � C � ai
�, x � W .L] C O . a �
LL � � � �>
`�,�� ; c� m v m O a�, � o
,�p� ,., v tL a v � z v�i `�
�
m
�
o � � > , � � z z
J t �
V ' i �
y � LL' f
�1 � W � y I
cw�`. �n y4 z z° z � � � z z
v � -Q °
.�
u �
� d
3 �o o � � � � � Q a
�
o � �
Z •o o � o v �� � � ¢ �
L
a
� V
� \ � 'e' '� c0 � tD �:J .�-i O O rN-i
} > � �3 a o 0 o c ,-i --i o 0
J
Q
Z � a+
a V a p C�i G� � c� �7 � m t� r�l
Z > � Z �p c� � � � ,-a o o ,--i
.. o 0 0 0 ,-i ,--i o 0
w a
�
l7 +� ai
w c �
� � V� °� o� �� o° ,=° �° �° � o
� � � �.V � O O N N rl .-1 � n�
N
� a �
ri 0 � �
^ m � � � �0.�.��� . �m `O � � � ,�,i r c�
E ~ a a �
� �
v V
a+ Cr
� � � y � � � o �n m m o�
Q � Z 'O O ? a� v ° � � � � °�
o O a � �O � c6 � v �; �i r+ c"
2
o Q _ �
4 w d
� a � �� �n �n in m m m m
O �
ti a �
�,
v �
� �
a °
� N
v
�
Q
`� �6
� � � > � ..� �
v � —Q1 � v v o
o p
� w � o � � � �
: c o m �o m v, �o vi �
�� � . � T ra C C �
� � C �@ � C � •�
L
� � p1 � U � 0 � � O -C v �n
-� �.�� � . w Q ii H � Y �i 7 Y H
� O . . . � . .Q �+
.a
C C
� cV O �n y
in � ���� � � y� W �
W 3 v �
1 ....�. .. . v .a = � � '�
Y �` ,7 ra � O > > "D �
C O� O O � � v � � a� � v
�.J.. d � � � +� -6 7 � v 7 � `
.. tn N � K � � ca O � O �
. � . . ]� �9 O � m O v� 0] ` in CI O vl
K
� �� � �y O � � O ro C '� ._ '� cCa ._ � rC.,-
. . i � rCC V � � o � 'a � � � C a�i ��
� � 7
� .. V1 w .. Q � Q 0 F- Y 0 ti Y
a
�
N = � >
Q � s = � � � � � �
V � M
'a'
4J i' W
_ �'�W $�j��Q O O O O o 0
ro i. vf d ..� Z z z z z z
s r..:Q .Q w
� 'p� Q Q Q Q Q m
3a
�
Z g o a c c Q a m
a
I'Y.
� � V o'��a ����� m r� ,-i rn � rn
� 1'i+.•� �O. M M N �-I N �
V1 �'� ,�, a. . O O O O O O
��.1 ��'
Q
Z � �r
Q V
F" . ;SO: ,-L�r •C .. O O 01 � N V'
W o. a - o 0 0 0 0 0
�
� '" udi
_ _ _ _ � V';.�L o o M � o 0
Q 4�,= W lIl � � � r-1
N � rr
e-I Q
W Q V°�
J 0 ;-�3 f� �' o� I� I�
� m � �n N v'i u'1 � ,--�
�, a a a °
� F.- � h�,>
� �� -;"
� V '`� ��
� �.
Q = O �:y =, t� � u� �n n �
� O O N o� u� � ,-i �
p O � ��� O�' � r v v m v
•�, Z `d��:. >, � '-�
o Y
4 W .. ,�'QJ�.� .
.
Q �'''^r0�� �'�1 N M n'1 N tY1 �
a =
� ��_... � ..
