Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.3 BART Dublin/Pleasanton Extension • AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 9, 1989 REPORT PREPARED BY: Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director SUBJECT: BART Staff presentation regarding findings of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the BART Dublin/Pleasanton Extension Project EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A: BART Transmittal Letter Exhibit B:. Summary section (pp. S-1 to S-15) DEIR for Bart Dublin/Pleasanton Extension project RECOMMENDATION: I266-1) Direct Staff to complete its analysis and provide comments to BART by October 23, 1989 FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION: BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit District) has released the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Dublin/Pleasanton Extension Project (DPX) . Staff and TJKM, the City's traffic consultants, have begun reviewing and analyzing the report, but have not had tine to complete the analysis. Staff has arranged for the BART Staff to make an oral presentation regarding the findings of the DEIR at the October 9, 1989 City Council meeting. Also at that time, Staff and TJKM will be able to present general comments, however detailed comments will not be available. • Staff has scheduled a subsequent meeting with the BART Staff to discuss the detailed comments on the DEIR on October 18, 1989. Written comments regarding the DEIR are due at BART by October 23, 1989. Since the October 9, 1989 meeting is the only scheduled City Council meeting before the October 23, 1989 comment deadline, the City Council should direct Staff to complete its analysis and provide comments to BART. ITEM NO. 3 - COPIES TO: B A R T BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT 800 Madison Street-Lake Merritt Station P.O.Box 12688 Oakland,CA 94604-2688 Telephone(415)464-6000 September 15, 1989 Interested Persons and Businesses Community Organizations ARLO HALE SMITH Government Agencies PRESIDENT NELLO BIANCO VICE-PRESIDENT I am pleased to send you this copy of the Draft FRANK J WILSON GENERAL MANAGER Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Dublin/ MANAGER Pleasanton Extension Project (DPX) . As a key step in project development, BART has prepared this report for review and comment by all those interested in or DIRECTORS affected by the proposed project. JOE FITZPATRICK 1ST DISTRICT Written comments on the DEIR may be submitted to BART no later than October 23, 1989. You may also comment NELLO BI at any of the public hearings scheduled in the T 2ND DISTRICT community as follows: SUE HONE 3RD DISTRICT SAN LEANDRO MARGARET DISTRICT K.PRYOR October 11, 1989 - 7:30 PM Edendale Elementary School ERLENE DeMARCUS 51H DISTRICT 16160 Ashland Avenue San Lorenzo JOHN GLENN 6TH DISTRICT C4./ CASTRO VALLEY {� TMDREDT.USSERY October 12., 1989 - 7:30 PM S�p8 ARLOHALESMITH Canyon Middle School O0B�� 1989 6TH DISTRICT 19600 Cull Canyon Road Np/I Castro Valley AIN MICHAEL BERNICK 9TH DISTRICT DUBLIN/PLEASANTON October 16, 1989 - 7:30 PM Dublin High School 8151 Village Parkway Dublin For more information you may call the DPX Hotline at (415) 734-8733 . Sincerely, C v , -/2(r///2„..e/ Marianne A. Payne Project Manager DPX Environmental Analysis • 8810156ASU CON-1 SUMMARY S.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT In the early 1970s, in an effort to connect outlying communities of the San Francisco Bay Area with business centers, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) initiated a rail system which links Daly City, Richmond, Concord, and Fremont with San Francisco and points in - between. The system serves portions of Alameda and Contra Costa counties on the east side of the bay and San Francisco County on the west side. Interstate 580 (I-580) is a particularly important access corridor since it connects the Bay Area with San Joaquin County, passing through the Livermore/Amador Valley and the communities of Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, and Castro Valley. Providing these communities direct access to the BART system by extending the existing BART rail line to Dublin and Pleasanton is the proposed project assessed in this Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The project, known as the Dublin/Pleasanton Extension or DPX, encompasses the I-580 and Interstate 238 (I-238) corridors from the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton through the Dublin Canyon to San Leandro. The project would support anticipated growth and improve mobility and BART system accessibility in this region of the Bay Area. A high concentration of residential and commercial development is occurring and planned to occur north and south of I-580. Dublin and Pleasanton are expected to experience population "booms," increasing by over 200 and 100 percent, respectively, for average annual growth rates of eight percent and four