� � �
�. a �° �
� o _ �
a
� N �
� �
c
Q a�
f��� �
o $ ,�; , � � ,� � � _>",
4. �� v 3 Y 3 > `-°
� �"�" 3 Y `u ` � �
@ a
v
� '�' m � � � m �o
� ;�> c �o ,� � c
�1 o `^
� .: _ �, .� — a,
C ;GI'. � C 'v� C ..Q
. � � O � 7 � �
'� -,��.: 0 V a �'
v o
� � >:�; _ � �- �
� o c�; > ; �X �,;
m N o o a� �+
0
�*'n .r, q +��p � � V o
W � V' '� 'C
. 1 �- t' ++ p �
"c �!;�. p �' "O � ai
'3C Z � `° � Y `° > e a
. .f��b�i°� � v y 'D � � N O dS
O p �a p a- � 7 � t
`-��,+�s-����� n a m a � o a m° m ,�
p' � ,�,` c c �o c � ia c
�v� � � � � O •v, c � °' �
, . LL ._. � v �i a° v � z° ° ��
t:
castern Dub�in Specific Pian Amer�dmenY Transportation Assessrnent
Ju(y 2GI5
�.� ��������� �.��� ��.����� ������E�������
This chapter discusses site access and circulation considerations for the school site. As a deiailed site pian
has not been develcped, guidance related to the design of the Sunset Vie�v Drive at Central Parl<way
intersection and pot2ntial rT�cdifications that may be necessary at the Falion Road at Central Boulevard
intersection to better accommodate peak traffic flows around bell times, especially vehide queues, is
provided. Considerations for bicyde, pedestrian and transit access to the school site are also discussed.
As detailed in the prior chapters, intersections that provide primary access to the school site are projected
to operate acceptably with the project in all scenarios over th2 course of the peak hour. Ho�vever, around
school bell times, there may be periodic congestion as students are dropped-off or picked-up within the
same time frame. Operations of the intersections of the Central Parkway with Fallon Road, Sunset Vie�v
Drive/School Entry and Panorama Drive intersections were also evaluated for the peak 15-minutes around
bell times for the morning and afternoon peak hours to assist in the sizing of intersections to better
accommodate school traffic flows. This analysis was conducted through the use of a 0.50 peak hour
factor for movements that wou!d have a high proportion of schooi related traffic around bell times,
including movements to/from Central Boulevard at Fallon Road and Sunset View Drive. The results
presented in Table 13.
Around bell times, operations of the Fallon P,oad/Central Parkv✓ay and Sunset View Drive/Central Parkway
are projected to degrade to LOS E or F for brief periods of time. Further widening of the Fallon Road at
Central Parkway intersection is not recommended, but improvements to the school access roadway are
recommended to maintain traffic flow on Central Parkway, as discussed below.
The 95th percentile vehicle queues for the major movements that serve the school site were calculated as
presented in Table 14 for the Cumulative conditions for the morning and afternoon peak period when
school traffic would be most concentrated. Vehicle queues are projected to extend beyond the available
storage length for the southbound left-turn movement on Fallon Boulevard to Central Parkway with the
addition of project traffic, and the vehide queues could be excessive around beil times (1 to 3 traffic
signal cycles).
Appendix C provides the LOS and queuing worksheets.
e 44
E"astern Dub(in Specific P(an Amendment Transportation Assessment
lu(y 2015
TABLE 13
PEAK BELL TIME ASSESSMENT
INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Existing with Near-Term with Cumulative with
Peak Project Peak Bell Project Peak Bell Project Peak Bell
Intersectia�n Controll Period Period Period
Hour
Dela�'3 LOS3 Dela�•3 LOS3 Delay1'3 LOS3
3.Fallon Road/C:entral AM 87 F 83 F > 180 F
Parkwa Signal
Y AFT 38 D 47 D 50 D
4.Sunset View Drive/ AM 172 F 90 F 90 F
Central Parkwzi Signal
Y AFT 33 C 40 D 40 D
5.Panorama Drive/ SSSC AM 7(17) A(C) 4(21) A(C) 7(29) A(D)
Central Parkway AFT 5(14) A(B) 5(21) A(C) 8(35) A(D)
Notes:
l. SSSC=side-street stop controlled intersection;Signal=signalized intersection.
2. Average intersection delay calculated for signalized intersections using the 2000 HCM method.
3. For SSSC intersections,average delay or LOS is listed first followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses.
Source:Fehr&Peer<_,2015.
TABLE 14
CUMULATIVE CONDITION
VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY
Cumulative Cumulative with Cumulative with
Vehicle without Pro ect Pro e Project Peak Bell
Intersection Movement � � �t Period
Storage
AM AFT AM AFT AM AFT
SBLeft 235 210 190 440 300 > 560 300
Fallon Road/Central NB Right 235 25 50 25 60 30 75
Parkway WB Left 225 250 150 250 150 > 300 175
WB Thru 1,000 75 70 100 90 100 125
WB Right 250 50 40 60 50 150 50
NB -- -- -- > 300 170 > 640 275
Sunset View D�ive/ EB left 200 75 65 100 125 125 150
Central Parkway EB TH/RT 1,000 130 60 70 150 520 425
WB Left 150 -- -- 40 60 75 75
Notes:
1. 95th percentile vehicle queue presented in feet as calculated by Synchro. Some queues may be greater than shown due to
software limitations.
Source:Fehr&Peers,2015.
Based on the resG�lts of the vehicle queue assessment, we offer the following recommendations:
��
,� 45
�astern Dub(in`'pecific P(an Ame�;dment Trnnsportatien Assessmer,t
Jufy ZOiS
• Extend the �outhb��und left-turn rock2t on Fallon Road at Central Park�l�ay apprcximately 200-
feet. Althougn this storage IEi��th would nat accor,;r��odate the longest possii��le extents of
vehicle queues, sig��al timings should be r�onitored and additioral green-time provided for the
southbound left-turn movement around bell times to minimize the potential fcr vehicle queue
spi!Iback to the±hrough !ane. Dual left-turn lanes are rot recommended as it v��ould require the
construction of a secord receiving lane on Central Parkway and if the second lane were extended
to the school entrance at Sunset View Drive, there would be lane utilization imbalances that
would reduce the effectiveness of the additional lane. (This recommendation is no longer
warranted based on the results presented in the East Dub(in Specific Plan Amendrnent Study-
Transportation Ana(ysis Addendum, July 29, 2015. As detailed in that memorandum, the change in
the school project description from a 900-student elementary school to a 400-student elementary
school and a 550-student middle school reduces the overall level of trip generation and changes
expected travel pattern to the school site such that southbound left-turn vehicle queues can be
managed through signal timing monitoring and adjustments.)
• Construct an eastbound right-t«rn only lane on Central Parkway at the Sunset View Drive
intersection servinq the school site. This would allow through traffic to the residential
neighborhoods to bypass potentially queued vehicles waiting to enter the school site drop-
off/pick-up loop, especially during periods when the drop-off loop is in queue.
To accommodate construction of the right-turn only lane,the existing Class IIa bicycle lane on
eastbound Central Parkway shouid be converted into a right-turn only lane in conjunction with
construction of a raised curb along the length of the turn pocket, and improvements to the Ciass I
facility along the south side of Centrai Parkway. Transitions between bicycle facility types would
be necessary at Fallon Road and Sunset View Drive. The design should be coordinated with the
City of Dublin Transportation and Operations Manager.
• Monitor traffic signal operations at the Fallon Road and Sunset View Drive intersections with
Central Parkway and work with City staff to establish time of day traffic signal timing plans that
best accommodate peak school traffic
• Create a drop-off zone on the south side of Central Parkway along the school frontage between
Sunset View Drive and Panorama Drive
• Reconstruct the northbound approach to Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive (school driveway)
to provide a northbound left-turn lane in addition to a through-right shared lane. At least 300
feet of vehicle storage should be provided prior to an internal driveway to the school site.
• Consider providing off-set bell times for different grade levels to reduce peak period traffic
volurnes
The site plan should be reviewed as it is developed to ensure that the drop-off/pick-up zone is designed
to accommodate peak activities, and that sufficient parking is provided to accommodate typical peak
demand as weil as occasional peak demands, such as for back to school night.
• 46
� E=astern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment
Ju[y 2015
Pedestrian access to the school would be provided by a network of sidewalks, signalized pedestrian
crossings, and unsignalized pedestrian crossings. Sidewalks are expected to be constructed as part of the
school developrnent to provide access to the campus from Central Parkway. In anticipation of the school
site to the east of Panorama Drive, some school related traffic signage and street markings were installed
in the area. There may be relatively high levels of pedestrian activity crossing Central Parkway to access
the school. To enhance pedestrian safety, the following pedestrian improvements are recommended:
• Existing school related signage and street markings marking should be removed and new school
crossinqs and signage should be installed within the new school zone.