percent. With such growth in this corridor, increasing numbers of commuters will use I-580. The project would also fulfill a public mandate issued in November, 1986, when Alameda County voters demonstrated their support to extend BART to eastern Alameda County by approving Measure B. One of the specific mandates of Measure B was a rail transit extension from the BART Bay Fair station to Dublin with an additional station in Castro Valley. Planning for a rail extension to the Livermore/Amador Valley began in the early 1970s with the evaluation of corridor, route and mode alternatives. This planning continued into the. early 1980s in response to continued growth and land use changes. Numerous studies were completed in concert with extensive community review. These evaluations considered and eliminated from further review various corridors, routes, modes, and S-1 �. �4r _ _ 8810156ASU CON station sites, refined the extension proposal, and ultimately identified the proposed Dublin/Pleasanton Extension project and alternatives addressed in this DEIR. Table S-1 identifies the various studies and major planning milestones. S.2 PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES The proposed DPX project extends the existing rail system 12 miles from the Bay Fair station to the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton. From the Bay Fair station platform, the project alignment parallels the existing track southerly to I-238 where it turns east diverging from the BART Fremont line. Following the I-238 corridor, it joins the median of I-580 and continues to a station in Castro Valley. From here, the alignment runs approximately eight miles through Dublin Canyon to the station in West Dublin/Pleasanton. All operating components of the extension would be similar to and compatible with the existing BART system. Stations with consultation from local jurisdictions would also be designed similarly to existing BART stations. A summary of project and alternative characteristics is presented in Table S-2. S.2.1 PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project, shown in Figure S-1, would tie in with the existing Fremont rail line just south of the Bay Fair station in San Leandro. The DPX lines would join the Fremont line in the storage tracks just south of the station. A replacement storage track for the Fremont line would be constructed east of the tracks in the same area. No modifications would be made to the existing Bay Fair station. South of the station, the embankment and trackbed would be widened to accommodate the DPX tracks. The eastbound DPX track would cross under the northbound Fremont track, while the westbound DPX track would be at-grade and located to the east of both the Fremont tracks and the eastbound DPX track. The DPX tracks would tunnel under I-238, surfacing next to and parallel with the southern edge of I-238. An embankment and aerial structure rising as much as approximately 25 feet above the existing I-238 elevation would be constructed along the southern side of the freeway, crossing over Mission Boulevard and continuing on an aerial structure to the point where it crosses over the I-238 eastbound lanes and descends into the median of I-580. This design would allow Caltrans to fill in under the elevated BART structure for future construction of I-238. From the I-238/I-580 interchange, the DPX would run at-grade in the I-580 median until it reached the station in Castro Valley. The Castro Valley station would be located in the I-580 median west of Redwood Road with parking, to the north, bounded by Wilbeam Avenue, Wilbeam Court, S-2 8810156ts1 CON-1 TABLE S-1 CHRONOLOGY OF ALTERNATIVES STUDIES AND PLANNING MILESTONES Year Study 1976 Livermore-Pleasanton BART Extension Study 1982 Castro Valley BART Station Site Selection Study 1983 BART Livermore-Pleasanton Extension Study Update Analysis 1986 BART Livermore-Pleasanton Extension Study Supplemental Analysis 1986 Measure B approved by Alameda County voters 1987 Livermore Amador Valley Rail Alternatives Study 1989 Castro Valley Station Site Re-Examination Source: BART, 1989 I I S-3 __i 8810156ts2 CON Table S-2 SUMMARY OF PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVE CHARACTERISTICS Proposed Alt Alt Alt Project 1a 2u 3c Route Characteristics Length (miles) 12 0 14 14 Number of Stations 2 0 3 2 Displacement Effects Existing Residential 29 0 29 29 Properties Displaced Existing Business 27 0 25 25 Properties Displaced Ridership Projections (Year 2005) Daily boardings 24,000 0 26,000 22,000 Capital Costd (1989 $ millions) Fixed Facilities 307.1 0 395.7 373.5 Cars 54.3 0 54.3 54.3 Total 361.4 0 450.0 427.8 Annual Operating Costs and Revenues (1989 $ millions) Additional Costs 15.80 0 18.28 16.87 Additional Revenues 10.12 0 11.72 8.96 Fare Recovery Ratio 64% 0 64.1% 53.1% 1 a No Action Alternative I b . East Dublin/Pleasanton Station as Third Station c East Dublin/Pleasanton Station as Second Station Terminus d Capital Costs represent total project costs in 1989 dollars. Final project costs will include inflation and escalation to mid-point of expenditures. Source: BART, 1989. • 5-4 SAN RAMON SAN LEANDRO N CASTRO VALLEY 17 Alternative `f, 1 Nd East Dublin/ Existing D�'�oe c S Pleasanton Camp Station Bay Fair n Parks ' e,9� Station DUBLIN do • DPX/x-5130 r¢ $� Owens Dr I-580 ilk. Castro Valley Blvd 14r N Stoneri% W X ot+ o ', I.23t3��'�—_; Proposed cry monedd 1 $ Hacienda 3 Business _ t West Dublin/ t�tt o g LIVERMORE w q� Proposed Pleasanton Q O Park iiiiimir 8 Castro Valley pares a Station 3 1 Station a`+ ® 90. . 