• To minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts, the final school site design should consider orienting
pedestrian access away from the Sunset View Drive intersection. Pedestrian crossings should also
be discouraged across the south and west legs of the Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive
intersec�ion to minimize pedestrian/vehide conflicts.
• Use of a crossing guard or installation of a traffic signal should be considered at the Panorama
Drive intersection to provide better pedestrian access across Central Parkway to the campus.
• Install a raised barrier(fence) along the median of Central Parkway from near the intersection of
Fallon Road at Central Parkway to near the intersection of Panorama Drive at Central Parkway to
discourage mid-block pedestrian crossings. The final location of the fence should be coordinated
with the City of Dublin Transportation and Operations Manager based on a field visit.
Class IIa bicycle lanes are provided on Central Parkway along the future frontage of the school. Although
the eastbound bicycle lane between Fallon Road and Sunset View Drive would be eliminated to provide a
right-turn only lane, parallel Class I bicycle facilities are provided. To enhance bicycle safety, the following
bicycle improverrients are recommended:
• A connection from Central Parkway Class I facility to the school site should be provided to
facilitate bicycle travel to the campus
• Provide bicycle parking
r�
�� 47
_. _ _... .. _._._._� a- - -_ .._ _ �_._ . ..�__ ._ . _ � . _ __ . _,-_ .. , �__ _ _ _ �
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Tronsportation Assessment
� Ju(y 2015
No transit is currently provided on Centraf Parkway east of Falion Road. However, LAVTA operates routes
along Fallon Road, including school-serving transit service. To accommodate transit service to the site,
the following is recommended:
• Coordinate with LAVTA to determine if a bus stop shouid be constructed on Central Parkway in
front of the school site
r� 48
��
� � � � i` P' EE � S
I�f E�/I O RAN Q U M
Date: July 29, 2015
To: Jerry Haag
From: Kathrin Tellez, Fehr& Peers
Subject: East Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study - Transportation Analysis
Addendum
WC15-3236
Fehr & Peers prepared a transportation assessment for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
(EDSP) Amendment dated July 2015 (July 2015 TIA) that evaluated the changed land use
designation of an approximately 10-�cre parcel within the)ordan Ranch development of the
EDSP from parks/public recreation to parks/public recreation/school. Since the preparation
of that analysis, the school district provided updated school related information. The
purpose of this addendum is to confiri� that the overall analysis results and conclusions
presented in the luly 2015 report have not appreciably changed.
The following provides a description of the proposed project changes, expected vehicle trip
generation under the revised project, and results of a revised queuing assessment reflecting
the changed school condition.
F�R(�JECT i�ESCFtIPTI(?N Il�4DIFICt�ITC3hi5
The project evaluated in the July 2015 TIA assumed the construction of an elementary school
with a maximum enrollment of 900-students. The updated information indicates that a
middle school would be co-located with the elementary school v✓ith an enrollment of 400
elementary school students and 550 middle school students. None of the other project
elements presented in the July 2015 report would change.
� �0?rir� i�;^�.venue I Suite 600 j ���inut Crr2ef:,CA,9�5°6�(u���930-7100� Fax;925; G �3-7C�90
,-�✓�r✓w.feh�anUpeers.com
Jerry Haag
July 29, 201.5
Page 2 of 5
TRIP GEI�IERATION
Trip generation refers to the process of estimating the amount of activity a project might
add to the local roadway network. In addition to estimates of daily traffic, estimates are also
created for the peak one-hour period during the morning (7�00 to 9:00 AM) and evening
(4:00 to 6:OU PM) commute hours, when traffic volumes on adjacent streets are typically at
their highest. For school projects, estimates are also generated for the peak periods around
bell times (7:00 to 9:00 AM and 2:00 to 4:00 PM).
For this project, several sources of trip generation data were reviewed, including Fehr &
Peers trip ge�neration surveys at several elementary and middle schools in the Tri-Valley Area.
This data was compared to trip generation rates presented in the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manuol, (9th Edition) with the resulting trip generation
estimates shown in Table 1, based on the observed data at similar schools in similar areas.
Additional detail regarding the elementary school trip generation rate is presented in the
July 2015 TIA.
For middle-schools, the observed rate was higher than the ITE average rate, but lower than
the maximum ITE rate. The observed middle-school rate reflects approximately 5 percent of
the student population walking to school. The observed rate was similar to other middle
schools surve�yed in the area by Fehr& Peers.
As shown in Table 1, the changed school type and enrollment levels would result in a net
decrease in peak hour vehicle trip generation for the school site portion of the project. Trip
generation for all other portions of the site would remain as presented in the July 2015 TIA.
Results of the intersection analysis for the project as evaluated in the July 2015 TIA show that
the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) Amendment would not result in poor peak
hour levels of service the study intersections inciuded in the analysis. The intersections
closest to the school site could experience congestion around the school bell times; these
conclusions do not change with the updated project description. Although the overall
conclusions do not change, the reduced level of vehicle trip generation associated with the
combined middle school/elementary school could change the extent of vehicle queues at
the intersections that provide primary access to the school site. Therefore, a supplemental
queuing assessment was conducted.
J L"
:er�-, ; -ag
!uly`29, 2015
Faae 3 of 5
TA6LE 1
TRIP GENERATFON ESTIMATES
Weekday
Project ' '
Component AM Peak Hour Afternoon Peak Nour ' PM Peak Nour
In Out ',' Totai In Out Total `In Out Total
400 Student
Elementary 2z0 196 416 102 124 226 82 85 167
School
550 Student
Middle 257 238 495 109 133 242 68 i0 138
Schocl'
Total 478 433 911 21I 257 468 I50 I55 305
900 Student
Elementary 496 440 936 229 280 509 184 192 376
School (from
)uly 2015 7IA)
Difference (Z8) (7) (25) (18) (23) (41J (34) (36) (7I)
1. 6ased on data collected in November 2012 at Stone Valley Elementary School as part of an evaluation for±he
TRAFfIX school bus program. Only AM peak period data was collected. Afternoon and PM peak hour trip
generation estimated based ratio of the ITE Max rate during the moming peak hour to the obsen�ed data.
AM Peak Hour:T=0.90(X);Enter= 52%;Er.it=48%
Afternoon Peak Hour T=0.48;Enter=45%;Exit= 55%
PM Peak Hour:T=0.25;Enter=49%;Exit= 51%
Source: Trip Generation Manua((9`�'Edition),ITE,2012;Fehr&Peers,)uly 2015.
Jerry Haag
July 29, 201.5
Page4of5
QUEUINCy A5SESSNtENT
Cumulative traffic forecasts presented in the July 2015 TIA were updated to reflect the
changed school trip generation. A slightly different trip distribution pattern was used to
assign midclle-school related trips to the roadway network, as the middle school enrollment
boundary is expected to be larger than the elementary school enrollment boundary, which
would resuli: in more vehicle trips arriving to the site from the west as opposed to the north.
The morning and afternoon peak hour and peak- bell period vehicle queues at intersections
that provide primary access to the school site was assessed based on the changed trip
distribution patterns, as presented in Table 2.
TABLE 2
CUMULATIVE CONDITION
VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY
Cumulative
Cumulative Cumulative with with Project
Intersection Movement Vehicle without Project Project Peak Bell
Storage Period
AM AFT AM AFT AM AFT
SB Left 235 210 190 250 250 260 225
Fallon Road/ NB Right 235 25 50 50 60 0 50
Central Parkway WB Left 225 250 150 240 150 225 150
WB Thru 1,000 75 70 150 110 130 110
WB Right 250 50 40 60 50 0 0
Sunset View NB -- -- -- > 330 170 > 680 170
Drive/Central EB left 200 75 65 100 125 100 125
Parkway EB TH/RT 1,000 130 60 120 200 525 300
WB Left 150 -- -- 100 60 125 75
Notes:
1. 95th percentile vehide queue presented in feet as calculated by Synchro. Some queues may be greater than
shown due to software limitations.
Source:Fehr&Peers,2015.
As shown in Table 2, vehicle queues are still expected to spillback for some movements.
Although the southbound left-turn movement queue at the Fallon Road/Central Parkway
intersection is still expected to spillback beyond the available storage, the expected extent of
the spillback is approximately 1-vehicle. This level of vehicle queue spiliback can be
.�rrCj' f-',?�v
�L'�y:'Q; ZG15
Paae5of5
ir;anaaed through signal timing adjus�merts, and the recommendation to extend the
southbound ieft-turn pocket at the Failon Road/Centrei Park��,+ay is no longer warranted. The
recommendations for the Central Parkway at Sunset Vie�v Dri��e intersection do not cf�ange
based on this assessment.