8 stoneridoe Dr VI t 1 A Ul S HAYWARD PLEASANTON / o Ft. a� $19 _N_ ie�o IPA la 4b'/ H cn Glp O Not to Scale LEGEND •••■•■•■ Proposed DPX Route • • Alternative Extension to Third Station at East Dublin/Pleasanton B A R• T Date: September 1989 PROPOSED DUBLIN/PLEASANTON Figure DPX Source: INCC EXTENSION ROUTE AND ALTERNATIVES S-1 • tidLU156ASU CON-3 • Redwood Road and Norbridge Road. Initial projections indicate that 1,000 parking spaces, or 12 acres of land, would be required to meet parking demands of the year 2005. The DPX would continue from the Castro Valley station at-grade in the freeway median through Dublin Canyon to a station in West Dublin/ Pleasanton. This station would be located in the I-580 median just west of the I-580/I-680 interchange. Equal amounts of parking would be located on both sides of the station and freeway in both Dublin (north) and Pleasanton (south). Initial projections indicate that 3,600 parking spaces, 17 acres in both Dublin and Pleasanton, would be needed to meet the parking demands of year 2005. The limited space for parking on the Pleasanton side requires that a five- to six-story parking structure be built. S.2.2 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION The No Action alternative assumes that the project would not be constructed. Without DPX, the existing BART express bus service would be continued with a similar level of service and traffic in the I-580 corridor would increase. S.2.3 ALTERNATIVE 2: EAST DUBLIN/PLEASANTON AS THIRD STATION This alternative would extend the BART tracks beyond the West Dublin/ Pleasanton Station tail track approximately one and a half miles to the East Dublin/Pleasanton Station. These tracks would be at-grade in the I-580 median. The East Dublin/Pleasanton Station would be located in the I-580 median at the location of the former Southern Pacific rail crossing. The station platform would be elevated and approximately level with I-580. The former railroad undercrossing would be used to connect the station with parking areas, which would either be located entirely on the north side of I-580 or split on both the north and south side of I-580. Approximately 1,400 parking spaces would be required at the West Dublin/Pleasanton station with the East Dublin/Pleasanton station providing approximately 3,000 spaces. S.2.4 ALTERNATIVE 3: EAST DUBLIN/PLEASANTON AS SECOND STATION TERMINUS This alternative is a two-station project which substitutes the East Dublin/Pleasanton station for the West Dublin/Pleasanton station. Year 2005 parking demand at the East Dublin/Pleasanton station would increase to approximately 3,500 spaces without the West Dublin/Pleasanton station. Similar to Alternative 2, parking would either be located entirely on the north side of I-580 or split on both the north and south sides of I-580. t S-6 • 8810156ASU CON-4 S.2.5 DESIGN OPTIONS Bay Fair Tie-In Option This design option would add another platform to the Bay Fair station on the east, paralleling the existing platform. The ground level concourse would also be expanded, and the existing substation and train control room would be relocated. I-238 Tie-In Option This design option would place the DPX tracks within a wide median of a reconstructed I-238. The DPX tracks on an elevated structure would cross over the existing northbound Fremont line and under the raised westbound freeway lanes, entering the new I-238 median. The two eastbound lanes would be constructed on the southside of the DPX tracks. The tracks would parallel the I-238 grade until the I-238/I-580 interchange where it would continue in the median of the I-580. S.2.6 JOINT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES Bay Fair Station Transit center retail facilities could be developed at this existing BART station site to complement, enhance, and integrate with existing retail uses at the adjacent Bay Fair Mall . This development could be constructed on the eastern BART parking lot with a parking structure constructed on the west parking lot. Castro Valley Station Development of a transit center could be accommodated under the existing Castro Valley Central Business District Specific Plan. Given market demand trends in downtown Castro Valley, the site could be developed into a mix of residential and office uses, providing a development focus for downtown Castro Valley