�Gf�CLE�S�C�ht�
The results of this assessment indicate that the changed school assumptions �ti�ould not
change the overall results and conclusions of the intersection level of ser��ice analysis
presented in the July 2015 TIA for the Eastern Dub!in Specific Plan area. How�ever, the extent
of vehicle queues, especially at the Fallon Road at Central Park��,�ay intersection are expected
to be less than pre��iousiy estimated and an extension of the southbound left-turn pocket on
Fallon Road at Central Parkway is not warranted based on the changed project as vehicle
qucues can be managed through signal timing adjustments.
This completes our reviev�� of the changed school condition within the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan area. Please call Kathrin at 925-930-7100 with ques±ions or comments.
�, �� � �� � � � �
��MORaNau�n
Date: luly 29, �015
To: Jerry Haag
From: Kathrin Tellez, Fehr& Peers
Subject: East Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study - Transportation Analysis
Addendum
WC15-3236
Fehr & Peers prepared a transportation assessment for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
(EDSP) Amendment dated July ?015 (!uly 2015 TIA) that evaluated the changed land use
designation of an approxii�iately 10-acre parcel within the Jordan Ranch development of the
EDSP from parks/public recreation to parks/public recreation/school. Since the preparation
of that analysis, tl�e school district provided updated school related information. The
purpose of this addendum is to confirm that the overail analysis results and conclusions
presented in the July 2015 repoit have not appreciably changed.
The following provides a desaiption of the proposed project changes, expected vehide trip
generation under the revised project, and results of a revised queuing assessment reflecting
the changed school condition.
�i�C7JECT (�E�Cf�ffPTIC�N MOdIFYCt�ITC�tVS
The project evaluated in the July 2015 TIA assumed the construction of an elementary schooi
with a maximum enrollment of 900-students. The updated information indicates that a
middle school would be co-located with the elementary school with an enrollment of 400
elementary school students and 550 middle school students. None of the other project
elements presented in the July 2015 report would change.
_��:N, _�,;,�,.��� � c�_� e r���G!, �ti��r,ut Creek, C/�94596 I �925)9�0 ;'100! k r�25�°��-?090
.,..,•;�.fehrcndpeers.con�
Jerry Haag
July 29, 2015
Page 2 of 5
TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation refers to the process of estimating the amount of activity a project might
add to the local roadway network. In addition to estimates of daily traffic, estimates are also
created for the peak one-hour period during the morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and evening
(4:00 to 6:00 PM) commute hours, when traffic volumes on adjacent streets are typically at
their highest:. For school projects, estimates are also generated for the peak periods around
bell times (7 00 to 9:00 AM and 2:00 to 4:00 PM).
For this project, several sources of trip generation data were reviewed, including Fehr &
Peers trip generation surveys at several elementary and middle schools in the Tri-Valley Area.
This data was compared to trip generation rates presented in the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manua(, (9th Edition) with the resulting trip generation
estimates shown in Table 1, based on the observed data at similar schools in similar areas.
Additional detail regarding the elementary school trip generation rate is presented in the
July 2015 TIA.
For middle-schools, the observed rate was higher than the ITE average rate, but lower than
the maximurn ITE rate. The observed middle-school rate reflects approximately 5 percent of
the student population walking to school. The observed rate was similar to other middle
schools surveyed in the area by Fehr& Peers.
As shown in Table l, the changed school type and enrollment levels would result in a net
decrease in peak hour vehicle trip generation for the school site portion of the project. Trip
generation for all other portions of the site would remain as presented in the July 2015 TIA.
Results of the intersection analysis for the project as evaluated in the July 2015 TIA show that
the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) Amendment would not result in poor peak
hour levels of service the study intersections included in the analysis. The intersections
closest to the school site could experience congestion around the school bell times; these
conclusions do not change with the updated project description. Although the overall
conciusions do not change, the reduced level of vehicle trip generation associated with the
combined middle school/elementary school could change the extent of vehicle queues at
the intersections that provide primary access to the school site. Therefore, a supplemental
queuing assessment was conducted.
:erry i-iaag
!ulv�9, 20i5
�
Page 3 of 5
TABLE 1
TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES
Weekday
Projecf pM Peak Hour Afternoon Peak Hour PM Peak Hour '
Component
In Out Total In Out' Total In Out Total
400 Student
Elementary 220 196 416 102 124 226 82 85 167
School
550 Student
Middle 257 238 -195 109 133 242 68 70 1?8
Schooll
Tota( 478 433 911 211 257 468 Z50 I55 305
900 Student
Elementary qg6 440 936 229 280 509 184 192 376
School (from
luly 2015 TIA)
Difference (18) (7) (25) (18) (23) (41) (34) (36) (71)
1. Based on data collected in November 2012 at Stcne Valley Elementary School as part of an evaluation for the
TRAFFIX school bus program. Only AM peak period data was collected. Aftemoon and PM peak hour trip
generation estimated based ratio of the ITE Max rate during the morning peak hour to the observed data.
AM Peak Hour.T=0.90(X);Enter= 52°ro;Er,it=48%
Afternoon Peak Hour T=0.48; Enter=45°0;Exit= 55°0
PM Peak Hour.T=0.25;Enter=49%;Exit= 51°b
Source:lrip Generation Manuaf(9"'Edition),ITE,2012;Fehr&Peers,July 2015.
lerry Haag
July 29, 201`>
Page 4 of 5
QUEUING ASSESSMENT
Cumulative traffic forecasts presented in the July 2015 TIA were updated to reflect the
changed school trip generation. A slightly different trip distribution pattern was used to
assign middle-school related trips to the roadway network, as the middle school enrollment
boundary is expected to be larger than the elementary school enrollment boundary, which
would result in more vehicle trips arriving to the site from the west as opposed to the north.
The morninq and afternoon peak hour and peak- bell period vehicle queues at intersections
that provide primary access to the school site was assessed based on the changed trip
distribution patterns, as presented in Table 2.
TABLE 2
CUMULATIVE CONDITION
VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY
Cumulative
Cumulative Cumulative with with Project
Intersecticn Movement Vehicle without Project Project Peak Bell
Storage Period
AM AFT AM A�T AM AFT
SB Left 235 210 190 250 250 260 225
Fallon Road/ NB Right 235 25 50 50 60 0 50
Central Parkway WB Left 225 250 150 240 150 225 150
WB Thru 1,000 75 70 150 110 130 110
WB Right 250 50 40 60 50 0 0
Sunset View NB -- -- -- > 330 170 > 680 170
Drive/Central EB left 200 75 65 100 125 100 125
Parkway EB TH/RT 1,000 130 60 120 200 525 300
WB Left 150 -- -- 100 60 125 75
Notes:
1. 95th percentile vehicle queue presented in feet as calculated by Synchro. Some queues may be greater than
shown due to software limitations.
Source:Fehr&I'eers,2015.
As shown in Table 2, vehicle queues are still expected to spi�iback for some movements.
Although th� southbound left-turn movement queue at the Fallon Road/Central Parkway
intersection is still expected to spillback beyond the avai�able storage, the expected extent of
the spillback is approximately 1-vehicle. This level of vehicle queue spillback can be
Je::ry I-'aua
July 29, 2015
Pace 5 of 5
managed 'hroagh =ignal timing adjustmen*s, and the recommendation to extend the
southbound ieft-t�n�n pocket at the Fai!cn RoadiCentral Parkway is no longer�varran*ed. The
recommendatiors for the Central Fark�va�,� at Sun�et View Drive intersec�ion de not change
based on this assessment.
C�fl�CLUSTC�hlS
The results of this assessment indicate that the changed school assumptions would not
change the overall results and conclusions of the intersection level of service analysis
presented in the July �015 TIA for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Ho�.vever, the extent
of vehide queues, especiaily at the Fallon Road at Central Parkway intersection are ehpected
to be less than previously estimated and an extension of the southbound left-turn pocket on
Fallon Road at Central Parkvvay is not warranted based on the changed project as vehide
queues can be managed threugh signal ti�7�ing adjustments.
This completes our review of the changed school condition within the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan area. Please call Kathrin at 925-930-7100 with questions or comments.