and complementing major transit use. West Dublin/Pleasanton Station The south side of the West Dublin/Pleasanton station in Pleasanton could be developed into either a high-density retail or office use. The north side of the West Dublin/Pleasanton station in Dublin could be developed with office space. Parking spaces would be provided in these cases to meet current local requirements. ■ S.3 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION Significant impacts of the proposed project and alternatives are identified in Table S-3. This table also presents mitigation measures for the significant impacts of the proposed project. S-7 8810156TS1 CON-I TABLE S-3 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL II4ACTSa • RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROPOSED PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES NO ACTION . ALTERNATIVE 2b ALTERNATIVE 3c TRANSPORTATION • \ Number of station area intersections At all stations, intersec- \,_. where additional traffic would tion Improvements could significantly contribute to an Include new turn lanes, unsatisfactory level of service through lanes, restriping, Bay Fair station area • 0 and signals. 0 0 0 Castro Valley station area 2 2 , 2 2 , West Dublin/Pleasanton station area 3 2 2 2 East Dublin/Pleasanton station 0 I I I Significant increase of traffic on There would be a significant Traffic None None None residential streets increase of traffic on Pine/ control measures could Aspen Streets near the pro- include barricades and posed Castro Valley station. signage. Freeway Impacts Reduction in peak None required; beneficial 2200 more Reduction in Reduction In co hour/peak direction impact. peak hour/ peak hour/peak peak hour/ auto trips (2200) on peak direction direction auto peak direction _, 1-580. auto trips on trips (2600) on auto trips ( } 1-580. 1-580. (2300) on • 1-580. • SOCIOECONOMIC AND LAND USE Residential displacements • Property acquisitions pri- BART's relocation 46 household Same as Same as warily near the 1-238 Inter- assistance programs displacements proposed proposed change In the unincorporated will provide monetary would not project. project. Ashland area and near Castro payments and other occur. Valley station would displace assistance to displaced an estimated 46 households households. from 23 residential properties. . 25 businesses would also be - potentially displaced. IF,,k - • 8810156TS1 CON-2 TABLE S-3 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS° (continued) RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROPOSED PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2b ALTERNATIVE 1c VISUAL RESOURCES Bay Fair station area Reconfigured tracks would Landscaping on street No impacts. Same as Same as place BART closer to homes side of retaining proposed proposed along Elgin Street south wall to buffer views project. project. . of Ashland Ave. of BART. 1-238 Corridor Removal of mature trees would Unmitigatabie. Landscape No impact. Same as Same as expose elevated track or other mitigation Is proposed proposed structure on south side of not feasible because of project. project. 1-238 to view from homes on space limitations. 1 Kendall Way. uo . NOISE AND VIBRATION Rail noise impacts on adjacent uses 27 Sound barrier walls, Rail noise Same as Same as (number of locations whore APTA and absorptive treatment on impacts would proposed proposed UMTA criteria are exceeded) inside of sound walls, not occur. project. project. and special design switches at crossovers. Temporary construction noise Impacts Nearby locations to the Noise abatement criteria No impact Same as proposed Same as proposed construction areas would be would be developed and project project oct temporarily affected by Included in contract construction noise. construction requirements 8810156TS1 CON-3 1AULE S-3 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IIPACTS° (continued) RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROPOSED PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2b ALTERNATIVE 3c AIR QUALITY Contribution to cumulative exceedance Approximately 0.2 ppm BART station designs State and led- Small contribu- Small contribu- of state and federal 8-hour carbon exceedance of state and Include measures to oral standards Lion to exceed- Lion to exceed- • monoxide standard federal standard at the encourage alternative would be ex- once of stand- once of stand- West Dublin/Pleasanton transportation to ceeded without ards at the ards at the station. stations such as bus the proposed East and West East Dublin/ lanes, passenger dropoff project at East Dublin/Pleasan- Pleasanton areas, bike lockers, - and West Dublin/ ton stations. station. pedestrian access. Pleasanton station areas. GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY V Ground shaking and fault rupture A major earthquake on the Facilities and founda- No action Same as Same as N impacts Hayward or Calaveras fault tions will be designed alternative proposed proposed could cause severe ground to minimize damage. would avoid project. project. C shaking and fault rupture this impact. that could endanger facilities and people. 11A2ARDOUS MATERIALS Potential disturbance to sources Sources of potential con- Conduct additional No action Additional Same as of hazardous materials during tamination near the align- studies to determine alternative contaminated proposed construction went and stations include need to avoid, treat, would avoid areas may be project underground tank fuel or clean up sites disturbance present near and leaks, hazardous materials prior to of any East Dublin/ Alternative storage areas, and abandoned construction. contaminated Pleasanton 2. materials. sites. station. Potential spillage or release of An accident or fire during Contingency plans and No action Same as Same as hazardous materials during operation operation could release emergency response pro- - alternative proposed proposed hazardous materials. cedures would be followed would avoid project. project. to contain and control this potential the incident. Impact. 8810156TS1 CON-4 TABLE S-3 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS° (concluded) RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROPOSED PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2b ALTERNATIVE 3c WATER RESOURCES Increased flooding potential Storewater runoff from the Construction of deten- No action alter- Same as Same as Castro Valley station would tion basin(s) or storm native would proposed proposed exceed 100-year storm water drain improvements not eliminate project. project. drain capacity. at Castro Valley station -Impacts be- parking lot. cause other development has been assumed. a Impacts summarized are for the year 2005. Alternative 2: Extension to East Dublin/Pleasanton. c Alternative 3: East Dublin/Pleasanton extension with no Nest Dublin/Pleasanton station. Source: BART. 1989. • • 8810156ASU 1 .5 Significant impacts would occur in the following impact categories: ✓ • Transportation • Socioeconomics/Land Use • Visual Resources • Noise • Air Quality • Geology • Water Resources • Construction (noise and hazardous materials) S.3.1 PROPOSED PROJECT Implementation of the proposed project would result in the following significant impacts: rail noise, residential displacements (primarily north of the I-238 corridor) , seismic effects (from ground shaking and surface rupture associated with an earthquake), aesthetics (primarily in the Bay Fair and I-238 area) , and construction impacts associated with noise and potential disturbance of hazardous materials sources. The following cumulative significant impacts would also occur: increased traffic at key intersections near proposed stations, local carbon monoxide emissions near station areas, and increased flooding potential at the Castro Valley station. The proposed project would also result in a significant beneficial impact by eliminating 2,200 peak hour/peak direction auto trips on I-580. _ Assuming implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the following significant impacts would remain: • Unsatisfactory level of service at the San Ramon/Dublin Boulevard intersection near the West Dublin station. • Visual impacts to homes along Kendall Way from the aerial structure in the I-238 corridor. • A small exceedance (approximately 0.2 part per million) in carbon monoxide emissions near the West Dublin/Pleasanton station. • Temporary construction noise impacts to adjacent properties. These impacts are considered unavoidable because they would remain after recommended mitigation. S.3.2 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION Impacts would be significant with respect to background traffic around proposed station sites, local air quality, and highway noise (similar to the proposed project) because of assumed growth in regional population, traffic and development in the project corridor through the year 2005. In S-12 8810156ASU CON-6 addition, this alternative would be responsible for 2,200 to 2,600 more peak hour/peak direction auto trips on I-580 and would add significantly to regional ground-level ozone due to freeway auto traffic. Residential displacements associated with the proposed project would be avoided, rail noise impacts would not occur, visual impacts would be avoided in the I-238 corridor, and potential seismic impacts to the rail system would not occur. These reductions and/or eliminations of significant impacts are outweighed by the increase in freeway traffic and increases in regional ground-level ozone concentrations that would result from the no action alternative. S.3.3 ALTERNATIVE 2: EAST DUBLIN/PLEASANTON AS THIRD STATION The significant impacts associated with Alternative 2 are similar to those discussed for the proposed project. Additional significant impacts include: • An unsatisfactory level of service at one intersection near the East Dublin/Pleasanton station (Hopyard/Stoneridge) . • Small additions to local carbon monoxide emissions near the East Dublin/Pleasanton station. Significant impacts that would be reduced by this alternative compared to the proposed project include improvements in level of service at three key intersections near the proposed West Dublin/Pleasanton station. Specifically, impacts for the intersection at San Ramon/Dublin Boulevard that could not be mitigated with the proposed project would be reduced to less than significant impacts by Alternative 2. Peak hour/peak direction auto trips would be further reduced (from 2,200 to 2,300) compared to the proposed project. There would be no unavoidable significant impacts with this alternative. S.3.4 ALTERNATIVE 3: EAST DUBLIN/PLEASANTON STATION AS SECOND STATION TERMINUS The significant impacts for Alternative 3 are the same for Alternative 2. However, there would be no significant improvement in level of service at key intersections near the West Dublin/Pleasanton station based on assumptions regarding background growth and redistribution of local traffic. Peak hour/peak direction auto trips on I-580 would be reduced by 2,600. S-13 • 8810156ASU CON-T • S.3.5 DESIGN OPTIONS The impact summary for the design options apply equally to each of the alternatives discussed above. The Bay Fair station tie-in option would not reduce any significant impacts and would add the following significant impacts, all of which could be mitigated. • Visual impacts resulting from elevated aerial structure and storage tracks along Elgin Street. • Loss of 116 parking spaces at the existing Bay Fair station parking area.. • APTA noise criteria would be exceeded for homes on Olive Court, Elgin Street and Wagner Street. The I-238 tie-in option would result in approximately 46 additional residential household displacements. There would be significant visual impacts to residents along Lynn and Kent Court because of an elevated track structure crossing over the existing northbound Fremont line. There would also be significant visual impacts to residents on Bevilacqua Avenue because of the presence of a 30-foot high retaining wall supporting the fill for I-238 westbound lanes. Additional significant visual impacts would occur on the south side of I-238 because of open views of reconstructed I-238 with BART in the median. Mitigation measures including landscaping and terraced retaining wall design would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. This design option would reduce significant rail noise impacts because of the sound barrier wall assumed for the reconstructed I-238. S.3.6 JOINT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES Joint development at the Bay Fair, Castro Valley, and West Dublin/Pleasanton station sites was evaluated based upon conceptual plans and development scenarios summarized in Section S.2.6. The purpose of the analysis was to focus on potentially significant issues such as traffic and socioeconomics/land use to determine feasibility before any specific proposals are developed. Transportation impacts were projected for the year 2005. The results of this analysis were compared to the proposed project and are summarized below: • Bay Fair--Five more intersections would operate at an unsatis- factory level of service compared to the proposed project. • Castro Valley--Three more intersections would operate at an unsatisfactory level of service compared to the proposed project. S-14 8810156ASU CON-8 • West Dublin/Pleasanton--Compared to the proposed project, the level of service would worsen for intersections at Foothill/Dublin Canyon and I-680/Stoneridge. San Ramon/Dublin and Regional/Dublin volume to capacity ratios would increase, and the level of service would remain unsatisfactory compared to the proposed project. As discussed for the proposed project, significant impacts at the San Ramon/Dublin intersection cannot be mitigated. Implementation of joint development at station sites would not cause displacement of homes or businesses. There would be no conflict with local zoning or land use designations. Joint development would return property to the local tax base because a private developer would not be exempt from property taxes as BART would be if the station remained undeveloped. Joint development would also generate lease revenues for BART and encourage patronage. S.4 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED The following issues must be resolved prior to project implementation: • Selection of the preferred alternative. • Selection of mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts for: traffic, relocation, visual resources, rail noise, parking lot flood control , seismic hazards, construction noise, and hazardous materials. • Completion of mitigation reporting or monitoring plan. This reporting program should be designed to ensure the implementation of measures selected by BART to mitigate or avoid significant impacts. S-15